#all she had to do was break from Biden policy

[probablyasocialecologist]

Many of Harris’s mistakes were similar to those Hillary Clinton made in 2016. Like Clinton, Harris cozied up to billionaire donors. Mark Cuban, for instance, said he was delighted that Harris was abandoning Democrats’ commitments to progressive principles and letting the business community propose the policies it wanted. Like Clinton, Harris and Tim Walz made hubristic campaign stops in solidly red states like Texas and Kentucky rather than spending the final days laser-focused on crucial battlegrounds. Like Clinton, Harris emphasized celebrity endorsements while failing to successfully court unions. (Most notably, the Teamsters declined to endorse her after she refused to pledge that she wouldn’t break a national railway strike.) Like Clinton, Harris focused too much on the danger of Donald Trump (which is very real) and not enough on the reasons why she would be good at being president herself. Most importantly, like Clinton, Harris ultimately decided upon a strategy of trying to woo moderate Republican voters away from Trump, reasoning that it didn’t matter if doing so alienated progressive voters and the Democratic base. Chuck Schumer, speaking of Hillary’s 2016 strategy, infamously promised: "For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin." In fact, they just lost the blue-collar Democrats and didn’t pick up the Republicans! In 2024, Harris, too, aggressively touted endorsements from Republicans, promised to put a Republican in her cabinet (she even cited that as the answer to what she would have done differently from Biden!), and went so far as to praise and embrace Dick and Liz Cheney! The strategy was an abject failure. Because she wanted to appease both Republicans and progressive voters, Harris had to further indulge her weakness for speaking in meaningless word salads, since taking stances that were meaningful could have alienated one of these constituencies. Trump, who is canny about portraying himself as more anti-war than Democrats, correctly pointed out that an endorsement from the hawkish Cheneys should be a badge of shame, not honor. (Specifically he said Cheney is “"the King of Endless, Nonsensical Wars, wasting Lives and Trillions of Dollars, just like Comrade Kamala Harris. I am the Peace President, and only I will stop World War III!")

[...]

The lesson to Democratic leaders in 2016 should have been that Bernie Sanders had been right, that the party had betrayed working-class voters and would be doomed if it could not effectively counter Trump’s pseudo-populist appeal with a visionary alternative. (See the excellent analysis in Thomas Frank’s Listen, Liberal.) Unfortunately, the lessons weren’t learned then, and it doesn’t seem like they’re going to be learned now, either! MSNBC anchor Joy Reid is already insisting that Kamala Harris’s campaign was “flawless” (because she got “every prominent celebrity voice”), and pundits like Jill Filipovic are saying things like, “this election was not an indictment of Kamala Harris. It was an indictment of America.” (Good luck ever winning with the slogan “You’re the problem, America!”) USAToday’s Michael Stern says that instead of talking about “where the Harris campaign went wrong” we should talk about “where the American people went wrong.” The Harris campaign itself is blaming unspecified “obstacles that were largely out of our control.” 

6 November 2024

[shellem15]

Kamala harris' campaign alienated half their damn voter base by catering to the mythical "moderate republican" and refusing to give anyone any damn reason to vote FOR her. And now liberals are going to blame Arabs and leftists and anti-genocide protestors instead of the democratic party's complete incompetence for Trump's win. Absolutely ridiculous state of things.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Billboard project

* * * *

One for the history books!

September 12, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

After delivering one of the best debate performances in American political history, Kamala Harris is receiving begrudging and stinting praise from many in the media and commentary class. But 67 million people saw Kamala Harris demonstrate she is made of presidential timber. They witnessed a masterful performance that revealed a penetrating intellect tempered by decency and humanity. On the substance and execution, she should have earned the support of all voters and unqualified praise from the media and political commentators.

Trump's performance was vile and disqualifying. It was worse than Joe Biden’s widely panned debate by far. While Joe Biden turned in a horrible debate performance as measured by the artificial rules of made-for-tv spectacles, Donald Trump made dozens of statements that were objectively depraved, racist, antidemocratic, delusional, and deceitful.

Trump transcended the debate format and devolved into fascist demagoguery that should have resulted in universal condemnation by all voters, the media, and political commentators. If Joe Biden was driven from the presidential race because of his poor debate performance, Trump should be banished from politics, expelled from his party, and relegated to a place of dishonor in the annals of American history.

Talking about the debate is difficult because of the urge to focus on Kamala Harris’s brilliantly executed strategy of baiting Trump into ranting about his insecurities and the horror of Trump's worst-in-the-history-of-the-nation performance on substance.

I get it. Harris’s ninja debating moves and Trump's racist deer-in-the-headlights stare made for riveting television. But we focus on those aspects of the debate to the detriment of the substance of Kamala Harris’s message. She spent a substantial portion of the debate discussing her policies and her plan to help heal the divisions that beset America.

It is disappointing to see so many stories and commentators describe the debate as “fierce” or “contentious.” I heard one commentator on MSNBC bemoan the fact that neither candidate seemed interested in bridging the divide in America. That is false. Kamala Harris promised to be a president for all Americans and to focus on the needs of the people, not the needs and wants of the president. She said, in part,

And I think the American people want better than that. Want better than this. Want someone who understands as I do, I travel our country, we see in each other a friend. We see in each other a neighbor. We don't want a leader who is constantly trying to have Americans point their fingers at each other. I meet with people all the time who tell me "Can we please just have discourse about how we're going to invest in the aspirations and the ambitions and the dreams of the American people?" [¶¶] I've only had one client. The people. And I'll tell you, as a prosecutor I never asked a victim or a witness are you a Republican or a Democrat. The only thing I ever asked them, are you okay? And that's the kind of president we need right now. Someone who cares about you and is not putting themselves first. I intend to be a president for all Americans and focus on what we can do over the next 10 and 20 years to build back up our country by investing right now in you the American people.

Kamala Harris repeatedly offered her policy vision for America, including tax breaks for business startups; subsidizing downpayments for first-time home purchases; incentivizing the construction of starter homes; granting tax credits for families with newborns; investing in American chip technology, quantum computing, and AI; supporting worker’s rights; reducing reliance on fossil fuels; granting tax cuts for the middle class; requiring the ultra-wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes; and protecting the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and Medicaid. She also promised to protect reproductive liberty, LGBTQ equality, and voting rights of all Americans.

The media has hounded Kamala Harris for weeks about the alleged absence of policies in her campaign. On Tuesday, she talked about dozens of specific policies—and the media is not saying a word about those policies after the debate.

Not. A. Word.

It’s almost as if the media didn’t really care about Kamala Harris’s policies but were only interested in a talking point they could use to criticize her. Hypocrites!

So, before talking about how well Kamala Harris executed her strategy of baiting Trump and how abhorrent Trump's performance and positions were, let’s give Kamala Harris her due on the substance: She gave a presidential-level discourse on policies that will affect the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. The fact that Trump and the moderators ignored those policies does not diminish the respect she showed for the American people by clearly setting forth her policies if elected as president.

Among the many insipid criticisms of Kamala Harris was that she used facial expressions to convey her disapproval, amusement, and disbelief over Trump's utterances. This was an effective use of her non-speaking time and allowed her to diminish Trump without saying a word.

