#and honestly if you think hillary would have been worse than trump or that biden has been worse than trump

[navree]

genuinely would love for some of the "both parties are the same" people to name me a single election in the entirety of the twenty first century where the outcome for the country wouldn't have been better if a democrat had won

[triviallytrue]

You referenced Benghazi and Her Emails in your recent Hillaryposts. I don't get where you're coming from. I came away from that era thinking that those were both largely manufactured controversies that persisted through misinformation, like birtherism. The damage came from the sustained media furor and campaign PR failures, not the events themselves, and however bad the real events were, they were business as usual for US politicians.

Prev ask said it's baffling to claim that running your own email server for work stuff is acceptable. Idk. Why? Nobody else is doing that? Does it let you get away with crimes?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's not like I can google Her Emails in 2024 and find my way to a truthful objective analysis.

Where are you at on this? And where do you think the public consensus is?

Fwiw I wasn't talking about Benghazi - I honestly forgot about it entirely, seems disproportionate and mostly manufactured by right wing media.

I was talking about broader US strategy in Libya, which seemed to perfectly thread the needle of knocking out the pillar of stability in the region but not bothering to stick around and clean anything up. She had quite the take on it:

The reason the email server thing is something that would get you fired is that if you work for an organization, that organization wants to be able to have a consistent record of what you've received and written when acting in your capacity as a representative of said organization, doubly so if your work is as critical as US diplomacy and your employer is the US government.

Other people also do this - my vague recollection is that Mike Pence had done the same thing at some point and was getting hammered for hypocrisy - but I have never really found "other people break rules too" to be a very convincing defense.

I think the public negatively polarized on both issues - Trump supporters view it as basically treasonous and Hillary supporters do the whole mocking "but her emails!" thing to minimize it.

Personally I don't have a strong stance on whether it implies corruption or criminality or anything, but as I said in the ask it certainly contributes to my sense that she didn't have much interest in following rules designed for normal people.

In the electoral context of 2016 the whole thing is nonsense of course, Hillary would've been a worse president than Obama or Biden but significantly better than Trump, and the false equivalences that pervaded the coverage of the race were insane. I think more than anything, the shared assumption that she was a shoe-in as soon as the conventions were over by her campaign, the media, and James Comey was what doomed her.

[mariacallous]

I just dont understand it.....the stakes of this election are more stark and clearer than ever, yet i get the same frivolous sleepwalking-off-the-cliff vibe from election twitter as i did back in 2016. Like in 2016 there was no excuse not to vote hillary but at least looking back you could say ok there was a certain naiievete to the emergent left that was exploited by bad actors etc. Then somehow by 2020 i thought the freaking PANDEMIC had shaken enough sense into people to take this stuff seriously and to show a modicum of discipline.....and yet now here we are abt to start the 2024 cycle and these absolute morons are STILL gonna try to cornel west no labels us to a literal shiv roy berlusconi'd fuck pile......like at this point right. At this point we have the laws we have the fallout we have the swastikas everywhere. Like congratulations the thought experiment (where these ppl all clearly think they would have been part of an underground resistance cell during wwii) is here and real and now. And what they're gonna do is..........complain about not getting a bigger check from the government at the end of the month?????????? Call me a liberal like thats worse than being a nazi?????? Im honestly thankful that none of these people will ever have the wherewithall to seriously organize but im feeling that old trump era dread again...srry 2 rant at you but your blog is literally such a fantastic sanity check and makes me feel less alone (im one of your like 3 blue dot anons lol)

There is literally no reason to not vote Democratic, and there's no reason to not have Biden as the nominee. At this point if you argue against either of those things, you are not serious about your politics or about addressing the issues facing this country and the world.

[bringerofworlds]

ok i'm gonna allow myself to make one post about the US elections lol.

so honestly, MOST PEOPLE cannot be blamed for the fact that they boil everything down to "how to vote this election" because realistically 99.9% of the population is only asked what they think about politics every 4 years when most of the important decisions have already been made by other people.

but really, guys, let's think about this for a minute. either trump or biden will win this election, sure, yes, true. You can make the argument that biden is better in small important ways if you want (aside from Gaza he's also disastrous on immigration, policing, climate, and just about everything else important, but we'll just ignore that for the sake of argument). But the reality is neither of these people makes anything any better, and things are already getting worse pretty fast. So you have to ask, what is the process that brought us here, and how do we Get Out of that process? What stops "project 2025" from turning into "project 2029"?

well, here's the thing. a lot of how we got here lands squarely on the democratic party. it doesn't do any good denying that.

and i'm not even talking about how democratic party leadership essentially handpicked trump because they thought he would be a layup opponent for hillary clinton to beat. although that's... you know... relevant.

I'm talking about how amid the 2007-8 financial crash, where a shit-ton of people lost their livelihoods in one fell swoop, their homes and all (I have friends who became homeless in the recession), Obama sweeps to power on a slogan of Hope and Change, and wins a decisive supermajority in Congress. But instead of following through on the populism he built his base on, he bails out the banks, and generally continues defending big business interests against regular peoples'. Campaign promises go unfulfilled; most famously the promise to codify Roe. From here, the position of most working-class people in the US continues on a downward spiral. you know this shitty situation where you can't afford rent, groceries are getting more expensive, your healthcare costs are out of control, and you can barely save any money? yeah.... it didn't precisely start with the '08 recession but that was definitely the point of no return.

This is not to blame specifically Obama. He was pulling from the Democratic Party playbook that existed long before him, and is still the same damn playbook Biden is holding. But the point is this: when you promise people change, and you promise people improvements, and those don't arrive because you never actually planned on following through on it, people start to get pissed. Notably, during Obama's tenure, there were big social movements from people moving in a left direction, realizing if they wanted to get shit done, they'd have to protest and fight for it themselves.

But another impact of these failures is that people become Extremely Fucking Receptive to right wing talking points, because they realize they've been lied to by the politicians in blue. (of course the reds are huge liars too, but it's a lot easier to stomach those lies when you're being told that nothing is your fault and it's the immigrants taking your jobs. you can judge people for believing that if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's happening and has to be dealt with in the real world.)

case in point: in 2020, the rallying cry was, kick trump out of office and then push Biden left. hard to blame people for that given the desperation to get trump out of office, but this was what you heard from every major group demanding better; a big one that comes to mind is the Sunrise Movement, which initially graded Biden a C (iirc) on the climate and then got behind him anyway. Sunrise put up tONS of volunteers in 2020. What did they get for it? Biden has approved more goddamn drilling permits than Trump did. His big climate bill, the IRA, is a fuckin sham. "Push a politician left once you've already elected them and said you'll always vote for them as long as the other person is worse" is uh... not a logical plan.

And so what has happened in the last four years, since we kicked Trump out of office and since Biden's administration has generally had a fucking heinous approach not just for many marginalized people but for working-class people in the US in general, is that the right has gotten more popular. Forces that were soundly defeated through mass struggle during Trump's term, like the Proud Boys, have gotten their oomph back and are expanding their ranks. Anti-feminism is more popular among young boys than ever. People who only voted for Trump in 2016 because they were tired of the status quo and wanted somethign different than a normal shitty politician are now MORE bought into right wing ideas than they were in 2016.

Having a second Biden presidency might stop project 2025. But if you look actually look at how we got here, a second Biden presidency only makes Project 2029 more likely to actually come to pass.

So what do you do?

Well, you can stop voting for people you hate, for starters. I don't actually believe in reforming the democratic party, but you gotta admit it's pretty wild to expect them to ever be different when they can count on your vote no matter what.

What the next four years is like is actually less dependent on who the next President is than you think. Folks might remember that in Trump's first ten days in office, he put forward a slew of insane executive actions that included banning muslims from traveling to the US among other crazy shit. That did not stand – primarily because hundreds of thousands of people went out into the street and protested that shit, and it was so intense that the right-wing billionaires that back Trump actually feared a serious organized rebellion, and that made it impossible for Trump to do what he actually wanted to do. I'm absolutely not arguing that a ton of bad shit didn't happen under Trump – it did, no question. But there's a ton of bad shit happening under Biden too; he's actually built more of the border wall than Trump ever did, and he just made it functionally impossible for anyone who crosses the border without permission to seek asylum. (this is a very very big deal and immigration groups are fuckin pissed about it.) No mass protests here!

If you hate both candidates, you should vote independent. If you like Biden, no one's fuckin stopping you from voting for him, I certainly won't even tho I think you're wrong as hell! But if you hate what Biden has done in Gaza, hate the state of American politics and think you need a party that actually stands for working-class and marginalized people, you should vote for the best independent candidate on your ballot, which will prolly be either Jill Stein or Cornel West. You should do so with the knowledge that neither will win – but it doesn't take a win to fundamentally change American politics.

Let's say one of them gets 15% of the vote. A measly minority. That would still be the highest vote an independent candidate has gotten in the 21st century. Say 20%, and it's the highest in the last century.

a lot of shit will start to change pretty fast. people will start to look to independent politics as an option for the first time. progressive candidates will start to run independent, knowing there's an existing base of people who don't want to be tied to the corporate politics of the democratic party. coalitions will start to emerge of people running on common programs, not just candidates but issue campaigns too. this is the basis from which a real left party, or a labor party, could start to form in the united states. And the truth is can't afford any less – creating a political pole of attraction that actually fights for a living wage, medicare for all, rent control, all that good shit is the only way to win regular working-class people caught up in the right-wing shitstorm away from the Republicans.

this post is already too long and there's too much to say on this topic for one post anyway, but i'll just wrap it up with this.

lots of people are telling you what's at stake in this election. everyone and their mother is telling you what will happen if you don't vote biden.

but consider the stakes of will happen if you don't vote what you actually believe. consider the stakes of everybody who believes in a better world chaining themselves to politicians who believe in using us for their shitty ends. consider what happens four years from now, eight years from now, twelve years from now when the sea level is rising more than fuckin ever, and we haven't built a party WE can use as a weapon against the billionaires.

what then?

[phoenixwrites]

So what do you think people who find Biden's handling of the situation in Gaza should do? Because if everyone should vote for him no matter what then what incentive does he have to change course? Should people stop protesting as well because it's hurting Biden's chances against Trump? I'm serious here, what do you think people should do other than just suck it up and let a genocide happen? Because you have to know that isn't going to be acceptable. I respect you a lot so please answer this honestly, for the people for whom doing nothing isn't an option, which for the sake of humanity I hope is most people, what should they do if anything that might hurt Biden's chances against Trump is off the table?

I need to make something really clear. Nothing about how Biden has handled the Gaza crisis has been in any way okay or anything less than horrifying. He is enabling a genocide and supplying an ally with the ability to wipe out a population. War crimes have and are being continually committed. The whole of it is an agonizing tragedy and I wish with all my heart that Biden would realize how badly he has fucked this up and step down quietly. Allow someone who is not part of the old guard challenge Israel.

But that’s not going to happen. Biden is going to run against Trump.

And we must vote for Biden.

Should we stop protesting? ABSOLUTELY NOT. The protests are working. Biden went from remaining absolutely silent on the matter to pleading on Twitter to trust him on the humanitarian crisis the war is creating. (Which if you scoffed loudly at, who could blame you.) You are putting pressure on him. If we keep Biden in office and keep that pressure going, we have a shot at mitigating harm. Nothing will erase the horror that has already occurred, but we can and must mitigate the harm as much as possible.

Because the bare minimum that we have and we MUST hold onto, is that Biden IS movable on issues and DOES listen to public outside pressure. It doesn’t feel like it since we lost Roe v. Wade because we warned you all that Trump would pack the courts if you could not stomach voting for Hillary and guess what that’s exactly what happened but the tragic reality is that Biden is the most progressive president we’ve ever had.

Yeah. BIDEN. Sit with that. Pretty pathetic, that JOE BIDEN is the most progressive president we’ve ever had? It surely is. But things aren’t going to get more progressive if Trump is able to take the reins again.

From 2016-2020, did you ever feel that Trump would listen to protesters or feel concerned about public pressure? No. Because Trump doesn’t give a shit about anyone except his own rabid base, which would love to help commit genocide upon Palestine.

Keep Biden in office. Keep protesting, keep calling your reps, keep causing a ruckus, keep adding that pressure to Biden. Because protesting, calling your reps, getting organized—all of the things that WILL make a difference for Gaza under Biden will make NO difference under Trump.

“Keeping Trump out of office isn’t enough of a good reason to vote for Biden!” Yes it is. Because the genocide will not go away under Trump, it will get worse. Far worse.

Keep Biden in office. There is no alternative.

[mojave-pete]

What Would It Take to Convince You The Election Was Rigged?

By AL PERROTTA Published on November 10, 2020 • 2 Comments

Al Perrotta

Yesterday I laid out, with the help of the BBC and State Department, the six signs to look for when determining if an election was stolen.

There is some indisputable evidence — and many very suggestive indications — that each of those conditions for concluding fraud in this election has been met. But many still refuse to even entertain the idea that this election was as crooked as a witch’s nose. After she’s been in 100 MMA fights. And fell from her broom flat onto her face.

The media and Big Tech sensors are working overtime to crush the evidence. So a lot of people don’t even know what is being alleged in sworn affidavits. I desperately want to believe that people, if presented the evidence, will accept it. Or at the very least be open to it, awaiting further confirmation. Please tell me my belief is not unfounded.

But before we get there, I want to ask a simple question:

Remember that a) lying in a sworn affidavit to a court is a crime. And b) doing anything that is seen as helping Trump will subject you to all manner of hell.  In light of that, do you believe the countless witnesses who now have sworn to seeing illegal activity leading up to and through the election would lie?

Would Any of This Be Right?

Now, for those fair-minded people who support Biden, may I ask a few questions? Do you believe

It would be wrong for election supervisors to coach workers to correct mail-in ballots for Biden, but not for Trump?

That it would also be wrong for election workers to coach voters to vote for Biden and Democrats, and follow them to the ballot station?

It would be wrong for poll workers to go out to a Biden-Harris van in the middle of the night and fill out ballots?

That it would be likewise wrong for poll workers to fill in the names of people who hadn’t yet voted when a “voter” comes in who is not on the voter rolls?

It’s wrong for poll workers to ignore matching signature requirements?

That it’s wrong for counting centers to keep Republican poll watchers from observing hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots?

It was wrong for Philadelphia Democrats to ignore a court order that demanded poll watchers have their rightful access?

That it’s wrong for a Democratic- controlled ballot-counting center Fulton County, Georgia to tell GOP observers they were done counting for the night … then resume counting the minute the observers left?

It was wrong for Nevada voting officials to fabricate proof of residence data for non-eligible voters?

That it was likewise wrong for postal supervisors in several states to order workers to post-date late arriving ballots, so it would falsely appear they arrived on time?

It is wrong to cast ballots using the dead?

That it is wrong to count ballots from people ineligible to vote in a particular state?

It is wrong for a state supreme court to ignore state law and the U.S. constitution to change the voting rules right before an election? Rules guaranteed to make the process more susceptible to fraud?

Each of those statements is asserted in 131 sworn affidavits from poll workers, poll watchers and whistleblowers or happened in broad daylight.

Please Support The Stream

: Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day.

So please answer me honestly: How many of these wrongs laid out in lawsuits are you willing to outright dismiss? Doesn’t fairness dictate you at least listen to what these people have to say? How many people must swear under penalty of imprisonment for perjury before you acknowledge the vote tallies are horribly tarnished?

Would Any of This Be Suspicious?

Now, my Biden-supporting (or Trump-hating) friends, can we do a little gut check? Aren’t you a little bit queasy about …

Tens of thousands of ballots suddenly appearing from out-of-state with only the presidential race filled out … and all filled out for Joe Biden?

Hundreds of thousands of votes popping up overnight election night … after the inexplicable halt in counting … in some places, 100% for Joe Biden?

Philadelphia, a city notorious for election fraud, absolutely refusing to let Republican observers anywhere near the people handling mail-in ballots?

In several states, piles of Trump votes suddenly getting taken from him, then the same exact number suddenly popping up for Biden?

Dominion, the company behind the election system used in these states, being connected to the Clinton Foundation and George Soros?

Dozens of states accepting Dominion’s system, despite its security weaknesses being so evident that Texas rejected it three times?

The Associated Press reporting just last year that Dominion and its sister companies “had long skimped on security in favor of convenience and operated under a shroud of financial and operational secrecy despite their critical role in elections.”

Lindsay Graham’s report on evidence of a ballot harvesting operation at Pennsylvania nursing homes which could have netted Biden 25,000 votes? (Ballot harvesting is illegal in Pennsylvania.)

Biden vote totals in specific swing cities … and nowhere else … exceeding Obama’s by up to 40%?

Vote tallies for Biden in Milwaukee exceeding Obama’s 2008 landslide … despite Milwaukee having fewer people than it did in 2008? (And despite Donald Trump greatly increasing his share of the minority vote.)

Joe Biden underperforming Hillary Clinton almost everywhere … except in a couple crucial swing state cities … and only after counting in those states was halted?

Joe Biden handily losing bell-weather states Florida and Ohio, but somehow defying history and won? This despite very little campaigning, a non-existent ground game, and a campaign message that ran counter to the economic interests of the American people.

Honesty is the Path to Unity

Yes, it is possible a good percentage of people could go, “I don’t care. Orange Man Bad.” But I want to believe that a majority of Biden voters will be honest enough to check their dislike of Trump long enough to acknowledge the reality of all the smoke, and the possibility of fire.

That they would rather have an honest count of legitimate — and only legitimate — votes. And they would want to see those who have committed fraud punished.

I hope they agree that the only path to re-unifying the country is the assurance of an honest count. And it is worth a few weeks of time to check it all out.

Even if Orange Man is Bad, a Stolen Election is far, far worse.

Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author, with @JZmirak, of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration. You can follow him at @StreamingAl. And if you aren’t already, please follow The Stream at @Streamdotorg.

[somerandomg33k]

I still don’t know who to vote for?

This election is going to be a weird and frustrating one. It is the first presidential general election where I am an Anarcho-Syndicalist. And this election in the darkest timeline has a Fascist as the incumbent. But the candidate that is opposing Donald Trump is Joe Biden. Almost everyone's last pick in the primary. The only worst candidate during this primary was Michael Bloomberg, who was trying to buy his way into the election. Possible to take votes away from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but that is damning with faint praise that Joe Biden is better than Michael Bloomberg.

The most likely results of this election are either the continued reign of a dictatorial Fascist, causes and continuing chaos and mayhem, or just straight up Neo-Liberalism. We are going back to a normal under Obama, which was terrible as well. Just not as awful as under Fascism. And we won't fix the problems that allowed Trump to rise to power. Since those are core systematic problems that the current Democratic Establishment is not interested in correcting. And the Republican party is just worse as they are OK with Fascism. Some of them want Fascism.

And let's not forget, serval people have very good personal reasons not to vote for Joe Biden. Joe Biden helped co-wrote the 1994 crime bill. In some issues, he was to the right of Regan on drug enforcement of the Drug war. He was always the most conservative Democrat in the Senate during his time there. He voted against busing 19 times. That is why many Leftists say that Joe Biden is Republican-lite. He is just the 'correct' color for Liberals and is the candidate the Democratic party chooses. So yea, there are two Republican tickets this election. The difference is one is not Fascist. Liberals know this. They are just in denial or flat out refuse to believe it. Because boy, don't say that Joe Biden and his running mate are anything but Progressive to them. Because they really hate that. "I think it is unfair to Joe Biden to judge him by International standards. I would prefer that he is judge by American Political standards," one Liberal said. Why can't Liberals admit that America's Political standards are shit?

Liberals have to believe that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are progressives because they can only think of voting for progressives and progressive causes. They can't accept they are voting for a Conservative on the Democrat ticket, because they would have to admit that the Democratic party has moved towards the right as has American's Overton Window. Joe Biden is against Medicare 4 All. On that issue, he is to the right of Boris Johnson and other conservatives of the UK and Canada. Liberals have to believe they are voting for progressives on the Democrat ticket. Because if they didn't, they would lose faith in the whole Ameican Electoral system as well as Reform. It is almost like Capitalist Realism. People can imagine the end of the World before they can imagine the End of Capitalism. Liberals probably have an easier time visualizing the end of the World before they could imagine a different system than the current governance of Liberal Capitalist Democracy.

Let's not forget, something we already know, that Joe Biden is a bit creepy. He is a Patriarch and treats women differently than men. Whenever he meets families at the White House who have sons and daughters, he would say to the sons, "You have a critical job. You got to protect your sister from all of the boys. That is something my Dad told me." The women must be protected, and it is the men who must do the protecting. Joe Biden has a habit of creepily smelling women and girls' hair and touching their bodies on the waist and shoulders. Serval women have said that Joe made them feel uncomfortable. And this was all before Tara Reade allocations.  #IBelieveTaraReade.

As for Kamala Harris, she did put trans women in men's prison, which resulted in one of them getting killed. "Kamala Harris couldn't do a thing." Is something Liberals need to stop saying. What they really mean is, "Kamala Harris choose to uphold an unjust system by blindly following rules instead of using her power and influence to change them." She attempted to block two Trans women's requests to get gender confirmation surgeries. Which, as far as I know, she hasn't really made amendments for. She wasn't good about slowing down The New Jim Crow. She was fierce to Sex Workers too. One of my comrades said, "As a trans woman and a Sex Worker, how should I feel about voting for Kamala Harris." She increased convictions for things like merely drug procession. She also wanted to jail parents for truancy. She has been called the Democrats Top Cop. Someone who is "Tough on Crime." Just like how Bill Clinton and Joe Biden were in the 90s. And that still has devastating effects on Black and Brown communities.

So many people have many good reasons not to want to vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. And Liberals want to think that they simply "have their flaws." Again, I think it is just all to make it easier for them to be excited to vote for them. All of those issues, including their voting record on increasing Military spending too, are "merely flaws." And they will also shame people into voting for Biden/Harris with, "It is the lesser of two evils." Which again, is more of an indictment of the system we have. "But we have an election, and we should all vote." So we can't talk about changing the system right now during an election. So when can we talk about change this entire system? And Just like with 2016, "A vote for a third party or a no vote is a vote for Trump."

Further shaming us into voting for Biden/Harris. "Do you want four more years of Trump?" FUCK YOU AND SHOVE THAT DISINGENUOUS QUESTION UP YOUR ASS!!

Merely bringing up all of these complaints are being associated with supporting Trump. Another by-product of the binary way of thinking with the Two-Party system and First Past the Post voting. Liberals have 'accepted' Biden/Harris is the ticket. And they honestly wish we do too. And since we are vocal with our complaints, they hate us for not 'accepting' Biden/Harris is the ticket. They hate us for not 'accepting' the way the system is as it is. "I have accepted all of this. Why haven't you?" This can explain how so many Liberals would go "URG" at the thought of Joe Biden as President back in January during the Primaries to skipping to the polls to vote for Biden for the General Election. "Well, he won the primary." "I get to vote Trump out of Office" is more what it is about and not how great Biden is. They tell themselves how great Biden and Harris will be as a recon.

And with all of the shaming us into voting for Biden/Harris, instead of voting for the Green Party or not voting, it completely ignores the fact we did vote for Hillary in 2016. She 2.8 million more votes. But it is the Electoral College that gave Donald Trump in the win. Plus, in Washington State, my state, four of the Electors didn't vote for Hillary Clinton when they were 'supposed to.' Washington State is likely to go blue again. So I don't know if it is essential for Me to vote for Biden/Harris. The fivethirtyeight poll from Sept. 22 shows Washington voting for Biden at 58% vs Trump at 36%. A 22 point difference. I think I can safely vote for Howard Hawkins and feel like I didn't help Trump win. But that won't be what Liberals think.

Now with all that said, Donald Trump is still a Fascist wannabe Dictator. He is almost the worst. His administration is just letting massive amounts of people died because of Covid-19. He is encouraging people to shoot BLM protestors. He told the Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by," at the first Presidential Debate.  He said there wouldn't be a peaceful transferal of power because there won't be a transferal, but a continuation. Donald Trump has sewn doubts about voting by mail. He will doubt any kind of election results where he doesn't win. So Liberals argue we most vote in such high numbers to show that it is the will of the people they want him out of office. To which he can easily say "Fake News." He did doubt the 2016 popular vote results claiming 3 million "illegals" cast fraudulent votes.

Another convincing argument is we most show that Trump's ideas can't win elections. Because if it continues to win elections, more people will adopt Trump's views and policies. It is sort of convincing. But since a Qanon supporter will win a seat in the House of Representatives, becoming a rising star in the GOP Party. The GOP Party has backed Trump throughout his time in office, Trump's views and policies will continue whether he wins or not. Even if Trump loses, we are not out of the woods yet. Not by a long shot. Trump base will still be here in this White Supremacist CisHetro Patriarchal Ableist country of the United Corporations of Imperialism. Who will always vote for the GOP and are not going away. Many Democrats will even speak highly of them. Nancy Pelosi prays for the Republicans. Liberals believe having an opposition is part of a functioning Democracy. Will the GOP no longer be Fascist? I doubt it.