Dahlia Lithwick demolishes the critics who faulted Kamala’s facial expressions—a criticism that would only be leveled against a woman. See Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, Harris–Trump debate: Kamala Harris’ face on Tuesday was the stuff of legend. (slate.com). Lithwick writes,

It must be beyond maddening for a political actor to be summoned into a “debate” that is not really a debate, pitted against some frothing amalgam of WWE reenactor and Tasmanian devil, warned that your microphone will be muted while he is speaking, cautioned that he will be allowed to talk over you and the moderators, then be criticized for … blinking? [¶¶] Harris’ face roamed free and far on Tuesday, and it was thoroughly warranted and frequently enjoyable. I think of her mobile, legible face as a satisfying call-and-response to Trump’s lifelong preference for female adulation and Botox. Women have faces. Their faces have expressions. If that was upsetting to you during Tuesday’s debate, you might be dismayed to learn that deep beneath our expressive faces lie thoughts, dreams, frustrations, and other markers of human agency. If a woman smiling freaks you out, imagine what happens when a woman votes.

While talking about Kamala Harris’s facial expressions may seem superficial, it is not. One of Harris’s most significant accomplishments was her ability to show herself to be a likable, relatable human being. She did so by using the medium of television to her advantage. Were the expressive facial reactions real or practiced? It doesn’t matter; they were successful. People liked Kamala Harris. For a candidate who has been on the national scene since 2018, the percentage of voters who still say they don’t “know” her is shocking. But she went some distance in the debate to introduce herself to those voters in a positive way.

Among Harris’s many pointed and powerful answers on Tuesday, none were better than her response to Trump's gloating over the demise of Roe v. Wade. Harris said,

In over 20 states there are Trump abortion bans which make it criminal for a doctor or nurse to provide health care. In one state it provides prison for life. Trump abortion bans that make no exception even for rape and incest. Which—understand what that means. A survivor of a crime, a violation to their body, does not have the right to make a decision about what happens to their body next. That is immoral. And one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree: The government, and Donald Trump certainly, should not be telling a woman what to do with her body. You want to talk about, this is what people wanted? Pregnant women who want to carry a pregnancy to term, suffering from a miscarriage, being denied care in an emergency room because the health care providers are afraid they might go to jail, and she’s bleeding out in a car in the parking lot? She didn’t want that. Her husband didn’t want that. A 12 or 13-year-old survivor of incest being forced to carry a pregnancy to term? They don’t want that. Understand in his Project 2025, there would be a national abortion—a monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages.

There is more room to praise Kamala Harris’s performance in the debate, but we must turn to Trump's horrific statements during the debate. So, let’s get Trump’s “debate performance” out of the way: It was the worst debate performance (in terms of style) in the history of political debates. See The Guardian, Republicans dismayed by Trump’s ‘bad’ and ‘unprepared’ debate performance. Brit Hume of Fox News said, “Let’s make no mistake. Trump had a bad night. We just heard so many of the old grievances that we all know aren’t winners politically.” Coming from a Fox commentator, that is as bad as it gets for Trump.

There were many disgraceful, disqualifying statements during the debate by Trump: Refusing to say that he hoped Ukraine would defeat the Russian invasion; refusing to acknowledge that he lost in 2020; refusing to express any regret for his actions on January 6; claiming that “every Democrat” wanted to “get rid of” Roe v. Wade.; and repeatedly saying that execution of babies after a full-term delivery was permissible under existing law.

To state the obvious, if Kamala Harris had uttered a single statement that was one-tenth as egregious as any of the above, the major media would be calling for her withdrawal from the race.

But Trump's worst statement was the race-baiting claim that Haitian immigrants are capturing domestic pets in Springfield, Ohio and eating them. That trope was originally directed at immigrants from other countries but has been repurposed by Trump to slander Haitian immigrants who are legally in the US.

The claim is false and started as triple-hearsay thrice-removed:

On Sept. 6, a post surfaced on X that shared what looked like a screengrab of a social media post apparently out of Springfield. The retweeted post talked about the person’s “neighbor’s daughter’s friend” seeing a cat hanging from a tree to be butchered and eaten, claiming without evidence that Haitians lived at the house.

So, a “screenshot” of a retweet (three levels removed from personal knowledge) talked about a “neighbor’s daughter’s friend” (three more levels removed from personal knowledge). In short, the claim is the worst sort of internet rumor—intentionally unverifiable. Repeating such a rumor is beneath a candidate for the presidency.

But the crassness of repeating the rumor is the least of the offense. Trump did not repeat a rumor—he asserted the rumor as “fact” for the purpose of stirring racial hatred against Haitian immigrants. The false rumor has been circulating for weeks among right-wing websites that attack Haitian immigrants as the cause of an increase in crime in Springfield. See WaPo, Anatomy of a racist smear: How false claims of pet-eating immigrants caught on.

Trump then leveraged the cat-eating Haitian claim to smear all immigrants as law-breaking, violent, less-than-human invaders whom he would deport en masse from the US. The entire episode was an appeal to the most racist, xenophobic backwaters of American society. It was shameful and divisive. It may lead to violence against immigrants—just as past statements by Trump have led to violence against immigrants in Texas. See NBC (8/5/2019), Trump's anti-immigrant 'invasion' rhetoric was echoed by the El Paso shooter for a reason.

No modern presidential candidate has appealed to racial animus during a presidential debate. Trump's attack on the Haitian community should have been the end of his candidacy. As should his statements about Ukraine, the 2020 election, January 6, and abortion—and that list excludes his dozens of other falsehoods.

In short, the debate should move the needle in favor of Kamala Harris. Whether it will do so is a different question—one that will be determined, in part, by whether the media maintains the same intense focus on Trump's  debate performance that it maintained on Biden’s debate performance in July. On the substance, Trump's debate performance was objectively worse, by far. Let’s hope the media doesn’t get distracted by the less consequential matters.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[lizbethborden]

I think the point these people make is that thinking that Harris is better than Trump is an illusion. They're two sides of the same coin, funding cop cities, funding racist anti immigration programs, funding Israel's genocide in Gaza, spreading dangerous islamophobic antisemitic misogynistic etc rhetoric. Trump is just doing it in a vulgar style. Harris has been vice president for a while now and her administration has not undone much of the work of Trump, when it hasnt prolonged or amplified it. So I think lots of people are feeling defeated, disillusioned, and like they are being manipulated when the 'at least she's not Trump' argument is brought forth. If she's not Trump, but signs off on the same policies and budgets, and represses protests the same way, there is no difference on the ground. Also I think more people are becoming radicalized and hope for a global change - third party candidates, the people's revolution, whatever. It's a rejection of the establishment altogether rather than rejecting just one - I understand the frustration but I can't fault people who refuse to participate in a system that they feel is working against them regardless of the outcome.

I take issue with a lot of the framing of this response.

First of all, it's not Harris' administration; it's Biden's. I'm not going to argue she has no agency as a political actor, but the way the system works is that he is the central driver of action and policy. Arguing that she, personally, should have accomplished more is frankly silly, both when 1) they HAVE accomplished quite a lot and 2) where they have struggled to accomplish goals, it is often because of deadlocks in the legislative branch, where Republicans hold a majority in the House and Democrats only the slightest majority in the Senate (and considering one of their number is Joe Manchin, it kind of doesn't count).