"We have to get rid of Trump at all costs." I understand that urge. But the system gave us Trump and protected him. So how is voting and participating within the same system supposed to help? I know that Liberals think voting is very powerful because "So many people had to fight for their basic right to vote." And that is all true. The GOP only wins because of dirty tricks like gerrymandering and voter suppression. Hence, Trump is encouraging his base to watch the polling stations for "suspicious people wanting to commit voter fraud" and "rig" the election. It is straight voter intimidation and is happening already in Virginia. Part of the convincing reason to get Trump out of the White House. Biden will not encourage White Supremacist of all types to commit acts of violence against "The Radical Left terrorists" and "Antifa."  Antifa is not an organization; it is an idea. Even Biden got that right.

Knowing how terrible Trump is, brings me back to Biden and how bad he is. Not as bad. Trump and Biden aren't the same. Trump is a Fascist while Biden is a Neo-Liberal, and Neo-Liberalism isn't Fascism. Neo-Liberalism just leads to Fascism, as we have already seen with Trump. I simply see Neo-Liberalism worse than how Liberals see it. Not enough to make a false equivalent, but still. Remember, if Trump loses, he could pull a Grover Cleaveland and run again in 2024. Imagine that.

What bothers me the most about Liberals changing their opinion of Biden, by the mere fact he won the primary, is that Biden is granted votes from Democrats and Leftists. I am sure Democrats do love old Uncle Joe. There were a lot of memes from the Obama years. And many Liberals just love Obama. Even though they fully well know about his War Crimes. It is that acceptance that I don't have in me. "Well, he is the candidate. So I will support him to get rid of Trump." And what makes it worse, Biden isn't really offering anything as well. He is against the Green New Deal. He is against Medicare-4-all, even during a Pandemic. What is Biden/Harris offering? Even Biden, when asking these questions and about his record, says, "If you are questioning whether to vote for me or not, you ain't black."

So Leftists will get nothing and will receive all of the blame for of Trump winning if we don't vote for Biden. "If you are questioning whether to vote for Biden or not, you must want Trump for four more years."

Remember, I live in Washington State. A super blue State. If I live in any battleground state, even within a ten points difference, I would vote for Biden/Harris. But since Biden is ahead by 22 points in my state, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, I am considering voting for a third party. Howard Hawkins of the Green and Socialist party is closer to my position. I would prefer there is no State at all and no President at all. Especially no single person having that much power, especially being the 'leader of the "Free" world' by virtue of being the President of the United Corporations of Imperialism. If the President of the United Corporations of Imperialism is the 'leader' of the 'free world,' then how come the World doesn't get to vote in this election. The UCI, Imperialtopia bombs the hell out of the middle east so much, I think the middle east has a right to have a say in our elections.

I do have to acknowledge those platform holders, people with a Youtube channel, a Podcast, or have a large following on Social Media, feel the need to tell people to "to out and vote. Vote as if your life depends on it because for some, it actually does matter." Although for some people, much won't change materially for their lives, like the impoverished and the disabled. For some, it is life or death. For others, it is a shit show, regardless. But platform holders want Trump out of the White House. They don't know who lives in what state. They don't know if their audience's votes matter or not. Since they are speaking to a vast audience, and they must keep it simple, they have to say, "VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!"

But, I am thinking, if they acknowledge that some votes are more important in some states than others, they will have to admit the whole in the United Corporations of Imperialism is unjust. Votes are weight more heavily in some states than in others. The whole system has to change. But that can't happen in a year. However, folks can vote on Election Day. So, it is easy to encourage people to vote instead of organizing to abolish the Electoral College. It would take too long to do it. It would take a lot of effort. So even bother trying. Liberals would rather pretend that isn't the case and just badger and shame people into voting for a candidate they have 'accepted' won the primary, even though Biden was one of the worse candidates in that field. Everyone's tenth or so pick.

With all that said, vote for whoever you want to or whoever you feel comfortable voting for. I won't vote shame anyone. Except if you vote for Trump and the GOP. Then you are a Fascist because you are voting for a Fascist and the Fascist party. Pure and simple.

[relationshipsandpolitics]

Part 3

Since I last posted, we’ve gotten word that a certain rich asshole is going to enter the race.  Now, I could do 500 words on why this guy is awful, but it would sort of go against my belief that just because someone is really rich does not mean we need to pay extra attention to them and their thoughts.   This guy is not winning the nomination, won’t even poll about 3% in most states, and overall is not worth the amount ink that will surely be spilled on his campaign.  Next.

Joe Biden. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders

So we are down to the final 3.  One of those 3 objectively should have been culled much earlier.  If I was doing this purely based on the level of support for each candidate, this guy would have been cut about 8 candidates ago.  But Joe Biden is still the front runner, consistently leading national polls and absolutely killing it in several early primary states like South Carolina.  Biden remains popular among black voters, who serve as the lifeblood of the Democratic party. Even though his policies and personality suck, he is unique from all the other shitty centrist candidates.  So he gets his own takedown.

Joe Biden is a very old man hoping to blind the voters with his connection to President Obama.  And for the most part, it’s working like a charm. Forget the fact that he is a rambling, incoherent mess during campaign stops.  Forget his abysmal views on race, including his support for segregated busing and racist colleagues.  Forget the fact this guy railroaded Anita Hill and still can’t sufficiently apologize to her.  Forget all the bad parts of Joe Biden.  That’s what he is banking on.  Biden is trying to win not based on policy or his strategy for improving the lives of everyday Americans.  No, he is trying to win by painting a false image of who he is and how electable he would be.  Biden is basing his entire campaign on appealing to low-key racist white suburbanites who don’t want to pay more taxes.  That’s his base.  And it’s not an awful strategy.  But it highlights something terrible about the Democratic voter.

The average Democratic primary voter appears to support progressive causes.  They want to see Social Security expanded.  They support a $15 minimum wage and gun control.  They support paid family leave and some form of universal health care.  But the average Democratic voter of a certain age, race and class level doesn’t want to fight for those things.  Because while they agree with those policies in principle, they won’t be that affected by them, and more importantly, would have to pay more in taxes.  So they say they support these goals yet refuse to put any skin into the game to achieve them.   The other possibility is that they would support enacting these policies and paying a bit more, but they don’t think anyone else would and thus think we need to support the least-controversial candidate.  No one really likes Joe Biden, or if they do, no one can really identify what exactly he is running for.   Even though health care remains a joke in this country, Biden isn’t arguing to make it better.  He isn’t supporting a wealth tax.  What is this man running on except a vague idea about returning dignity to the American worker.  Yet voters still support him, either because they know he actually won’t change anything (except make it ok to be gay again) or because they think not changing anything is the only way for a Democrat to win.

The American voter (not just Democratic voters) collectively is a stupid person.  They personally want a politician to enact massive change to better their lives, yet believe the ideal candidate is a moderate who won’t do anything major, and still someone in doing nothing substantial, will improve their lives.  Then, just to double down on that stupidity, they will vote the opposition party into power in Congress to ensure nothing happens, all because they love compromise. Of course, the last thirty years of politics have shown that bipartisanship is a myth.

The American voter is both very ignorant and very naïve.  We accept that.  But it’s tougher to accept that from our politicians.  At a recent fundraiser for millionaires, Biden touted his sincere belief that when Trump goes, Republicans will have an epiphany and start working with him to make our country better.  Folks, this is disqualifying.  The sheer insanity of that belief needs to be a deal breaker.  Biden, in the very same speech to the very same contingent of rich assholes, said that he personally called dozens of Republicans to get Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court.  The Republicans said no and pulled a move so disgusting and unprecedented that we will never see something worse in our lifetimes.  And this was all before Trump was even nominated.

Joe Biden is an idiot. He also is in the bag of the rich. He regularly attends fundraisers hosted by lobbyists for some of the most nefarious industries.  His campaign is mostly funded by Wall Street and Health Insurance.  And how do you think he’ll govern once in office?  Will he go after these bad actors?  Or will he appoint them to his Cabinet?  Remember, this is the guy who worked in an administration that wanted Larry Summers as Fed Chief.  He appointed Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury.

Joe Biden would continue the worst aspects of Obama’s administration without all the good stuff. He’d be in his late 80’s by the time his second term ended, too.  For the love of all that we hold holy, we cannot nominate Biden.

It is now time for the top two candidates.  I would happily vote for either of these candidates, so my choice for one is not a slight on the other.  Each candidate has issues, but they are minor compared to what they bring to the table. So I urge you to vote early and often for either of them.

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders

A presidential candidate should make you excited to vote for them.  It can’t just be “I can’t vote for the other guy so I guess you’ll do.”  It’s a recipe for disaster.  People need a reason to take a couple hours of their day, find parking, wait in a long line, deal with eighty-year old volunteers who yell at you to close the curtain more, and then go into work and deal with their daily amount of shit.  People need a reason to see the process of voting as exciting.  

I think Bernie and Elizabeth are the only two candidates one can reasonably get excited about.  I’m not saying everyone will be excited by them because a lot of people don’t support their policies.  I call these people assholes.  But can anyone honestly say they are excited to vote for Amy Klobuchar or Joe Biden? Even if you support their bland policy proposals which consist of “we need better jobs but fuck if I know how to do that.”

But which one to choose?

I’m going to start with Bernie.  The negatives against him are one of perception rather than reality, but in politics its not the truth that wins out but what you can convince people the truth is. And Bernie will definitely be portrayed as an out-of-touch Socialist.  While the youngins like the word “socialism” the majority of the electorate is still scared to death of the term because they equate social democratic government as the Soviet Union and bread lines.  In other words, most people are stupid.   Sanders best hope would be to hammer home how amazing European countries are, the benefits they enjoy without all the negatives that Republicans conjure up in places like Venezuela. Unfortunately, Republican messaging still rules the day.   Even if you could strap a person in a chair and explain point by point why Sweden and Denmark work as social democracies, they still wouldn’t get it.

Trump will absolutely attack Bernie for being a socialist, and the problem compared to the other candidates he would attack for being a socialist is that the suburban Democratic voters would actually believe him.  Bernie absolutely will upend the system, and a lot of people are still benefiting from that system.  People like my parents.  They have a good amount of money but are not rich.  Taxes going up on them will impact their daily lives, and most of the benefits Bernie is advocating for would not benefit them.  There is a lot of good research out there that suggests the key for Democrats to win across the board is to get the suburban moderate vote. And there is a legitimate argument that Bernie will not get that vote.  Now, one can say that those voters would never vote for Trump. But you must remember a very important thing about politics: white people can get pretty racist when they think you’ll take money away from them.

But here’s what I love about Bernie.  He is entirely genuine in his advocacy for the poor and working class. Most politicians say they care, of course.  They give a speech supporting raising the minimum wage or not cutting Medicaid. But they also tie themselves with rich donors and businesses whenever they can.  They support the poor until there is a good reason not to.  Not Bernie.  He’s been singing the same tune since the sixties.  He doesn’t care if it isn’t popular. He’ll make it become popular. Bernie almost single handedly shifted the conversation on universal health care.  We are talking about paid family leave and free college because of him. And the man deserves credit for that.

Bernie has been hit a lot from the Democratic establishment.  People are still sore that he had the audacity to challenge Hillary Clinton.  Even though he endorsed and campaigned heavily for her after dropping out in 2016, there is still a narrative that he sabotaged her campaign.  Let’s be clear, though.  The reason why the establishment Democratic contingency dislikes Bernie is because he thinks they are just as corrupt as the Republicans.  Which is true.  Democrats work out of the same bubble as Republicans.  They rub shoulders with the same Wall Street donors. Try calling up your Democratic Senator to get an in-person meeting.  Now look at who does get those meetings.  I support Bernie because he actually is trying to change our corrupt political system.  A politician can’t work within the given system without being corrupted by it. The system is a cancer that needs to be destroyed.  

Bernie has said some dumb things and has held some dumb positions.  This can’t be denied.  He’s been accused of being a racist, sexist and homophobe.  Some of this is absolute bullshit and some of it is based on dumb things he’s said.   But judging by the policies the man has supported, the votes he has taken, and what he has said during the 2016 and 2020 campaigns, does anyone honestly believe him to be a racist, sexist or homophobe?

If you are having a tough time getting behind Bernie, I’d ask yourself the following questions:

Do you honestly believe he would pursue anti-women and anti-reproductive rights policies?

Do you think a more robust paid family leave policy, along with a policy promoting affordable childcare, would significantly benefit women?

Do you think Bernie would restrict LGBTQ rights or would he expand protections for this group?

Do you genuinely believe Bernie would support or champion policies that would discriminate against black people?  

Do you think health care is a crisis in this country and everyone should have access to it? If so, do you think Bernie makes the situation better or worse?

Do you think a president should fill his administration with people from the financial and insurance industries?  Do you think Bernie would do this?

Do you think millionaires and billionaires should be taxed more and more money should go into programs that help the poor and middle class?

Should college be free or at least much more affordable?

Ask yourself these questions.  Don’t worry about whether he can get them passed.  Truth is it will be tough for any Democrat to get anything passed.  I’d be looking at which candidates are most willing to use executive orders (hint: it’s Bernie).

We can’t keep hedging our votes on what’s practical because the truth is everything is doable with enough willpower.   Think about how insane Social Security is as a legislative success.  We taxed everyone, rich and poor, to provide money to senior citizens for the rest of their lives.  That’s insane, and we did it.  Same with Medicare.  If you think are country needs massive changes to secure our future, vote for the candidate who is advocating for massive changes.  That candidate is Bernie Sanders and…..

Elizabeth Warren.  Everything good about Bernie can also be said about Elizabeth Warren.  This is a person who literally created an agency designed to help consumers go against corporations.  Warren has correctly diagnosed the problem for wealth and income inequality and a lot of the bad shit that’s been happening to the American worker. Corporations suck. Rich people suck. They both need to be taxed way more and we need to use those funds to give benefits to the poor and working class. Warren has a plan for pretty much everything, and that is a great thing.  She doesn’t talk in platitudes about restoring dignity to the working class. She identifies the problem and comes up with an actual solution.  

And for her efforts she gets skewered by her opponents and the media.  When Pete Buttigieg says we should invest more in affordable housing, no one pushes back on exactly what that means.  But when Warren releases a comprehensive plan to pay for Medicare for All, she is eviscerated.  Her plans should be critiqued, but they should also come with the acknowledgement that she has put in the work and is way more open with the American people than the other candidates.  The media and voters need to start making candidates pay a price for not articulating actual plans for their policy goals.  

Warren is fucking smart and driven.  She has the brain and energy to do the job.  She’s not a crackpot; she’s an advocate for the little guy.  Honestly, there isn’t much to criticize Warren on outside of how she will pay for her policy proposals.  But the media will attack what little they have while giving Trump and the more moderate Democrats a pass.  When Trump or Biden talk about strengthening the military, no one will ask what that means and how much it will cost.  But when Warren comes up with a tax plan to pay for free childcare, every single pundit will pounce the second some study comes out that her funding is off by a few million.

Of course, the dumbest part is the idea Warren needs to fully fund any proposal.  Right now, the economy has been doing great for about five years.  And in that whole time, we’ve been running huge deficits.  Maybe government spending without offsets isn’t such a big deal. Warren can’t say that because the media won’t allow her to.  It would be great if Warren could just say “things are going great now despite a trillion-dollar deficit, so why not get free healthcare for a $2 trillion-dollar deficit?”

That’s what I love most about Warren.  The lines of attack against her are so shitty.  Bernie has legitimate concerns that the Republicans will easily exploit. The best they can do with Warren is attack her policies, which are broadly popular.  And with Warren, you get a bunch of different contingencies that will come out for her.  You have women and those who want to see our first female president.  You get progressives excited about finally having a candidate who advocates for them with a fighting chance.  And because she is being so careful not to raise middle class taxes, I think you get a lot of the suburban vote.

I think Warren can win this thing.  She articulates the message well, she lacks genuine baggage and when compared to Trump, she comes off even better.  

So who is my final pick? I’m going with Elizabeth Warren. Not only does she hold most of the same policy positions as Sanders, but she also is fundamentally opposed to the corporate interests that got us to this point.  And I think she can better cajole moderate Democrats to support her agenda.  Finally, I think she comes with less baggage.

What I would love to see, based on the polling, is for Warren to either win or come in second by a close margin to Biden or Buttigieg.  Sanders would drastically underperform, at which point if New Hampshire was also going poorly, he could drop out and swing all his support to Warren.  That would make her the clear front runner. Let’s see what happens.

  Elizabeth Warren

[anonymoustalks]

The left has become absorbed by identity politics and is obsessed with race.. it scares me that they will create more racists than before they started

(6-17-20) You both like politics.

You: heyaa

Stranger: Hi

Stranger: How are you

You: anything you're interested in?

You: I am fine

Stranger: I'm interested in hearing opinions on things

You: oh, me too ^^

You: what kind of things?

Stranger: Politics is divisive, but in order to get a better understanding I wish to listen to both sides

You: awesome, I think that's great ^^

Stranger: :) thank you

You: do you have issues you care about most?

Stranger: The current fall of western society

You: fall of western society huh

You: can you elaborate more?

Stranger: Over the past few years we have seen western society devolve. Where once we were fairly united and we stood strong, we have become more divided and with the introduction of identity politics, that has just worsened till we have gotten to where we are now. China is currently pushing her borders, and yet with the US in flames and the uk following suit (along with France for that matter), noone challenges it

You: mhm *nodsnods*

Stranger: To speak out against the lunacy is to be called a racist and a bigot, not that that's anything new of course but those who are calling for these things seem to not really understand the importance and significance of their actions. I see this as akin to the 1920s Weimar Republic. They are pushing for things they don't want

You: you type a lot haha

Stranger: Sorry i am choosing my words carefully

You: mhm it's fine

You: so you think strong foreign policy is very important?

Stranger: I do. I am from South Africa, though I live in the uk. For those who live outside the us and Europe, we see the importance of Baro and the us on a geopolitical scale. China owns the east of Africa, if not central as well. The us has been the top dog preventing them and Russia from doing much for years, though that's going to change in the coming years

Stranger: NATO not baro* bloody autocorrect

You: oh okay I was wondering what that was haha

Stranger: If I may ask, where are you from?

You: the us actually

Stranger: I thought you might be given the time :) it's half 1 am here

You: yeah it's late!

You: so in your view, western countries need to have more of a spine?

You: is that basically what you're saying?

Stranger: Always. But history has a cycle.

Stranger: Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times

You: very fair

You: speaking of cycles, I think something that is floating around these days

You: is whether it's sort of like the beginning of the end of american hegemony

You: sort of like UK's empire gradually had its sunset

Stranger: This is what I am concerned with. All empires have their time in the sun, and all shall fade. I had hoped I would be dead before it happened. I made a prediction several years ago that should trump win in 2020 again, there will be civil war. I am unsure on my prediction of civil war, but I can see that he will win. Should there not be war, I give it another 2 presidencies before yourselves will fall, and ww3 breaks out

You: hmm the us is steamy right now, but idk about civil war

Stranger: It's been brewing for a while now by my estimation

You: that said I would not be surprised about China continuing to be more aggressive

You: that stuff with India yesterday?

You: ^^

Stranger: Without strong willed opposition, they will always push more overtly. They have done so in the shadows for years now

Stranger: And that's just one example

Stranger: They have intruded on Thailand air space as well

You: I don't think either democrats or republicans are very foreign-policy aggressive right now though

You: idk if your concern will be that much better with biden

You: clinton was a little hawkish but she lost 2016

Stranger: It would be much worse with Biden, or anyone from the left EXCEPT Tulsi Gabbard

You: oh you sounded like you didn't want trump to win lol

Stranger: I don't like him. But honestly, he's the best option out of what has been shown. Bernie is a socialist, Hillary is a warmonger, Biden will probably be a puppet. Who can stand? Hillary could be strong, but you would go to war. For all his faults, Trump has avoided war and conflict. He brought North Korea to the discussion table.

You: okay ^^

Stranger: I may not like him but he is effective, and has been a boon to you economy though as someone who works in finance, the next crash is due soon

You: fair enough although I think a lot of places are hurt by the coronavirus economy anyways

Stranger: Yeah.. the lockdowns are odd.. why quarantine those who are healthy? We have always quarantined those who were I'll first, and then those who go out and riot get a free pass? It's a bit confusing, and is a little bit of double think. Rules don't apply to you if you have the correct opinions it would seem

You: idk the US never really had forced quarantines

You: everything here was just you were supposed to do it

Stranger: The uk did, apologies

Stranger: Well not heavily enforced near me

You: we had college students going to beaches even though the quarantine was happening

You: because young ppl think they are invincible

You: and dumb ^^

Stranger: Hahaha yeah you aren't wrong in that

Stranger: But I have waffled on, may I hear your opinions on what we have discussed?

You: mhm, I disagree but it's cool yo~

Stranger: No that's great, it shows that we can discuss and hopefully come to compromise

Stranger: Thank you for being chill and relaxed

You: mhm I'm basically a hippie though so I don't usually take strong stances on international intervention

Stranger: That's fair and understandable. I used to agree with that as well for many years

You: I kind of think it's a little bit of a selfish position to take (the peace one)

You: in the sense that I don't want to deal with other people's problems

You: so in a sense it's kinda selfish

Stranger: It is and it isn't :)

Stranger: It's a moral good and a difficult thing. Peace only exists as reprieve from war. Humanity is a war like species, and peace only ever exists between them. And I applaud your pacifism

You: idk I'm not sure if it's always something to applaud

You: I think in a sense it's a kind of inaction

Stranger: A good thought experiment for you then, look at ww2

You: yup

You: I'm familiar with isolationism in history and its ramifications

Stranger: The us was neutral officially for years, and because they took no strong stance, the Nazis rose to power. Admittedly it was partly the fault of all the allies and ww1 but that's a digression.

Stranger: But war was thrust upon them officially by what happened. The peaceful stance can be taken from you, but that is not a bad thing in my opinion

You: yup

Stranger: What would you do if you could, at that time?

You: at that time?

You: hmm

You: it's not a question I've thought very much about

Stranger: I thought on that myself

You: and what did you conclude?

Stranger: My answer was intervention. Stop the Anschluss, the Munich agreement, the extremely harsh measures of the treaty at the end of ww1

You: oh yeah that was a terrible treaty

You: I kind of imagined myself as an average person though haha

Stranger: But I understand the reasoning at the time for allowing all those things to go through

Stranger: I am too

You: you would have protested your government signing that treaty?

Stranger: That's why thay generation was called the greatest generation. We the average man stood up and took up arms, because they believed what was right.

Stranger: It is difficult to say that if I lived in that time I would. Of it was today, 100%

You: mhm... war is frightening

Stranger: We cannot judge the past with the same moral standing we have today

You: of course

Stranger: And yes, war really is a horrible thing

Stranger: If peace was an option, I would go for it. Often times though, we have no control over that

You: mhm there is suffering in a lot of places, and violence that arises from suffering and hatred

Stranger: Look at the Nazis and the hatred of the Jews. That was extremely common all across Europe, the uk and the us. Many leaders in politics and business liked the Nazis initially. But just because something is common, does not make it right

You: I actually never understood antisemitism

Stranger: You are quite wise, and I agree with you. But the sad thing is, there will always be suffering

You: or why people hate(d) jewish people

Stranger: The scary thing is, many of those in BLM look up to a man called Farrakhan (forgive me on the spelling) who is a huge antisemite. Like he openly calls for violence against them. He gets away with it, because he is black. Why he hates them I don't know. They are hated I think, because they are the oldest abrahamic religion and the oldest monothesist one as well, from which both Islam and Christianity draw their teachings from initially

You: I just don't understand why they are hated

You: often by christians too

Stranger: Me neither, I find it abhorrent. They have been persecuted for thousands of years

You: yeah idk I just don't understand why

Stranger: I have yet to find out why. I know in Islam they hate them as it is dictated within their scriptures, though the exact wording I am unsure on. Christians I would think it's because they don't believe that Jesus was the son of God

You: I guess so

Stranger: But I may be entirely wrong

Stranger: Which I probably am

You: idk I don't know anything so I have no clue

Stranger: Hence why I like and want discussion :) we learn more through communication

Stranger: We become better the more we communicate

You: is there a reason why you dislike blm so much?

Stranger: I stand against identitarianism

You: so basically all those "pride" movements?