To the point that they HAVE accomplished a lot:

Established the Office for Gun Violence Prevention and signed anti-gun violence legislation into law

Passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which has significant climate change and drug price provisions

Approved literal billions in debt relief for people with student debt, with still more to come

Signed an executive order to regulate AI usage and to scrutinize use of AI for potential discriminatory effects

Passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, allocating over $400 billion for infrastructure works

Pushed protections for consumers re: airline travel and its exorbitant fees and delays, via DoT and Pete Buttigieg

Achieved a 3.5% unemployment rate, which is the lowest in 50 years

Harris also has, explicitly, called for a ceasefire in Gaza and in fact had her intended statements about the humanitarian crisis there "watered down" by officials, ostensibly so that she didn't seem to be breaking away from Biden's approach to Israel and the genocide. I am not going to argue that the Biden-Harris administration is perfect, does no wrong, or does not have significant responsibility for dangerous, violent policies and political actions. That's the nature of Western government and it would be deeply offensive to suggest otherwise. But to suggest that they're just Trump but more polite is inaccurate and honestly shows a significant degree of political ignorance. Also very odd to suggest that a Black woman is like, equally as racist as Trump?

Moreover, the head-in-the-sand, I-would-prefer-not-to, "the revolution will come soon so no worries :D" approach is simply not helpful in the day-to-day. So, I, for one, absolutely can fault people who choose not to participate in the actions that will have significant effects on the day-to-day governance of the country in which they live. If the idea is to sit around and complain until all the oligarchs get beheaded, nothing will get done. This is the exact attitude taken during the 2016 election, which actually got Trump elected and resulted in the policies that killed large numbers of people during COVID, exacerbated racist and islamophobic violence, and nearly led to a white supremacist Christian nationalist coup that overthrew the government. If you're fine with that, good for you. I, personally, am not.

[countessravengrey]

“I disagree with Kamala’s position on the war in Gaza..."

Bernie Sanders sets the record straight on Palestine and the election:

"| understand that there are millions of Americans who disagree with President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on the terrible war in Gaza.

I am one of them.

While Israel had a right to defend itself against the horrific Hamas terrorist attack of October 7th, which killed 1,200 innocent people and took 250 hostages, it did not have a right to wage an all-out war against the entire Palestinian people.

It did not have the right to kill 42,000 Palestinians, two-thirds of whom were children, women, and the elderly, or injure over 100,000 people in Gaza.

It did not have the right to destroy Gaza's infrastructure, housing, and healthcare system. It did not have the right to bomb every one of Gaza's 12 universities.

It did not have the right to block humanitarian aid, causing massive malnutrition in children and, in fact, starvation.

And that is why I am doing everything I can to block U.S. military aid and offensive weapon sales to the right-wing extremist Netanyahu government in Israel. And I know that many of you share those feelings, and some of you are saying:

"How can I vote for Kamala Harris if she is supporting this terrible war?"

And that is a very fair question. And let me give you my best answer. And that is that even on this issue, Donald Trump and his right-wing friends are worse. In the Senate, in Congress, the Republicans have worked overtime to block humanitarian aid to the starving children in Gaza. The President and Vice President both support getting as much humanitarian aid into Gaza as soon as possible.

Trump has said Netanyahu is "doing a good job" and has said Biden is "holding him back." He has suggested the Gaza strip would make excellent beachfront property for development. And it is no wonder Netanyahu prefers to have Donald Trump in office.

But even more importantly - and this I promise you - after Kamala wins, we will together do everything that we can to change U.S. policy toward Netanyahu. An immediate ceasefire, the return of all hostages, a surge of massive humanitarian aid, the stopping of settler attacks on the West Bank, and the rebuilding of Gaza for the Palestinian people.

And let me be clear. We will have, in my view, a much better chance of changing U.S. policy with Kamala than with Trump, who is extremely close to Netanyahu and sees him as a like-minded right-wing extremist ally.

But let me also say this - and I deal with this every single day as a U.S. Senator - as important as Gaza is, and as strongly as many of us feel about this issue, it is not the only issue at stake in this election.

If Trump wins. women in this country will suffer an enormous setback and lose the ability to control their own bodies. That is not acceptable.

If Trump wins, to be honest with you, the struggle against climate change is over. While virtually every scientist who has studied the issue understands that climate change is real and an existential threat to our country and the world, Trump believes it is a "hoax." And if the United States, the largest economy in the world, stops transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, every other country - China, Europe, all over the world - they will do exactly the same thing. And God only knows the kind of planet we will leave to our kids and future generations.

If Trump wins, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, he will demand even more tax breaks for the very richest people in our country while cutting back on programs that working families desperately need. The rich will only get richer while the minimum wage will remain at $7.25 an hour and millions of our fellow workers will continue to earn starvation wages.

Did you all see the recent Trump rally at Madison Square Gardens? Well, I did. And what I can tell you is that, as a nation, as all of you know, we have struggled for years, against impossible odds, to overcome all forms of bigotry - whether it's racism, whether it's sexism, whether it's homophobia, whether it's xenophobia, you name it. We have tried to fight against bigotry. But that is exactly what we saw on display at that unbelievable Trump rally. It was not a question of speakers getting up there, disagreeing with Kamala Harris on the issue. That wasn't the issue at all. They were attacking her simply because she was a woman, and a woman of color. Extreme, vulgar sexism and racism.

Is that really the kind of America that we can allow?

So let me conclude by saying this: this is the most consequential election in our lifetimes. Many of you have differences of opinion with Kamala Harris on Gaza. So do I.

But we cannot sit this election out. Trump has got to be defeated. Let's do everything we can in the next week to make sure that Kamala Harris is our next president.

Thank you very much."

[messed-up-stargazer]

Political Rant Incoming

I’m not usually one to talk about my own personal politics but after today. I cant keep this inside. If you’re looking for something positive, resources to help people, this is not the place. I am angry, I’m feeling hopeless,and I need to let it out in order to be strong again.

If you are not President Biden, then you can skip this if you need to. Or stay, I don’t really care. We need to take care of our mental health to prepare, so make the right choice for yourself.

Note: nothing in this letter is threatening, secret service. Not only am I against violence in itself, but I wouldn’t be stupid enough to post my threats to the actual president on a fucking tumblr post. I’m not like the fucking rioters who posted all about them invading the capital like the fucking traitors they are. They can protest that name, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Dear President Biden:

You’ve damned us. You’ve damned this country. You made a promise to this country and you betrayed us. Your ego was more important than every single person in this country, every man, woman, genderqueer person, every single one of us. You promised us you would be a one term president. You promised us. We didn’t want you, but we sucked it up for the country because you won the primary for reasons I don’t even know at this point. you appealed to old people, and they’re the most consistent voting block, because they’ve got nothing else to fucking do. So we voted you in in order to save our country. And look what you’ve done to us.

Every trans person’s death that comes from his presidency is on your soul. Every family that dies from poverty, every woman who loses everything or even dies from the lack of abortion services, every Palestinian’s death, they’re going to stain your soul and send you down to Hell, Mr. President. You have damned this country, you have damned the world, and while I don’t believe in Hell, you fucking do and you’re fucking going there. You failed the world, Mr. President. Not just Americans, but the world. The world was watching as we just did the stupidest thing in our country’s history, and it’s all because of you.

You may be saying Star, I wasn’t even the nominee. How could I be responsible for so many deaths that he is going to cause with his disastrous policies? Let me tell you. You didn’t give the country a chance. While I liked Kamala Harris’s policies, you forced her onto the country. She needed to run her own race. It is entirely, 100% your fault that we didn’t have an actual primary because you decided to break your promise. We could’ve chosen someone who had a much better shot at winning than the Black, Indian woman. I wanted so badly for her to win, it’s about fucking time that a woman be elected president, but she was never going to convince the moderate republicans just because she’s all three of those things. They do not think women can run the country, and as much as they’re wrong, we needed them to sit out or vote for us. And you didn’t give anyone else the chance to be a better candidate for them. Because as much as we hate it, because of the goddamn electoral college, we need to get the moderates on our side, because the moderates decide elections. The people who don’t pay attention to politics, the people who don’t remember what the last administration was like, they decided the election. And you didn’t give us a chance to win those people older.

You never should’ve ran for a second term. It was your ego, your desire for power that had you thinking you could run again, after you promised you wouldn’t! You’re already the oldest president we’ve ever had, we can see you declining, we could see it for years, and you still fucking ran again! It was your choice and your choice alone. Every harm that is felt during the next administration is going to be entirely on you. I hope you feel every death, every sob of the people who are forced to become homeless, every scream as a child has to carry her rapists baby to term, every soul as despair sets in when they realize they don’t have enough money to live because of the inevitable recession he’s going to cause. Because you are the reason it will happen. There is no one else to blame but you. You stayed far too long in the race, and then to add insult to injury, right at the end, you pulled a fucking “basket of deplorables”. You tripped the country at the finish line, and every hurt that comes from the injuries that our country, that our world endures is on you. You made choice after choice, and you’ve damned us!

I won’t say I hated the Biden administration. Some of what you did was great, some of what you did was really progressive. And it’s all ruined now because he’s going to undo every single thing, just like he did with Obama. Every good thing you did for the country will now be erased and you will have no lasting positive legacy on this country. Your legacy will forever be “he gave us a second trump term.” When history books write about you, they will treat you like Neville Chamberlain. As a failure. As a weakling. Except you’ll also be labeled egoistic and maybe even narcissistic because you refused to put your ego aside and let the democratic voters choose a candidate we wanted.

Since I know you’re Catholic, when you die (which I hope isn’t soon, I could never wish death on anyone truly) you believe you’ll meet God. When he shows you your lasting legacy of pain and devastation and he asks you, “why didn’t you keep your promise to the people of America and step down gracefully? Why did you run again and not give the American people a chance? You knew how dangerous he was, how dangerous his policies would be.” I doubt your answer of “I still wanted to be president.” Will be good enough for him!

Signed,

A lesbian who is absolutely terrified of what’s going to happen to her and her country

PS- And to those of you who voted for Russian plant Jill Stein (seen with fucking Putin, no regular American citizen is ever seen with him!) you did exactly as Russia wanted you to. You did exactly what we said you would. We told you if you voted for Jill Stein, the votes would go to trump, and we were right. Especially those of you who live in swing states. For all of you single issue voters who claimed that you couldn’t vote for Kamala because of Palestine, I hope you can live with what you’ve done because he’s said he wants to wipe Palestine off the map. He wants to put his hotels and golf courses on Palestinian land, and when he starts selling weapons to Israel again, as he said he would!, they’re going to give him the opportunity to do just that. And their blood will be on your hands too. I hope that moral superiority feels good now. I hope you fucking choke on it.

[ingek73]

How can I vote for Kamala Harris if she supports Israel’s war? Here is my answer

Bernie Sanders

Trump says Netanyahu is doing a good job and Biden is holding him back. Even on this issue, Trump is worse

Wed 30 Oct 2024 15.30 GMT

I understand that there are millions of Americans who disagree with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on the terrible war in Gaza. I am one of them.

While Israel had a right to defend itself against the horrific Hamas terrorist attack of 7 October 2023, which killed 1,200 innocent people and took 250 hostages, it did not have the right to wage an all-out war against the entire Palestinian people.

It did not have the right to kill 42,000 Palestinians, two-thirds of whom were children, women and the elderly, or injure over 100,000 people in Gaza. It did not have the right to destroy Gaza’s infrastructure and housing and healthcare systems. It did not have the right to bomb every one of Gaza’s 12 universities. It did not have the right to block humanitarian aid, causing massive malnutrition in children and, in fact, starvation.

And that is why I am doing everything I can to block US military aid and offensive weapons sales to the rightwing extremist Netanyahu government in Israel. And I know that many of you share those feelings. And some of you are saying, “How can I vote for Kamala Harris if she is supporting this terrible war?” And that is a very fair question.

And let me give you my best answer. And that is that even on this issue, Donald Trump and his rightwing friends are worse. In the Senate and in Congress Republicans have worked overtime to block humanitarian aid to the starving children in Gaza. The president and vice-president both support getting as much humanitarian aid into Gaza as soon as possible.

Trump has said that Netanyahu is doing a good job and that Biden is holding him back. He has suggested that the Gaza Strip would make excellent beachfront property for development. It is no wonder Netanyahu prefers to have Donald Trump in office.

We cannot sit this election out. Trump has to be defeated

But even more importantly, and this I promise you, after Harris wins we will, together, do everything we can to change US policy toward Netanyahu – including an immediate ceasefire, the return of all hostages, a surge of massive humanitarian aid, the stopping of settler attacks on the West Bank, and the rebuilding of Gaza for the Palestinian people.

And let me be clear. We will have, in my view, a much better chance of changing US policy with Harris than with Trump, who is extremely close to Netanyahu and sees him as a like-minded, rightwing extremist ally.

But let me also say this, and I deal with this every single day as a US senator. As important as Gaza is, and as strongly as many of us feel about this issue, it is not the only issue at stake in this election.

If Trump wins, women in this country will suffer an enormous setback and lose the ability to control their own bodies. That is not acceptable.

If Trump wins, to be honest with you, the struggle against the climate crisis is over. While virtually every scientist who has studied the issue understands that the climate crisis is real and an existential threat to our country and the world, Trump believes it is a “hoax”. And if the United States, the largest economy in the world, stops transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, every other country – China, Europe, all over the world, they will do exactly the same thing. And God only knows the kind of planet we will leave to our kids and future generations.

If Trump wins, at a time of enormous income and wealth inequality, he will demand even more tax breaks for the very richest people in our country, while cutting back on programs that working families desperately need. The rich will only get richer, while the minimum wage will remain at $7.25 an hour, and millions of our fellow workers will continue to earn starvation wages.

Did you all see the recent Trump rally at Madison Square Garden? Well, I did, and what I can tell you is that as a nation, as all of you know, we have struggled for years against impossible odds to try to overcome all forms of bigotry – whether it is racism, whether it’s sexism, whether it’s homophobia, whether it’s xenophobia, you name it.

We have tried to fight against bigotry, but that is exactly what we saw on display at that unbelievable Trump rally. It was not a question of speakers getting up there and disagreeing with Kamala Harris on the issues. That wasn’t the issue at all. They were attacking her simply because she was a woman and a woman of color. Extreme vulgar sexism and racism. Is that really the kind of America that we can allow?

So let me conclude by saying this. This is the most consequential election in our lifetimes. Many of you have differences of opinion with Harris on Gaza. So do I. But we cannot sit this election out. Trump has to be defeated. Let’s do everything we can in the next week to make sure that Kamala Harris is our next president.