Stranger: I come from a racist country that segregated everyone and everything based on the colour of everyone's skin and I was hated for being the colour of my skin just for being born. I cannot condone movements that wish to implement the same things, as it will lead to suffering and hatred.

Stranger: I have nothing against being proud of your race, though I think the idea is a bit stupid. I have an issue with everything needing to divided up based on the colour of ones skin, I choose to judge someone on the basis of their character. I'm not perfect and there are times where I have been prejudiced but it is something I am consious of and wish to not do

You: mhm okay

You: I'm not sure if blm wants things to be divided up based on race though

You: I thought they were mostly against police brutality

Stranger: Some very much so are. Though I will concede that not all of them are, and I should tar everyone with the same brush. But as a counter to that, look at CHAZ in Seattle, they have segregated farms though calling them that is hilarious

You: I thought chaz is just a city block?

Stranger: On the police brutality, I agree with them and that reform must happen. Abolishing police is not a good idea. More funding is required, better training and better internal policies and structures to vette and review the officers is needed. Abolishing them will lead to anarchy. You are correct that Chaz is, but it is a microcosm showing the very things I stand against. I am against racism of all kinds, segregation is a form of racism. The us had a history where they did it too and agreed that it was wrong

You: mhm

You: I just wasn't familiar with blm as pro-segregation

You: that said, most blm activists are just really young

Stranger: They have been co-opted by those who are. And many activists are young white kids

You: I don't think mainstream democrats take them very seriously

Stranger: I'm not so certain. But I hope I am wrong

You: idk I mean these days who knows what kind media we each read

You: so I'm sure I'm in a bubble too

Stranger: They may see these things as a good and helpful idea, but the road to hell is often paved with good intentions

Stranger: Of course, and I hope I'm wrong. I recommend a variety of news sources, especially independent ones. A great one is a guy named Tim Pool on YouTube. He is a left leaning centrist guy who is upfront with his leanings. But he gives the news as it is

You: mhm I try to avoid youtube news

You: although idk if it's truly reliable to always go through bbc or ap or others

You: they are just mainstream

Stranger: BBC is very biased in my opinion. Tim used to work on mainstream media but he left. I would call him credible, he looks at news sources and verifies them. He's very milk toast and fence sits allot the problem with news is that all sides want to spin things the way they want it

You: mhm okay

You: is there any kind of mainstream media that you like?

Stranger: I don't trust any of them when it comes to almost anything except weather and sport scores. I will listen to what is said from various sources before coming to my own conclusions. I have lost all faith in the media since 2016

You: I see, I guess it ends up being hard to find something to trust

Stranger: Unfortunately it is. My reasons for it was both the elections in the us for 2016 and the brexit vote here in the uk. I was very similar to you then, very much so a hippie and very left leaning. I disagreed with Trump and Brexit, but I lost. But the way the media and society within the left handled themselves and the situation, that put me off completely and pushed me to become more conservative than what I was

You: interesting, although I'm not exactly following what made you more interested in conservative things

Stranger: The constant denigration of those who you disagree with. The treatment hat those people got, most of whom are the working class, upon the backs of which society is upheld. They are not racist or evil. They have a different opinion and different values. How does making a choice in a democracy make someone evil when neither side is perfect?

Stranger: The left preaches tolerance, except that it doesnt in reality

You: mhm yeah I don't like that

You: I don't think it is effective either

Stranger: All it does is polarize people

Stranger: And drive them further away from reaching g a compromise

You: right

Stranger: Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Brexit, but as a democracy we made a decision. So now we need to exact that decision. I would have voted for trump despite my disdain for him

Stranger: Enact not exact*

You: I think there are a lot of people who think similarly as you do ^^

Stranger: There really are

Stranger: The left has become absorbed by identity politics and is obsessed with race.. it scares me that they will create more racists than before they started

Stranger: Constantly calling your opposition racist and evil will force them into being it

You: mhm I think there are some things to distinguish between social media left-wing people and people in everyday life I think

You: the vitriol is always much more amplified online than people are irl

Stranger: Oh agreed! Twitter is not real life, but it has started to bleed over

You: I live in a fairly liberal state, although I don't really think I have ever seen twitter irl

You: although I do think there is probably self-censorship occuring

You: in the sense that people are afraid of what their neighbors will think

Stranger: There is allot of that

Stranger: Anything you say will be used against you. Even if it's not that controversial

Stranger: People have lost their jobs for an opinion not done at work

You: that said, I don't think that's per say the "left's" fault though -- I just think that public opinion has shifted dramatically in the last 10 years

Stranger: Or how about the man who lost his job because his wife said something controversial

Stranger: I agree with you

Stranger: I really do

Stranger: Allot of this I do think could have been stopped years ago

You: I don't really like the lynch firing of people

You: that companies do for their public image

You: because the truth doesn't matter

You: it's just public image

Stranger: They do so because they are scared of the mob

You: but at the same time, I think public image is a thing because majority opinion really has shifted in the past two decades

You: opinions on homosexuality have swung dramatically in the US

You: ten years ago it was totally okay in public to be anti-homosexual

Stranger: Obama was against gay marriage until it was politically important for him to win the next election

You: but public opinion I think has swung really fast

You: yeah

You: I think he swapped at the first poll that showed >50% of americans supported it

Stranger: Yep! I find it hilarious that that was the case

You: yes but I think conservatives find this kind of fast change extremely uncomforting

You: I can understand that sentiment

You: also isn't it getting kinda late for you? ^^

Stranger: Conservatives are by their very nature are conservative. Change is neither malevolent nor benevolent, but we cannot look at change as universally good. Not can we disregard tradition

Stranger: It's 3 am and I can still keep going, I'm enjoying this conversation :)

You: I need to do the dishes eventually lol

Stranger: If you wish to leave you can by all means :) I won't hate you for it

You: I'm fine either way tbh

You: are you working right now? if you have work tomorrow you should prob go to bed

Stranger: It's up to you :) I can go for ages though my coherence Kay descend

Stranger: I'm sadly unemployed at the moment having lost my job earlier this year

You: coronavirus?

Stranger: Sadly yes

You: that's unfortunate, I'm sorry

Stranger: Not your fault :) so don't stress

You: so aside from Russia and China and the decline of western things, is there anything else that you stress about lol?

Stranger: The drive of censorship

Stranger: I have serious issue with censory

You: mhm

Stranger: And yourself?

You: mhm I dunno really

Stranger: That's good, though I would urge you to become concerned with censorship

You: mhm maybe

You: for me it's sort of a contextual concern I think

You: in the sense that it depends on your vantage point

Stranger: Opinions, art and books doesn't matter. Today it is their voice, tomorrow it is my voice. The day after it becomes your voice. Censorship takes away their rights to speak, and your rights to listen

You: mhm, what I mean is that my family immigrated from China

You: so my reference point of censorship is literal government censorship

You: in comparison the "political correctness" thing just doesn't seem as big to me imo

You: because 90% of it to me is sort of like a person's relationship with the neighbor basically

You: the US government doesn't censor what you can publish essentially

Stranger: That's fair enough, but this is where it starts. Things take time, and if anyone gives in (such as they have in several cases) that builds. In time that becomes the norm, there after what gets censored will not be at the choice of the people but of those who are in power

You: perhaps, although I kind of have faith in the 1st ammendment and the US supreme court

You: we barely have libel laws or defamation laws in the US because of the 1st ammendment

Stranger: I have seen calls to change and amend it. In the uk we have no freedom of speech, people have been arrested for jokes, what's been said on Twitter, etc. There are those who say that it's ok to censor this and that because e they are problematic or it would be good for everyone. But that is how it starts. The US has so much freedom

You: ahh... yeah I feel like it is different in the uk

Stranger: The uk doesn't care for free speech. It's very worrying and there are calls for even more censorship here.

You: mhm that sounds worrisome

Stranger: I guess I project it across to all western countries, and that is something we have seen recently

You: I don't think the US will lose the 1st amendment anytime soon, it's not politically realistiic

Stranger: Look at Amazon censoring books and movies being removed etc, this is how this begins. If it is allowed now, how can we stop it in the future

You: idk the status of free speech in other countries

You: actually this is a very interesting topic

Stranger: The us is one of the only countries that has it

You: do you think freedom of speech should be protected in private spaces?

Stranger: Codified in law that is

You: because technically freedom of speech for us is supposed to be only related to public government relationships

Stranger: I believe it should always be be protected

You: specifically "congress will make no law restricting freedom of speech" (paraphrased)

You: so you believe that private companies should not control what is said on their premises?

You: I mean it's fine if you believe that, it's actually just a bit further than what the current status quo is

Stranger: Yes. They are not above the law. Society may shun them, but they should not become involved. Outright calls for violence are against the law and that should be honoured, outside of that no they should not impose on pthers

You: hmm in the US this is where things get super complicated

You: because conservatives are also the ones who want content restricted/said in their religious schools too

Stranger: I've noticed.. and that has an effect on the rest of the world

You: basically "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" being on the same political side here makes things very weird

Stranger: And yeah I am aware of that as well, though the pendulum seems to have swung to the other side now. And it will swing back to the other side again

You: kind of like "My store should have the freedom of religion to deny my patrons of being homosexual in my store" kinda thing

Stranger: Yeah it is hard but there is more to the opposite side than just the one thing

You: it's a weird convoluted thing when both are conservative issues

Stranger: That's a difficult one, but I would say that should be discussed and debated but the highest courts. I cannot say from a legal sense one way or the other, morally I can say that it's hard to decide. I think that everyone should get a choice but I am uncertain

Stranger: By not but*

You: mhm that's fine ^^

You: I just think it's very interesting because most laws here, they govern the relationship between between the government and the people

You: so our freedom of speech laws do not apply to amazon censoring books because they are a private company

Stranger: Which is the difficult thing

Stranger: They are protected by being a private company

Stranger: As it's not just them

You: maybe ^^ we have a free market though, so things that cannot be published on amazon will find an outlet elsewhere

You: provided there is a demand for it

You: that said, it also has some gray area with morality laws

Stranger: That is true but monopoloes make things harder to find

You: kind of like youtube banning pornographic content

Stranger: Yeah I can understand that morally, legally I don't know but I would assume that there is some laws regarding that

You: I mean I'm just used to many various sites having bans of various sorts

Stranger: The uk has some

Stranger: Yeah, but there are protections for them being platforms not publishers

You: I don't think there is any law forcing youtube to ban pornographic content; it's just a branding choice by the company

Stranger: If they are publishers, those protections don't apply

You: like I think they want to be seen as family-friendly

Stranger: Fair enough, would have thought there might be

You: porn sites are not illegal in the US lol

Stranger: Not family friendly, advertisement friendly

You: lol true

Stranger: Sorry I don't know enough to be able to say :) I'm happy to admit that

You: mhm aside from political correctness, I guess I just don't personally see a big problem with censorship in the US

You: although I think I have a different belief than you that I think it's okay for private companies to choose what they want to publish

You: even if the ban content

You: these companies still need to compete

Stranger: Them doing so is fine, but if they wish to be protected as platforms they cannot act as a publisher. I think that's the Crux of their protections

Stranger: It is something that has been going for a while though

Stranger: And I think Trump will have it in his campaign for reelection this year

You: okay ^^

Stranger: But I don't know, he has been interested in censorship and has said he is against it in the past

You: I think people mean different things by censorship

You: but that's just imo

You: there are almost no western countries that experience censorship by their governments

You: so people mean things like censorship at their workplace

You: although imo that's kind of less censorship and more on the political correctness spectrum

Stranger: True. That is very true. But if you don't stop censorship openly, then should it come from government you don't already know you can stand against it

You: but to me, that "political correctness" isn't anything new either; it's as old as time

You: like did we always worry about saying something that would offend our boss?

You: ^^

You: it's always been there

You: I just think people are uncomfortable because bosses have changed in the last few decades

Stranger: It's not just their work place. The new "town square" is has become online. Your freedoms online are not protected despite it being codified in law

Stranger: And you aren't wrong, and coming from China or at least your family, you bring an interesting perspective

You: I feel like in the US we have very little digital legislation

You: the US of is head of hear

You: *there

Stranger: The world needs a digital bill of rights, to protect us all and our data. But we won't get it

You: but I don't think we have anything guaranteeing that speech on the Internet is free by any regard

Stranger: I would argue we do

You: hm? which law?