Bernie Sanders is a US senator, and chair of the health education labor and pensions committee. He represents the state of Vermont, and is the longest-serving independent in the history of Congress

[jangillman]

Posted by Wisconsin Right Now on FB...

I'm not sure who is going to win this, but I’d rather be #Trump right now than #HarrisWalz because he’s peaking at the right time, and the issues people rank highest (economy, border) favor him. He’s surging and it feels like she’s cratering.

But the Democrats have made so many mistakes this election season. James Carville can rant and rave all he wants, but that’s just a fact. The key mistakes include:

-Not reaching out to #Elon Musk, and instead unfairly villainizing a guy with $240B and making it clear that this election will be existential for him personally;

-Charging Trump criminally with a series of novel legal theories that pushed the envelope of the law. If you’re going to go after the king, you better not miss or he gets stronger and, in this case, they turned him into a martyr and the well-worn Hollywood archetype of the underdog fighting the system and elites. People don’t like it when people don’t play fair and criminally charging your political opponent over 94 (or whatever) half-baked accusations (at best) was not playing fair;

-Not admitting Biden’s severe cognitive issues earlier so there could be a competitive primary on the Democratic side rather than foisting an untested and clearly unserious VP on voters. They would have been better off choosing a nominee who could run against the Biden-Harris administration’s worst policies and promise a new course (probably a governor). Harris has had the unenviably impossible task of promising a new future when she’s part of the current administration. Minimally when the Hur report came out, they should have bailed on Biden. She can’t plausibly separate herself from Biden enough no matter how hard she tries.

-Choosing Walz as VP because Josh Shapiro wasn’t acceptable to the pro Gaza wing.

-Not ensuring Trump had adequate and effective secret service protection. The near misses of the 2 assassins (especially the first one) turned him into the aforementioned archetype all the more. And it was just wrong.

-Not reaching out to black and Hispanic male voters until the last minute, at which point it seems pandering and desperate. Having no plan to reach out to men, period, until the last minute and instead emphasizing the gender gap (ie turning Kamala into Hillary 2.0, pantsuit and all, talking about “reimagining masculinity,” the girls’ sports issue etc);

-Not giving even the slightest nod to parental rights. They’re underestimating the power of that issue.

-Not reaching out to RFK Jr and bringing him back into the fold (all they had to do was care about children’s health) and instead trying to destroy him through undemocratic lawfare and insults;

-Putting Harris on the media circuit after the debate. She’s clearly not up to it. As pathetic as it is, they would have been better off keeping her in bubble wrap.

All that being said, it’s amazing they’re still in it. And really the biggest challenge for them - all of the above aside - is the core fact that people believe they were better off four years ago. That’s “event memory” so to speak. No matter what you tell people in ads about their own lives, they know what they pay for groceries.

I miss anything? #trump #breaking #ElectionDay #Wisconsin

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Max Eden

Published: Apr 26, 2024

The Biden administration’s new Title IX rules mean that all American public schools must operate on the fundamental falsehood of gender ideology.

Earlier this month, the U.K.’s National Health Service released the Cass Review, a report that urged Great Britain to pump the breaks on the experimental, sterilizing treatments marketed as “gender affirming care.” By contrast, earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Education issued its new Title IX regulations, which require public schools to facilitate a school-to-sterilization pipeline.

According to the Biden administration, Title IX of the Civil Rights Act now requires schools to treat students who suffer, or claim to suffer, from gender dysphoria as though they were the opposite sex. As the Cass Review argues, this is essentially a medical intervention. If you require teachers and students to treat a girl who thinks she is a boy as though she were a boy, you increase the likelihood that she will persist in that belief. The longer she does, the more likely she is to seek sterilizing hormone treatments and mutilating surgical interventions.

This is what Moms for Liberty called “grooming” back in 2021. At the time, the media compared this reaction with QAnon accusations of elite pedophile rings. But parental-rights activists pointed out that the description fit the stated position of major educational organizations. The National Education Association, for example, had passed a resolution declaring that teachers could influence children’s gender identity and ought to have total legal freedom to do so. And the organization behind the CDC-endorsed National Sex Education Standards is named SEICUS: Sex Ed for Social Change. If influencing children’s gender and sexuality to advance a social agenda isn’t grooming, what is it? Last weekend, Bill Maher offered liberals another term for this practice: entrapment.

Whether you call it entrapment or grooming, the Biden administration is now requiring all American public schools to affirm that children can be born in the wrong body. How exactly will that work?

For starters: a boy who says he’s a girl must be granted access to the girls’ bathroom or locker room. Because the Biden administration requires no documentation to affirm gender identity, and indeed because it refused to define gender identity at all, a boy could identify as a girl “fluidly.” The federal government protects his right to be a girl only when he enters a girls’ bathroom.

In addition, teachers and students must refer to a gender dysphoric child by her preferred pronouns and alternative name. The Biden regulation magnanimously allows that a “stray” “misgendering” doesn’t automatically violate Title IX. But by logic—and by the administration’s own past enforcement practice—if several people “misgender” a student, or if someone “misgenders” a student several times, then the school risks losing all federal funding if it doesn’t remedy the situation.

The policy of secretly socially transitioning students will spread even further. Currently, more than 10 million students attend schools that will socially transition them without their parents’ knowledge or consent. The regulation says that Title IX doesn’t strictly require that transitioning be concealed from parents. But it does say that in the event of a conflict between Title IX and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, Title IX overrides. If a child says she doesn’t want her parents to know, the Biden administration insists that the school will be totally compliant with federal law by keeping it secret.

This regulation will essentially help facilitate the sterilization of gay and autistic children in blue states on a scale that nineteenth-century eugenicists could only have imagined. Parents in red states that have outlawed these experimental medical interventions can’t necessarily rest easily, however. California has passed a law that would effectively strip parents of their custodial rights if their child travels there to access puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. And any parent who enrolls a child in a U.S. public school is now sending them to an institution required to operate on the premise of a fundamental falsehood.

Republican politicians have been conspicuously quiet about the new Title IX regulation. Perhaps because they’re uncomfortable stating flatly that gender ideology is false, congressional Republicans are not actively fighting the new Title IX mandate on gender-affirming schooling. They would prefer to battle the Biden administration on its plan to use Title IX to mandate that men can participate in women’s sports, but the administration has denied them that debate until after the election, relegating the sports issue to a separate regulation that it waited nine additional months to propose. 

The fight over the new gender standards for schools will instead play out in the courts. In the weeks to come, state attorneys general will file suit. The regulation will almost certainly be enjoined, and then eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. But not before transitioning the default social setting of American public schools to embrace gender ideology.

In the interim, parents should ask school board members whether they plan to comply with Biden’s Title IX regulation. If the answer is yes, then traditionalist parents should look into transitioning their children—to private schools. Parents should also ask Republican state lawmakers if they support universal school choice. If the answer is no, then parents will know that these lawmakers essentially endorse teaching students that gender ideology is true.

[honeyandpumpkins]

I'm sorry it's unhinged to think that any of the Dems unspecified "PROBLEMS" you and your celebrity crush found pale in comparison to my place or work in Springfield getting constant bomb threats since trump and Vance incited bomb threats here. Sorry I'm scared because people at night at breaking into my car and leaving fake bombs at my door. So sorry to upset you and Ms. Amstutz of Missouri. I'm clearly some sort of ghoul because my experiences with republicans are directly violent and my experiences with Dems are not violent at all. Again, sorry.

i think you're really underestimating the amount of nuance that someone can have when approaching politics. i'm not sure why you think i would take issue with you being scared of republican policies and actions, I'm right there with you. you're experiences are absolutely unacceptable, and republicans should be shamed out of holding any power in the US. i have long believed that republicans are an extremist party that must be defeated by any means necessary.

all i'm saying is that chappell was not equating republicans and democrats in her statement. she said that she will vote for democrats, but she does have issues with them. that is a position that i and many other progressives hold, and is basically uncontroversial in progressive spaces. you say that democrats' problems are unspecified, but in her statement chappell specifically cited policies around transgender issues and palestine as some of her concerns. democrats have been recently critiqued for being mostly silent on transgender issues during this campaign, and of course there has been mountains of critiques from the left on the biden administration's support for israel while its assault on gaza has resulted in thousands of deaths, including children and babies. i share her concerns on both of these issues. i'm glad for you that you have always felt safe with democrats, but i would hope you could extend empathy for others who have not always felt safe.

of course, there is nuance to be had here. democrats policies on transgender issues are still some of the most progressive in the world, and they would face significant political backlash from moderates if they were to oppose israeli's treatment of palestinians. but just as it would be ridiculous to say that republicans and democrats are the same, it's equally ridiculous to suggest that the left should NEVER critique them, or that they simply can't do any better. critique is how we make the party better.

[head-post]

Harris ahead of Trump in fierce debate

Democratic candidate Kamala Harris forced her Republican rival Donald Trump to get defensive in a combative presidential debate, according to Reuters. (Updated 11 September at 11:20 a.m.)

A former prosecutor, Harris, 59, repeatedly prompted Trump, 78, to deliver a series of responses about his suitability for office, support for abortion restrictions, and legal challenges.

Eight weeks before the election and days before early voting begins in some states, the debate offered both candidates a rare opportunity to make their case to a television audience of tens of millions of voters. The candidates clashed on immigration, foreign policy, and health care, but the debate contained few specifics.

Instead, Harris managed to focus on Trump, leading her allies to cheer and some Republicans to acknowledge Trump’s challenges. He repeated his claim that his defeat in the 2020 election was due to fraud, called Harris a “Marxist” and argued that migrants have caused a surge in violent crime.

The candidates also traded accusations about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, though neither gave specifics on how they would seek to end each conflict.

How it proceeded

The debate, hosted by ABC in Philadelphia, began at 01:00 GMT on Wednesday with a surprise handshake between the two opponents, who had never met before. Harris approached Trump at his lectern, introducing herself by name, marking the first handshake at a presidential debate since 2016.

The candidates began the debate by focusing on the economy, an issue that opinion polls showed favoured Trump. Harris criticised Trump’s intention to impose high duties on foreign goods, while praising her plan to give tax breaks to families and small businesses.

Harris lambasted Trump over his criminal conviction for hiding secret cash payments to a porn star, as well as other charges and a civil judgement finding him guilty of sexual assault. Trump denied guilt and again accused Harris and Democrats of orchestrating all of the cases without evidence.

The vice president delivered a lengthy criticism of abortion restrictions, speaking passionately about women who did not receive emergency care and incest victims who could not terminate their pregnancies because of state-level bans. She also stated that Trump would support a national ban.

Harris also tried to link Trump to Project 2025, a conservative political plan proposing to expand executive power, repeal environmental regulations, and make it illegal to transport abortion pills across state lines. Trump responded that he had “nothing to do” with Project 2025.

In turn, he criticised Harris for constant inflation during the Biden administration’s term. He said it “has been a disaster for people, for the middle class, for every class.”

Meanwhile, American musician Jonnie King suspected Harris of cheating, accusing her of using an audio earring.

Kamala Harris war wearing Nova H1 Audio earrings tonight whic are wireless earphones during her debate with Donald Trump. This is why she was seen continuously taking notes with her pen during the debate, when it was explicitly agreed upon before that there would be NO notes.

Early outcomes

Pop star Taylor Swift told her 283 million Instagram followers immediately after the debate that she would support Vice President Harris and her running mate Tim Walz in the 5 November election.

Online prediction market PredictIt 2024 showed that the likelihood of Trump winning during the debate dropped to 47% from 52%. Harris’ chances, meanwhile, rose to 55% from 53%. The polls also show that the vast majority of Americans have already made up their minds, leaving a small portion of undecided voters.

In a sign of confidence in the outcome of the debate, Harris’ campaign staff challenged Trump to a runoff in October. Afterwards, Trump took the rare step of going to a nearby “spin room.” He later stated:

This was my best debate. She wants it because she lost. I have to think about it, but if you won the debate, I sort of think maybe I shouldn’t do it. Why should I do another debate?

The meeting was particularly important for Harris, as opinion polls showed that more than a quarter of likely voters felt they did not know enough about her. She entered the race just seven weeks ago after President Joe Biden left office.

Presidential debates do not necessarily change voters’ minds, but they can carry profound implications. Biden’s poor performance against Trump in June forced him to abandon his campaign on 21 July.

Read more HERE

[thessalian]

Thess vs Political Media Spin

Thinking about the French election (CONGRATULATIONS, FRANCE) and realising that it's probably finally time to discuss a thing about the UK elections that nobody in the media wants to talk about. Because they mostly want to talk about Reform's 4.1m votes and 5 Parliament seats. Which is ... okay, not entirely fair, but understandable given that an awful lot of news media is written for "engagement" and is thus generally ragebait. However, there are two things that those of us in the UK really, really need to keep in mind:

We had an atrociously low voter turn-out this year, probably because so many of us were depressed and beaten over how the two main parties are behaving right now.

The Greens came in second for votes in forty constituencies. One of them was mine. (That latter shouldn't surprise me because this whole borough has been a very safe Labour seat for awhile and isn't it funny how this place started leaning towards the Greens when that Tory-with-a-red-tie Starmer was leading the party? Almost as if all those "safe Labour votes" are just very lefty votes looking for a place to break out?)

Now, point 2 couldn't work in the US. You guys have a two-party system, just because of how your voting works. While you guys get Electoral College votes for That One Guy, we get actual seats - actual voices - in the House of Commons. And honestly, Labour would have still had its landslide even without the forty seats the Greens could have won if a few more people had actually come out. But even the Americans can take a message away from this, and the message is: "refusal to vote is very liable to cripple any chance things have of getting better".

For the US - if you don't vote Democrat, and Trump gets in again, he's going to destroy your country. The question becomes who you'd rather have stacking the Supreme Court, and who you'd like to hand the loaded gun that is the current Supreme Court's decision to give Presidents immunity from prosecution in the course of "official acts", particularly when the full and detailed definition of "official acts" has yet to be determined. Do not assume he'll never win - my mother assumed that in 2016, because apparently she has not as yet plumbed the depths of human stupidity the way only those of us whose brains are trash and who live on the internet can. Do not assume that Biden will get enough votes without you protest-voting for a third party. If you want some examples of how that thinking works out, consider Brexit, and how many people who actually voted for it and then said, "Well, I mean, I didn't think we'd actually leave; I just wanted to protest it a little!" immediately afterwards.