You: I like most websites have ToS's and rules banning X Y or Z on their site

Stranger: Freedom of speech and expression

You: oh I mean in terms of law

Stranger: That is what I meant, so that we are free to speak and express ourselves. I also believe that our data should be private and cannot be sold and that should be protected. There are other things that I have heard but it's difficult to remember all those that were proposed

You: ahh

You: yeah we don't have those laws right now

Stranger: Today stuff is okay but you are not protected

You: although the EU has some privacy ones that we don't have in the US

Stranger: The EU doesn't care mostly

Stranger: Some laws only protect some information, I'm talking about all of our information

You: ^^

Stranger: Everything we post and do is tracked, monitored and sold

Stranger: We revel in it, "I was talking about cats/dogs and all of a sudden I got adds for cat/dog products"

Stranger: We hear that often

You: yup

Stranger: Also, with regards to our rights and things, who holds these companies accountable?

Stranger: Take google for example

Stranger: They have been caught tampering with the elections

You: well, again, we have basically no laws about this in the US so there is no accountability

Stranger: They openly censor news and opinions

Stranger: They are a monopoly

You: although some europrean countries have lawsuits whatever with them

You: yup they totally are

You: where are anti-trust laws lol?

Stranger: That's what I think Trump will be looking at, I would if I was in his shoes

Stranger: But they were given special protections

Stranger: Those need to be taken away, the large companies need to be broken up but governments are incompetent

Stranger: I don't trust them to do it well

You: mhm it actually reminds me of south korea actually

Stranger: I mean there are a few senators in the states that I think have the moral fortitude to do so, but I don't know

You: countries are loathe to break up companies that they're proud of basically

Stranger: Yep

You: like samsung in south korea lol?

Stranger: They wouldn't break them up

Stranger: It would do serious damage to the economy and blah blah blah

You: their revenue was like 20% of the entire country's gdp

Stranger: Yep it's a difficult argument

Stranger: And I can understand why you wouldnt

Stranger: That 20% could drop to below 1%

You: anyhow it is getting kind of late

You: it was nice talking to you

You: and you should sleep ^^

Stranger: Likewise! :) I needed to move my sleep schedule for a 24 hour race on the weekend anyway, sp thank you for occuping my time and mind :)

You: goodnight!

Stranger: I'm glad to have met another willing to talk, take care my good friend

You have disconnected.

[arecomicsevengood]

BERNIE 2020

This time last year, everyone who announced they were running for the Democratic nomination was running using chunks of Bernie Sanders' 2016 platform. Everyone supported a $15 minimum wage and Medicare-For-All. It was then announced that the health insurance industry was going to go all out in terms of the money they were going to spend against a single-payer system, and as the months went on, not only did all those people walk back their support, or attribute the phrase "Medicare For All" to their own plans which were not that, more people announced they were running, who never claimed any of these beliefs. Many candidates have dropped out, many more have joined. While once it seemed like everyone was claiming Bernie's policies, but offering a more diverse slate of identities, now everyone is running to the right of him, with more and more people joining to be even farther right still.

Honestly, the very fact that Bernie has not caved, when everyone else did, in the wake of all the money which is very clearly stacked against him, should put you in his corner, if you believe that integrity matters in the slightest. What's going to drive me insane is that it feels like the forces arrayed against him are specifically AGAINST integrity, the very idea that someone cannot be bought. I am aware my ideas might seem like "conspiracy theories," but it's all so out in the open that it genuinely feels more like terrorism. Anti-abortion activists killed Dr. George Tiller, and now less people receive the medical training to perform the procedures he performed. What we are witnessing now is that money will be spent to kill your career, if you want to get money out of politics. A few months ago I was insisting no one under forty was going to vote for Joe Biden. Now, to take his role in the race, of "old white man with right-wing politics who is ostensibly electable in terms of being able to win over voters who are undecided between Democrats and Republicans despite the fact that no one likes him" is Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg is, somehow, worse than Joe Biden; arguably, perhaps even probably, worse than Donald Trump. Like Biden, there's a long history of racism and sexism in terms of policy he has pushed and things he has said. Michael Bloomberg spoke at the Republican National Convention in 2004, in support of George W. Bush, at the height of the Iraq war. He also supported stop and frisk in New York City, and changed the laws so he could run for a third term as mayor: Everyone worried about Trump declaring himself "president for life" and not retiring quietly should look to Bloomberg's example of how plutocrats bend the rules in their favor. I don't believe he would win an election, he is a truly sub-John-Kerry proposition. However, it is arguable Bloomberg would be a worse president than Donald Trump, able to impose right-wing policies without any of the opposition Trump enjoys. That opposition, as it is, feels pretty nominal, and the fact that Democrats seem to prefer Bloomberg be the nominee over Sanders points to why. It feels like the idea of insisting people vote for Bloomberg for the sake of "beating Trump" is psychological warfare, not a "compromise" but intentionally designed to degrade and demoralize not just "the left" but anyone with any sort of historical understanding or basic opposition to right-wing hegemony. I will not vote for Michael Bloomberg in a general election. If offered the false choice between Bloomberg and Donald Trump, two Republican plutocrats, we should give up on the idea that democracy exists and all become full-on anarchists. It is in both the Democratic party's interest, and my own personal psychology, to avoid making me feel this way about the assorted other candidates running. I basically avoid learning too much about Pete Buttegieg, though I already resent that I know how to pronounce his last name. I truly hope he goes away forever. Elizabeth Warren would've been, at one point, an "acceptable compromise" between the left and more moderate wings of the party, who I would be happy to support, but her campaign is now being run by people interested in the paradigm of degrading the left and it's pretty depressing to think that she has no interest in actually passing Medicare-for-all or any of the other large, sweeping changes this country sorely needs. I think all these people, Bloomberg and Biden especially, would lose an election. Regardless of my vote, I believe that Bernie Sanders is the only person who can win, although perhaps he can only win if the entire media apparatus is not violently opposed to his campaign. To his credit, he is not actually publicizing this conspiracy for the sake of his campaign. He did so in 2016, when he was running against Hillary Clinton. It is considered "divisive" to do so. Sanders instead is basing his campaign on how many people his policies would help, how painful our current society is, how much pain there is in our society. I feel like I have made it obvious, in other places, how this includes me. I've written often about being poor, and having limited options in this society, despite my assorted privileges. What's funny is that I feel like something I have in common with Sanders, besides our Jewish heritage, is a disinterest in talking about ourselves. I don't want to say "My life is pathetic, I am poor, and voting for Bernie would help me out." And Bernie doesn't want to say "All these bastards are arrayed against me, vote for me so they can lose power and we can start to have a functioning democracy." So it's my role to say what Bernie won't. There are people who think talking about Sanders, and his obvious integrity contrasted with other politicians, is akin to believing in a cult of personality. I don't want to accuse everyone of participating in acts of projection, but what's interesting is I think centrists largely believe that every politician has integrity. That's why they don't think it matters when someone takes high-paying gigs giving speeches, or whatever. There isn't the same understanding of power acting to protect itself by maintaining a status quo. Without this basic belief in what integrity is, the whole fact of Sanders' popularity seems suspect. There are pundits who describe the fact that Sanders has large crowds of passionate supporters as in itself Trumpian, whereas Bloomberg and Biden, with their histories of racism, sexism, mental decline, lying, and support for the rich, actually manifest the parts of Trump's being that are the problem. Bernie Sanders is real, he's genuinely what every person who has professed liberal opinions over the past thirty-odd years claims to be. The people who hate him are not all political operatives, but they're people who think like those operatives do, fake as hell smiling backstabbers who are allergic to the real. There are huge contradictions between the values they claim to have and how they act, and so they are unable to see the lies of the politicians they support. However, the rest of us, the vast majority of society, see through all of it, and recognize Bernie Sanders as being genuine. This is why Bernie Sanders can win, and why he should win, and why he'll be able to be a good president once in office. He's right, when everyone else for the past forty years has been wrong. Bernie Sanders is right because he's the only person who is not lying to themselves, and that gives him an enormous advantage in terms of his basic relationship to reality.

[rabbitindisguise]

Honestly don't understand the whole "liberal moderates won't vote for Sanders!" fearmongering all over my news feed because of the advertisement dollars or what the fuck ever (Bezos and Buttigieg are clearly dumping their money on Biden like people trying to get water out of a sinking boat with a leaky pail keep dumping water back in the damn boat)

Like, first of all. Do liberal moderates even exist anymore. If they do, we're not friends, and I'm not interested in changing that.

Secondly, we decide who to vote for. And if we're truly actually committed to blue no matter what, then getting the anti-establishment vote from the third party candidates is worth all the handwringing a moderate democrat is going to feel about Sanders before they vote blue. To be frankly honest, the base they're hailing as the Suburban Blue Waves is unreliable as fuck. They didn't come out to play during the 2016 election. So what if they thought it was a done deal? I'm not gonna forgive that because it didn't get the results we needed. In comparison, Bernie bros are fuckin rabid forces to be reckoned with. I hate their sexism but for fucks sake, stick them in the election with Trump where they belong. I'd watch that nonsense like a WWE match. They can doxx each other back and forth while the rest of us do actual politics.

Thirdly. Trump says Sanders can't win. Trump is very bad at a lot of things, but Trump generally relies on fearmongering his own base to rage so they show up. The fact that he says he can't win is clearly targeting Democratics because simple reverse psychology is something Republicans are aware of. To endorse that position is to say you genuinely believe turnout after four years of a trump presidency is a genuine issue. Ethically and morally, I'm not sure how that is the god damn case. Pick a marginalized grou and Trump has tried to wipe them off the face of this earth. Is there some mythic democrat out there that doesn't give a shit about that, even though the Democratic party is the Giving A Shit About People Party?

And if you think that it is an issue that can be solved by reviving Obama Era "the president is going to commit war crimes the Democratic party will still be getting Republican criticism for years later despite that hypocrisy, but at least he didn't ruin the country worse than it already was!" moderate politics then you all profoundly don't understand what "I'm committed to a blue candidate no matter who the fuck they are" means for people like me who are the ~leftest left~

So yes. I will vote for Biden if he gets the primary because I stand by what I said a year ago and I'm no coward. I know everyone is oh so worried about the Will Probably Not Survive Another Trump Presidency Directly democrats (/s). I don't want him to win because I don't want to vote for his sorry ass. But I will. I will swallow whatever corporate bullshit is being pushed as an additional step in my lifelong pursuit of seeing a socialist in office. I expect every true supporter of Bernie to do the same. And I will give them grief if they don't. We cannot afford Trump to exist. That, at least, I am committed to.

But if he fucking loses I will not shut up about this bullshit for the rest of my life. Don't think there's a non-angry option either. I will be calling Biden and every supporter for his campaign every day if he wins, demanding better. I will be a nuisance so annoying but within the realms of acceptable behavior that there will be a new meme about a bunch of youths that do nothing but exist to thwart moderate politics. There is no way Biden goes well for you, Oh Moderate Fearing Democrat, the real moderate we have to worry about. The moderate phonecall from inside the house. The pearlcluther of devil's advocate politics. The Hypothetical Democrats Are Scarier Than The Reality Of Republicans championship winner, four years running. I will not curb my politics if Biden wins. I will not curb my politics if he loses. And my god, if he does lose, like Hillary Clinton, because everyone believes the country isn't "ready for socialism" . . . politics needs to start navel gazing until it realizes the only cockblocker of socialism are the people terrified that people won't like socialism. And that those people are all cowards. And that those people will have to deal with my socialism supporting anarchist ass until people stop dying from numerous preventable things. Fearful of the moderate democrat opinion, it is you who is the coward more than the moderate democrat themselves. I may have preferred Warren because electability did come to mind, but I never went so far as Biden out of my fears.

And I say all this, determined to vote blue. I have more dedication that any voter that thinks this is even a question. There is no question. Trump would rather see me dead in the streets, and I am hardly the most oppressed person in the world. If Trump wins, it will further embolden my Trump supporters and their transphobic bigotry. On top of supporting them in hurting people for no other reason than being born porn, or a person of color, or a woman, or a thousand other things. I have no choice but to vote blue. Anyone WITH a choice has only benefitted from Trump's presidency. And I damn well hope everyone with an inch of liberal beliefs realizes that their lives have been altered for the worse. The mythical moderate democrat included.

Because otherwise a blue win will be a hollow success, all fanfare and no substance. The moderate democrats will have learned nothing of what it is to be a compassionate human being. And Trump will still pose a risk until he's dead. I want this election to ruin any chance of him ever being elected again, and I'm convinced Bernie is the best way to do that. Undo the damage and move towards actual tangible progress in the hopes that the racism and bigotry standards in stark contrast with people illogically denying its benefits.

If you have a primary vote coming up in your state, consider the me-and-people-like-me ramifications. But who am I kidding. Who the hell is on Tumblr voting Biden. I'm preaching to the choir. In light of that, might as well end this on a different note: may none of us fuckin suffer as a result of a specter that may not even fuckin exist.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Over the weekend, an ABC/Washington Post poll found that most Democrats now back former Vice President Joe Biden, but enthusiasm for his candidacy was, on the other hand, pretty lackluster.

Just 24 percent of his supporters said they were “very” enthusiastic about supporting him. This marked the lowest level of enthusiasm for a Democratic presidential candidate that ABC/Washington Post has found in the last 20 years. And perhaps even more troubling for Biden was that nearly twice as many of President Trump’s supporters (53 percent) said they were “very” enthusiastic about his candidacy.

This, of course, has sparked comparisons to 2016 when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found herself in a similar situation — running neck-and-neck with Trump and with only 32 percent saying they were “very” enthusiastic about supporting her in September 2016. Biden, of course, is already 8 points below that mark now.

So does Biden have an enthusiasm problem? What’s the case for why he might and the case for why we shouldn’t read too much into this now?

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): I don’t think this is something Biden should worry about, at least not right now. We’ve just come off a knock-down, drag-out, 15-month-long primary fight. And some would argue it’s still going on, with Sen. Bernie Sanders still contesting the nomination!

It’s a lot to ask for the party to be totally united at this early juncture. I’d guess that, by September, Biden will have as good or better enthusiasm numbers as Clinton did in September 2016.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): It feels so quaint to be debating a horse-race question in the middle of a pandemic.

But basically: I don’t think enthusiasm is a terribly meaningful indicator above and beyond what is already reflected in polls.

Sanders’s voters were more enthusiastic than Biden’s in the primaries. But he’s actually tended to underperform his polls. Sometimes higher enthusiasm means you have a narrower base, and the other candidate has more room to turn out undecideds, etc.

An important qualification to all of this is that most of the polls so far are conducted among registered voters when really we want to see likely voter polls, which won’t really be reliable for another several months.

nrakich: Yeah, Biden leads in most general election national polls right now, but likely-voter polls tend to be a few points better for Republicans than registered-voter polls, and as Nate says, we don’t have a ton of these polls right now.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): It’s hard to say much about enthusiasm right now since we are still in the midst of the Demcoratic primary ending. For instance, I think enthusiasm around him could still grow, especially after Barack and Michelle Obama have enthusiastically endorsed him, Sanders is behind him, and he has picked a running mate who perhaps excites the party.

sarahf: That’s fair, but how do we reconcile that Trump’s very enthusiastic support is so much higher than Biden’s — 29 points?

perry: Trump is the Republican Party’s candidate, and he just won his primary with overwhelming support. The party is unified behind him. People have voted for him once. I’m not surprised his supporters are fairly enthusiastic about him.

natesilver: I don’t care how much higher a quality is that doesn’t matter.

But honestly, I think this discussion is premature in some ways. The general election campaign hasn’t begun. The primary campaign is in a zombie-like state between being sort of finished and sort of not.

We’re in the midst of a pandemic. And we don’t have very many likely-voter polls, and to the extent we do, they’re not liable to be very reliable anyway at this early stage.

Perhaps most importantly, Democrats can be very enthusiastic about beating Trump even if they’re not that enthusiastic about Biden.

perry: Right, that’s the most important thing.

nrakich: Yeah, I find it hard to get worked up by any general-election polling at this point. We’re still so early in this massive news story that could significantly help or hurt Trump.

sarahf: But is it a bad sign for Biden — and enthusiasm for his campaign — that 15 percent of Sanders supporters in the ABC poll say they’ll vote for Trump?

natesilver: Twelve percent of Sanders primary voters voted for Trump in 2016, and another 14 percent voted for a third-party candidate or didn’t vote. So those numbers are in line with four years ago. And there are fewer Sanders voters than there were four years ago, so if anything those numbers are better for Biden than they were for Clinton.

nrakich: Yeah, historically, that would be a totally normal number. In addition to the numbers Nate cites for 2016, another study found that 25 percent of Clinton voters voted for McCain over Obama in 2008.

So it’s not like this is something past presidential candidates haven’t had to overcome as well. It can make a difference in a close election, but bigger factors (e.g., the national environment, the economy) will probably determine the outcome in the end.

sarahf: OK. So what I’m hearing is that the idea that Biden has a real enthusiasm gap is — at least at this point — overrated! But isn’t it at least somewhat worrisome that there now appears to be an effort to draft New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo for president?

natesilver: Ohhhhh Sarah, this is such trollbait.

nrakich: Let’s be clear — that “ooh, Andrew Cuomo should run for president!” talk is utterly nonsensical, non-serious and half-baked.

sarahf: It is! I’m not defending it. But look at what happened when that talk took off last fall. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick both entered the race as opposed to throwing their support behind someone else.

natesilver: People don’t understand the process. People think you can magically wave a magic wand and that Cuomo becomes the nominee.

Look, if Biden drops out for some reason (health, scandal, etc.), then, obviously, you’ll need a different nominee.

And I do think Cuomo might be the second-most likely nominee, after Biden.

If you need an emergency replacement nominee because Biden drops out, he’s fairly compatible with Biden ideologically.

And frankly, the “emergency replacement” scenario — while unlikely — is still probably more likely than “Bernie wins all remaining contests by 20 points and wins a pledged-delegate plurality” scenario.

nrakich: I do wonder to what extent people actually believe/want Cuomo to be the nominee, and how much is just a fun daydream.

perry: I live in Kentucky. People are suddenly talking very positively about our Gov. Andy Beshear, who is a Democrat. This is in part because Trump is doing press conferences in which he ignores the evidence and seems as interested in defending himself as he is in addressing the issues. So Cuomo comes off well in comparison, as do other governors, like Ohio’s Mike DeWine, a Republican.

It also helps that Cuomo is doing a lot of media and lives in the media capital of the United States. Plenty of governors would be getting buzz if they were doing a competent job and were based in NYC, for example, Gavin Newsom (California), Jay Inslee (Washington), Beshear, DeWine.

nrakich: I think the Cuomo thing — both talk of him becoming the nominee and his role as a leader on the coronavirus in general — has been overinflated by the New York-centric media.

perry: Also, Biden has not been super-impressive in his media appearances, so there is that.

Cuomo has been better on that front, as have other governors.

sarahf: But Biden has been kind of missing from the coronavirus response, right? Part of that is because, as you all point out, he’s not a current governor tasked with spearheading preventive measures in his state, but it does seem as if it’s harder for him to have a natural place in the conversation.

natesilver: I don’t think anything Biden’s doing right now matters very much.

He’s also done more than the media has generally acknowledged.

perry: I think Biden is in the conversation. But his general ideas (Trump should listen to the medical experts, social distancing should continue) are what basically the media, governors, experts, everyone else is saying. Biden is not trying to stand out in that conversation or be interesting, which I think is normatively good. He is not offering weird ideas to stand out.

natesilver: The narrative is dumb. It’s always dumb at this stage of the campaign, when the primary winner has in all probability been decided but it’s not technically over yet. It would be a lot worse if not for coronavirus since the media would have a lot more news cycles to fill with fake drama.

nrakich: Yeah, Sarah, Biden hasn’t been as much of a presence on our TV sets, but I don’t think that’s his fault, as Nate pointed out. I think cable news just hasn’t been giving him a lot of airtime. The other day, major networks decided to air Cuomo’s briefing on the coronavirus instead of Biden’s speech.

But what Biden has to say on the coronavirus is more relevant to a majority of the country.

natesilver: It shouldn’t give him a lot of airtime!

Biden’s not hugely relevant at the moment.

nrakich: I think they should give him more than Cuomo! Biden might be president at this time next year. Cuomo governs just 6 percent of the country.

natesilver: Cuomo is dealing with the realities on the ground in a way Biden isn’t. And New York has a lot more than 6 percent of coronavirus cases.

He’s also doing a pretty effective job of communicating about coronavirus data and where the state and the country is in combating the epidemic.

I don’t think he’d get as much press coverage if he hadn’t been doing a good job with the communication side of things. It’s earned media in the truest sense of the word.

sarahf: That’s fair. A lot of what’s happening now is outside of Biden’s control, and obviously, there’s a lot we can’t answer, but Americans still rate Trump really highly on the economy — 57 percent said they approve of how he’s handling it, which marked a new high for him in that same ABC/WaPo poll. What’s more, Trump led Biden on this metric, 50 to 42 percent. Couldn’t that pose a real problem for Biden moving forward, especially if it’s harder for him to be a part of the conversation now?

nrakich: I think this is Exhibit A for it being too early to say anything. It seems like the economy is going to be in real trouble. If unemployment hits 30 percent or the gross domestic product growth rate is -15 percent, I don’t think Americans will continue to approve of Trump’s handling of the economy.

natesilver: No, I don’t think anything about the polls right now tells us very much about what the situation is likely to look like in September, or November.

People haven’t been living with this for very long. A lot of the consequences haven’t happened yet. And after the consequences, there’s the opportunity for a rebound, or a second wave.

You just have to be patient. Right now, I spend a lot more time looking at, say, the number of new COVID-19 cases in Italy than at Trump’s approval rating. I’d argue that the former tells us more about his reelection odds than the latter, since it tells us something about the extent to which a coronavirus epidemic can slow down post-peak.

sarahf: I can’t help but think that part of the narrative is being set now, though, about Biden having an enthusiasm problem. Of course, it could be that enthusiasm for Biden doesn’t really matter because enthusiasm to elect anyone but Trump is a bigger motivating factor, but I do wonder how that plays out in the coming months. Even if the enthusiasm gap isn’t real, could the perception of one still hurt Biden?

natesilver: Just one troll question after another.

sarahf: I know! But I think people are thinking about this — and even if it’s premature now — I do wonder how it takes root, even when it shouldn’t.

nrakich: That’s interesting, Sarah. Yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if cable news continually covers Biden with the implication that he is somehow inadequate or not up to the task of beating Trump. I don’t know if that could become a self-fulfilling prophecy or not.

natesilver: I think if anything people tend to overlearn the lessons of the most recent election. A lot of the templates that people applied from the 2016 primaries to the 2020 primaries led to completely wrong predictions, like vastly understating Biden’s chances.

The fact that Democrats are worried about an enthusiasm gap because of 2016 could easily help Biden because it will scare Democrats into voting.

nrakich: I certainly agree that people try way too hard to retrofit the lessons of the previous election. To many (especially those with an anti-Sanders agenda), Clinton lost because Sanders voters weren’t united around her. But can’t it just be enough that she lost because it was an extremely tight election and that happens sometimes?

perry: Biden could very well lose the general election. And he could lose in the same way that Clinton did — a center-left Democrat wins the primary on the strength of older voters, particularly older black voters, but then loses in the general, with Trump winning in key swing states even as he loses the national popular vote.

But Clinton almost won and Biden very much could win. I don’t think Biden has an enthusiasm “problem,” but having enthusiastic supporters who are donating a lot of money, volunteering and eventually turning out to vote in large numbers always helps. So getting as much of Sanders’s crowd on board as possible will be useful for Biden.

Do I think it would be better for Biden if polls showed people were excited to vote for him? Yes, because I do think there is the potential that “people are holding their nose and voting for Biden” becomes a narrative.

nrakich: I also think a lot of the problem is that no one media members or the Twitterati know personally is enthusiastic to vote for Biden. Which of course speaks to the bubbles they live in. But that can have real effects on the narrative, as Perry said.

perry: But it’s hard for me to look at these polls right now and say Biden has an actual enthusiasm problem — or really many problems at all.

[tptruepolitics]

Election Prediction 2020

So, I know this didn’t get posted when I said it would, but I think the closer we get to the election the busier life seems to be. Either way, I hope you enjoy this 2,400 word unofficial read!