For those of us in the UK, though? I know a lot of people didn't come out and vote and I understand why. But look what could have happened if you had. Imagine forty-four seats for the Greens, instead of just four, and those forty-four voices speaking and voting for us in the Commons. Imagine if the Greens had got the kind of votes Reform did. The media could not have ignored that the way they ignore the Greens' four seats.

Media spin basically crushed those of us who want better into not voting at all. I don't know if this country will get better under Labour, but I doubt it, and I mourn the chance we had. I am so thrilled that France has at least shown that left-wing politics aren't entirely dead. I can't save my own country beyond my one vote (the Greens this year, and I'm happy to have contributed to an actual left-wing party getting the second-most votes in my constituency, thanks), but I can give warnings. To the UK ... I know Starmer's a dickweed, but we can get a louder voice in Commons if we don't just give up on the entire electoral process. To the US ... I get that Biden is ... honestly, he is better than Starmer; it's just that "slow and steady wins the race" policies don't make headlines anymore. Just ... do you want God-Emperor Trump? Not voting in the US is how you get God-Emperor Trump.

[abigailspinach]

Miller said she had heard next to nothing about what Biden had done to combat climate change. And what little she had heard hadn’t impressed her.

“He’s been as centrist as he can be on that issue,” said Miller, who thought Biden was more worried about angering red-state voters than passing ambitious climate change legislation. Asked if she knew about any of Biden’s climate priorities, she demurred.

“I’m just not aware of any of it at all,” she said.

Minutes before, while talking to canvassers with the Michigan League of Conservation Voters outside her home, she learned that the solar panels she planned to install at her home later this year would give a big tax break thanks to a federal investment championed by the president. It didn’t do much to sway her opinion.

...

That broad disconnect leads some Democrats, at least privately, to say the problem lies in a deeper problem with communication from the White House and the president himself.

Many progressive voters just struggle to think that the 81-year-old president, whom they perceive as a political moderate, has done as much to combat climate change as he has, these Democrats say.

“It’s because he has been an incredible success as a legislative president, but he has been a tremendous failure as head of state,” said a Democratic official in Michigan who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “Rightly or wrongly, you don’t look at Biden and say, ‘I’m proud he’s my president.’ So, I think there’s an emotional distance from him. And that sort of leads into the hellscape of the both-sides media environment that layers on top of that.”

...

“Millions of Americans have personally felt the impact of the President’s climate policies — through better paying jobs, lower utility bills, and more,” said Seth Schuster, spokesperson for the campaign. “The campaign will spread that message far and wide, and contrast it with Donald Trump’s promises to cut taxes for oil and gas executives at the expense of the middle class.”

Whether that message will resonate is uncertain.

After the Michigan LCV canvassers spoke with Beth Miller and her husband, Jon, about the potential to save money on solar panels thanks to the IRA, she was still uncertain what to make of Biden’s climate agenda. She told NOTUS she was the most liberal person she knew and was so concerned about climate change that she and her husband planned to drive their car less as a carbon offset to an international flight later this year. But Miller, who works at the nearby University of Michigan, said she had heard much more about his attempts to forgive student loans than about his climate achievements.

Miller and her husband said Biden didn’t seem to talk much about what he had done in office, especially compared to his predecessors like Trump or former President Barack Obama.

The canvasser didn’t seem to change her mind much either: Asked to rate Biden’s climate agenda on a scale of 1 to 10, Miller didn’t spend much time debating the question.

She gave him a 5

[reasonsforhope]

Holy shit it's real.

--

From the first linked source:

"The US government aims to restore sweeping regulations for high-speed internet providers such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, reviving “net neutrality�� rules for the broadband industry — and an ongoing debate about the internet’s future.

The proposed rules from the Federal Communications Commission will designate internet service — both the wired kind found in homes and businesses as well as mobile data on cellphones — as “essential telecommunications” akin to traditional telephone services, said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. The rules would ban internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking or slowing down access to websites and online content.

In addition to the prohibitions on blocking and throttling internet traffic, the draft rules also seek to prevent ISPs from selectively speeding up service to favored websites or to those that agree to pay extra fees, Rosenworcel said, a move designed to prevent the emergence of “fast lanes” on the web that could give some websites a paid advantage over others.

With Tuesday’s proposal, the FCC aims to restore Obama-era regulations that the FCC under Republican leadership rolled back during the Trump administration...

The logic behind the rules

Beyond their immediate impact to internet providers, the draft rules directly help US telecom regulators address a range of consumer issues in the longer run by allowing the FCC to bring its most powerful legal tools to bear, Rosenworcel said. Some of the priorities the FCC could address after the implementation of net neutrality rules include spam robotexts, internet outages, digital privacy and high-speed internet access, said Rosenworcel in a speech at the National Press Club Tuesday to announce the proposal.

Rosenworcel said reclassifying internet service providers as essential telecommunications entities — by regulating them under Title II of the FCC’s congressional charter — would provide the FCC with clearer authority to adopt future rules governing everything from public safety to national security.

Rosenworcel argued, “without reclassification, the FCC has limited authority to incorporate updated cybersecurity standards into our network policies.”

She added that traditional telephone companies currently cannot sell customer data, but those restrictions do not apply to ISPs, which are regulated differently. “Does that really make sense? Do we want our broadband providers selling off where we go and what we do online?”

Regulating internet providers using the most powerful tools at the FCC’s disposal would let the agency crack down harder on spam robotexts, Rosenworcel said, as spammers are “constantly evolving their techniques.”

And the proposed rules could promote the Biden administration’s agenda to blanket the country in fast, affordable broadband, she argued, by granting internet providers the rights to put their equipment on telephone poles.

“As a nation we are committed, post-pandemic, to building broadband for all,” she said. “So keep in mind that when you construct these facilities, utility poles are really important.”

Timeline info

The FCC plans to vote Oct. 19 on whether to advance the draft rules by soliciting public feedback on them — a step that would precede the creation of any final rules."

The latest net neutrality rulemaking reflects one of the most visible efforts of Rosenworcel’s chairwomanship — and one of her first undertakings since the US Senate this month [September 2023] confirmed Anna Gomez as the agency’s fifth commissioner, breaking a years-long 2-2 partisan deadlock at the FCC that had prevented hot-button initiatives from moving forward.

The draft rules also show how a continued lack of federal legislation to establish a nationwide net neutrality standard has led to continued flip-flopping rules for ISPs with every change of political administration, along with a patchwork of state laws seeking to fill the gap.

If approved next month, the FCC draft would be opened for public comment until approximately mid-December, followed by an opportunity for public replies lasting into January. A final set of rules could be voted on in the months following.

-via CNN, September 26, 2023

--

Cannot overstate how big this would be. I'll be posting the link when the proposal opens up for public feedback, because we should flood this thing as hard as we can (we've got some giant internet companies to drown out, after all)

source 1

source 2

[thoughtshobbiesdaydreams]

Kamala ran a bad campaign; blame HER

I don't know if trump is gonna win. It doesn't look good, but maybe it's gonna be better as ballots continue to be counted. I hate donald trump. Ever since I learned who he was, I've hated him. He's everything I despise in a human being, he's among the worst human beings in existence; he's evil, selfish, corrupt, arrogant, entitled, immature, racist, bigoted, a rapist, a pedophile, a fascist, a Nazi... in HIS words, he's admitted to all of those things in one place or another. I hate him, he's dangerous, he's unfit, the people who SUPPORT him are unfit... Which is why it was so important that whoever ran against him ran a good campaign. Spoke out in a way to energize people to vote for him or her, spoke out in a way to EARN our votes:

raise minimum wage

vow to go after abuses of power, not after the poor desperately trying to get by

speak out about what "Defund the Police" means, and talk about how you want to fund projects that will help US citizens; talk about how much police leaches tax dollars away from every other service; talk about how dangerous cops are because of how they abuse power, ie qualified immunity (breaking the law due to ignorance, or feigned ignorance) and civil forfeiture (stealing)

speak out against Israel's genocide of Palestinians

just actually show us you care about helping US citizens, not just yourself, that you want to use power to help US citizens, for instance, talk about how you will use your powers to pardon countless people in jail for crimes they obviously didn't commit, or for breaking laws that are unjust

talk about how the Supreme Court is deeply corrupt AND YOU PLAN TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

We all wanted trump to lose, we wanted whoever was trump's opponent to FIGHT to beat him. We gave Kamala the blueprint in how to earn our votes, we BEGGED her to use it. And she didn't. She was lazy, power-hungry, selfish... she wanted power only for herself. She decided she would rather lose than win by promising improvements she had no intention of fighting for. She decided to try to win by trying to steal voters away from trump rather than appealing to the vast majority of the country -

(literally every poll that pits "liberal" policies against "conservative" has liberal policies being overwhelmingly more popular. Kamala decided to back Biden instead; Biden, the "civil trump" who continues to enable Israel's genocide while saying "hey... okay, here's more weapons, but THIS TIME don't murder journalists, children, civilians, THIS TIME don't use human shields, THIS TIME don't use dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners", who continues trump's border policies, who continues to hold up the deeply corrupt Supreme Court as an institute worthy of respect, who tells us that "violence isn't the answer" only when it's peaceful protesters speaking out against genocide, or police violence, or the Supreme Court, but doesn't say a fucking PEEP when the police murder people, or the Supreme Court enacts harmful policies; he, and Kamala, only think it's "violence" when it makes those in power uncomfortable, not when it's harmful and damaging to those not in politics, those who don't have politicians in their pockets.)

then she crowed about how many Republican politicians supported her over trump, pieces of shit like Dick Cheney, as if earning Dick Cheney's vote was something worth celebrating! It's not over yet, maybe there's a path to trump losing, but right now? I'm fucking angry at Kamala for trying to win on vibes, for being lazy and complacent, for not actively trying to win by appealing to the vast majority of Americans, by vowing to be a President for US citizens instead of corporations... but no, she thought continuing to do things as they'd always been done would be enough. And if not... she doesn't fucking care. SHE will be just fine. So I DO NOT want to fucking hear people complaining about how those of us who BEGGED Kamala to adopt popular policies, who BEGGED Kamala to fight for those who need help, who BEGGED Kamala to fight to beat trump, are the problem. We desperately wanted trump to lose, and we were very vocal about how we feared Kamala's approach wouldn't beat him, and we very vocally spoke about how she COULD beat him... she ignored us, and now we're fucking angry. Not happy, not self-satisfied, fucking ANGRY. Because we saw this coming and desperately tried to prevent it. Don't be mad at us for wanting Kamala to win, and being angry at her for ignoring our pleas; it's Kamala's fault. SHE chose not to earn enough votes, SHE decided peeling off a few Republican voters would be enough, SHE decided she didn't need to appeal to the majority of Americans with popular policies. I'm so fucking tired of these "vote Blue no matter who" people for telling us to fuck off while we told her she should try to earn votes, and who are now angry at us because they pretend that we are happy to be proven right. We didn't want her to lose; if we did, then why did we loudly and frequently give her advice about how she could easily earn votes and energize voters? It's not OUR fault that, when we begged her to try to win the election, she ignored us.

Remember how she said she'd put a "Republican" in her cabinet??? Remember how she prioritized having the "Most lethal fighting force in the world"??? Maybe her priorities are absolutely FUCKED and her loss is HER fault???

[ticktockaura]

Trump in Michigan makes play for Arab American and Muslim voters angry over war in Gaza

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday invited several Muslim leaders onstage with him at a campaign rally in Michigan as he courts Arab American and Muslim voters disillusioned or angry over US policy on Israel and Gaza in the critical battleground state.

“They could turn the election one way or the other,” Trump said in the Detroit suburb of Novi, located about a half hour from Dearborn, which last year became the first Arab-majority city in the US.

Trump said in his speech that he had held a meeting earlier in the day with Muslim leaders. He was joined onstage by what his campaign described as “prominent leaders of Michigan’s Muslim community,” including Imam Belal Alzuhairi, who described Trump as the “peace” candidate.

“We, as Muslims, stand with President Trump because he promises peace – he promises peace, not war,” Alzuhairi said. “We are supporting Donald Trump because he promised to end war in the Middle East and Ukraine.”

Trump has criticized Israel’s war in Gaza on public relations grounds, saying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his military need to “get it over with fast.” He has also slammed President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for not adequately supporting Israel, though the current administration – and Harris’ campaign – has largely refused to criticize Israel or consider halting weapons shipments to the country.

“You know, as a developer, it could be the most beautiful place – the weather, the water, the whole thing, the climate,” Trump said. “It could be so beautiful.”

During his first month as president, in 2017, Trump issued an executive order banning entry for 90 days by citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The order indefinitely banned Syrian refugees and blocked all refugees from entering the US for four months. (After a lengthy court battle, the “travel ban” survived in part. Biden revoked the orders in 2021 immediately after being sworn in.)

The Trump campaign and its allies, though, have sought to seize on Arab American and Muslim anger over continued US support for Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and, more recently, Lebanon, by criticizing Harris and Biden from both sides – telling anti-war voters that Trump would secure peace and claiming to pro-Israel voters that the Democrats don’t have their back.

Trump has frequently questioned why Jewish Americans would consider voting for Harris, repeatedly saying that Jewish Democrats “should have their head examined.” At an event in September billed as opposing antisemitism, he even warned that “the Jewish people would have a lot to do” with his potential loss in November.

Harris, who has called for a ceasefire in Gaza and has said she supports a two-state solution in the region, has taken more heat from pro-Palestinian and anti-war activists, who have pleaded with her to break from Biden and say she supports conditioning military aid to Israel.

During a brief meeting three weeks ago in Flint, Michigan, a group of Arab American advocates and leaders pressed Harris “to show distance between how she would govern on this matter with the current administration policies, which we don’t agree with,” as Wa’el Alzayat, the CEO of Muslim American advocacy group Emgage Action, told CNN afterward.

Trump at his rally on Saturday claimed that “Jews, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons, Muslims are joining our cause in larger numbers than ever before and now the most wonderful thing is happening.”

“The Muslim and Arab voters in Michigan and across the country want a stop to the endless wars and a return to peace in the Middle East. That’s all they want,” Trump said.

Trump also, again, used Harris’s recent round of campaigning alongside former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, whose father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, was one of the leading architects of the US invasion of Iraq and the yearslong war that followed. Both Cheneys have endorsed Harris.

Hours later, Harris, while campaigning in Kalamazoo, Michigan, was interrupted early in her speech by a protester, who shouted, “No more Gaza war.”

“On the topic of Gaza, we must end that war. And we must end the war and bring the hostages home,” Harris said, as the audience tried to drown out the demonstrator.