Half a month away from the most critical election in our lifetime, and despite what the polls may say, most people believe that it is still anybody’s game. This is so true, in fact, that the “get out the vote” effort has never been more prominent. Between the barrage of political news, the endless commercials from “non-partisan” or “independent” groups telling you to get out to the polls and make your voice heard, or the political t-shirts that half of the random people you meet are wearing, there is no avoiding the fateful decision of who to vote for this election cycle, or whether to vote at all. Now, I can touch on the second issue a little later, but I perfectly intend to ignore the first one completely. It’s not my job to tell you who to vote for. The main focus of this article will be a prediction (of sorts) as to who might win. I say of sorts, because I will largely be ignoring conventional methods i.e. polls, surveys, and history in general, and will instead be focusing on feelings. I know that Ben Shapiro famously claims that “facts don’t care about your feelings” and this is a credible claim when you are discussing an issue that has everything to do with facts and nearly nothing to do with feelings. However, in this regard, the lauded political analyst is missing a key component to the election cycle.

Last election cycle, in 2016, it seemed that everyone and their mother was completely and utterly shocked when the election results revealed Donald Trump to be the victor – everyone that is, except me. I was nearly certain, although I revealed my prediction to no one (shame on me), that Donald Trump would win, and was subsequently minutely surprised at how surprised everyone was. Not to name drop here more than I should, but even Ben Shapiro claims to have lost money on the election, and still proclaims today that virtually no one saw this coming. Even one of my best friends – who voted for Trump – did not expect him to actually win. Why is this? Well, most people were reading the polls and saw that Trump was behind a fair amount days before the election. For those who didn’t support Trump, they couldn’t imagine that there would be enough “crazy” people in the country to vote for someone whom they viewed as a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, Islamaphobic, xenophobic monster, who was altogether unfit to be the President of the US. The people who supported didn’t believe that they had the votes to elect him, because of all the hateful information that was being spread about him, and were simply voting for him as a vote against the system. There were only a few people who believed he could actually win. I was one of them, not to toot my own horn here.

Why did I believe he could win? Well, I was reading the responses of the media, and the responses of my (college) friends, and I was tuning into my solidarity. Firstly, anytime I had a conversation with friends about politics, it was about how bad Trump was, not how Hillary Clinton was such a great candidate. That was the first hint! No one liked Hillary Clinton. As a matter of fact, I think this goes back further than Hillary. Surely, she was an awful candidate that made you cringe every time you heard her speak, but her politics weren’t much different from her predecessor. Barack Obama, in my opinion, is only a popular president on paper. He was a smooth talker, had a way of feeling relatable, even through his highly polished statements, not unlike Clinton, and was an attractive man, for whatever that’s worth. Nevertheless, his policies were garbage for the most part, and they were not the focus of his presidency. The American public liked Barack Obama because of his personality, not his politics. Hillary was proof of that: nearly mirrored policies, but none of the charisma. Some people pointed out that Hillary had no consistency in her political stances, having flipped on many of them over the years, and that made her unreliable. I don’t think this was a relevant issue for election purposes. Barack Obama got elected with nearly no political history, and therefore an empty track record. No, the elections are hardly ever about credibility. So, because people were not excited about Hillary Clinton, they did not show up to vote. Sure! That’s a fair argument, and it seems to have weight in the voter turnout statistics.

What about Donald Trump? Were people really excited about him? That’s the real question! Trump routinely turned off many in the Republican Party because of his brashness and rudeness. The people that voted for Trump were different people than voted for Mitt Romney four years prior. It is true that Donald Trump did not out-perform Romney as far as sheer numbers are concerned, and it’s also true that he performed nearly identically to Romney in many areas of the country. However, there is a difference between getting the same amount of votes, and getting the same votes. I do think that there were many people in the country who felt disenfranchised about the state of politics in the US, and wouldn’t have voted had Trump not been on the ballot. He certainly reached a new breed of voter, despite turning many away. Now, the real question becomes, will the voters he previously turned away and did not clinch last election cycle be willing to cast their votes for him this election cycle? And also, will it be enough?

Last election cycle, Donald Trump ran on conservative principles, but many people did not believe that he was going to govern conservatively. This was another reason, some conservatives did not vote for Trump: they believed he would swindle the American people – run as a conservative, and govern as a liberal. Have they been proven wrong or what? Since 2016 the Trump administration – no matter what you might think of the policies themselves – has instituted more conservative policies than the past three conservative administrations before it. For the conservatives that were hesitant to give Trump their support in the 2016 election, this should be a wakeup call. He is not putting forth empty promises. He fully intends to do what he says. Have some of them fallen flat? Sure! Did Mexico ever pay for that border wall? Of course they didn’t. That was an impossible promise to make, and I don’t honestly think he even believed he could make Mexico pay for that wall, but it sure made headline news! So, I do think that Trump can make headway in the conservative/republican voter turnout. I believe that he will get more conservative votes this year that in 2016 by a lot, but once again, will it be enough?

This brings us to Joe Biden: 47(ish) years in politics – the exact opposite of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. He has quite the resume. Whether you think that Joe Biden’s positions in the past were good, you have to admit that he has the appeal of dependability. He comes off as friendly, polite, goofy even, and a return to “normalcy” – whatever that means to you. This appeal is extremely appetizing to those who care less about the politics of a president, but care more about the extreme, over-the-top news coverage, day-in and day-out of the every move of the President and his administration. The scandals, the conspiracies, the constant barrage of political haymaking – they just want it to stop, and Joe Biden is a return to that. Now, the real question is, is that enough? If we are just talking about how people feel, without taking policies and current events into account, Trump would probably win by a landslide. Once we put current affairs into the equation and recalculate feelings, the water gets muddier.

2020 is the year to remember, right? That’s what they’re saying. It’s the worst year in the history of years. Wrong. . . This is untrue for a couple of reasons. Firstly, does anyone remember 2016? That was supposed to be the year that we tried to forget. There were memes about history books skipping 2016 and students asking “what happened to 2016”, with teachers responding, “We don’t talk about that”. This seems to be what is going to happen every four years or so for the rest of humanity. The year you live in is the worst it can get and it can’t get any worse. I mean, to recap this year, there was Corona Virus (big one), George Floyd dying, riots that burned businesses and hurt innocent people, murder hornets (is that still a thing), wild fires across California, did I mention Corona Virus, the shutting down of the economy leading to the largest and fastest recession since who knows when, the conclusion of Russian Gate (YES! THAT WAS THS YEAR! Feels like it was 17 years ago, doesn’t it?), and did I mention Corona Virus!! I’m sure I missed stuff. There’s too much to recall. But is this the worst year in the history of our country? No. . . . and it won’t be remembered that way either. I can think of several years that were worse without even trying: Civil War years, any year with slavery I think would count, Jim Crow segregation years, the Great Depression years, the Attack on Pearl Harbor and the years following, the Cold War years, the Columbine shooting year, 2001 and the aftermath of 9/11. All of these are worse than this year, and I hope it stays that way, whether Joe Biden gets elected or Donald Trump gets reelected. I think it would be wiser of us to focus on what we have rather than on what we don’t have.

Now, how does all this affect the election? Well, it doesn’t look good for Trump, that’s how. You see, not being in charge of the administration has some really great benefits! The biggest and best of those is that you can point to all the terrible things that happened in the past year and say, “that wouldn’t have happened under my watch.” Is that a true statement? No. Is that a false statement? Also, no! It’s an unprovable statement, which leaves all to the imagination. And trust me; people have active imaginations this year. This is precisely the attack that Joe Biden and the Democrats are using, and it’s a smart move. It’s pretty much the only move, because aside from the craziness of this year, I’m pretty sure most people were satisfied with the Trump presidency. The economy was booming, taxes were cut, ISIS was stomped out, peace in the Middle East is underway (missed that headline, did you?), unemployment was at a historical low, crime was low… I mean say what you want, but Trump’s administration was doing well overall. The effects that the current events of this year have on the election nearly wipe away the memories of voters though. And it is all about whether the people view Trump as responsible for them or not. Honestly, I think the jury is still out on that one. I think it is fair to say that the election will be the definitive way to tell whether Trump is getting all the blame or only some of it.

So, what about the past month? The presidential debate was an opportunity for Trump to really explain how he didn’t screw up and show people that he is fighting for them. Instead it was Chewbacca vs. the Swedish Chef (yes, I stole that from Ben Shapiro, so sue me), where Donald Trump just howled at anyone who would talk, and Joe Biden just filled in the gaps with mostly nonsensical jargon. Of course, Ben Shapiro missed the role of Chris Wallace who was Miss Piggy trying to save Kermit by yelling at the Wookie every time he tried to bash her hubby. Or was Trump Miss Piggy and Joe Fozzie Bear, and Chris Kermit? I’m not sure. Either way, Trump hurt himself more than he helped himself. The Vice Presidential Debates, which of course no one watched, were much more substantive and meaningful, especially since it is VERY likely that Joe Biden will not last through his first term. This debate, had anyone watched it, would have helped Trump immensely. I don’t think it was the “boom! Gotcha!” debate that every conservative plays it up to be – and I mean every conservative. But I do think that it was a good showing for how similar Kamala Harris is to Hillary Clinton in demeanor. That could easily be a turnoff for many voters, reducing enthusiasm for Biden (or what little enthusiasm there is for him).

That’s another point; Joe Biden doesn’t have much of an appeal except that he isn’t Trump. Now, with the massive get out the vote efforts that are upon us country wide, I think it is safe to say that Biden will not have too much trouble getting votes from people who are less than politically inclined. So, the massive amounts of voters simply against Trump may truly be the turnout of the election. I have friends that believe that Trump will win in a landslide, and I have friends that think that Biden will win in a landslide. I’m leaning towards the latter. This is my official prediction. I will be shocked if Trump actually makes it through this time.

One final note, however, if you are indeed a person who is being pressured into voting one way or another and you haven’t the slightest political insight, stay home. Uninformed voters are the single greatest threat to a democracy. When everyone is voting based on feelings instead of policy, the entire country loses, no matter who is running. It is your right and privilege to vote, but not your obligation or responsibility. It is your obligation and responsibility to make an informed vote, should you chose to vote. Otherwise, you are doing everyone a great disservice.

With that said, I hope you have enjoyed this mini and certainly unofficial analysis of the election 2020. Tell me what you think! If you think I’m full of #*$%, that’s nothing new to politics! That’s why we have so much TP here at True Politics!

[nigeiadigitalmarketingcompany]

2:00PM Water Cooler 8/7/2019

Digital Elixir 2:00PM Water Cooler 8/7/2019

By Lambert Strether of Corrente

Trade

“U.S. agricultural exports to China plummeted more than 50% last year to $9.1 billion as tariffs raised the cost of American soybeans, pork and other farm products. The exports dropped another 20% in the first six months of this year. The pain is rippling through agricultural supply chains. One forecast says tariffs could cost the sector as many as 71,000 jobs over the next two years” [Wall Street Journal]. (Apparently, China’s swine fever epidemic has not cut demand for soy.)

Politics

“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” –James Madison, Federalist 51

“They had one weapon left and both knew it: treachery.” –Frank Herbert, Dune

“2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination” [RealClearPolitics] (average of five polls). As of August 5: Biden fluctuates to 32.3% (32.2), Sanders continues climb to 16.7% (16.5%), Warren flat at 14.0% (14.0%), Buttigieg flat at 5.5% (5.5%), Harris down at 10.2% (10.3%), Beto separating himself from the bottom feeders, interestingly. Others Brownian motion. So, I think we can conclude that Sanders won both debates.

* * *

2020

Sanders (D)(1): Sanders calls his shot not only the effect of trade deals on workers, but on the two-party system. In 2000. The whole video is worth a listen, since the Tweet doesn’t quote all of it.

In the year 2000, Congress voted to grant China upgraded trade status, helping it become world's most powerful dictatorship.

Bernie Sanders voted against. He stood next to Pelosi at Dem presser and blasted Bill Clinton. "Let me tell you where he got his money," Sanders intoned. pic.twitter.com/JzBZ3UiXka

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) August 7, 2019

No wonder they hate him….

* * *

“Few candidates have loyal small-dollar donor bases” [WaPo]. • Few, but not none:

Turns out small donor money isn’t all that fungible.

“Shadow of Dark Money Grows as 2020 Groups Shun Donor Disclosure” [Bloomberg]. “Democratic and Republican groups raising tens of millions of dollars for the 2020 elections increasingly are keeping their funding sources secret, a trend that watchdog groups warn allows high-dollar donors to gain influence with candidates without risking exposure. Priorities USA, which collected almost $200 million to help Hillary Clinton in 2016, says it wants to spend that much or more to help the next Democratic nominee defeat President Donald Trump. This time, however, Priorities is being funded mostly by undisclosed donations.” • What could go wrong?

“Are the Democrats divided? No — they’re poised to win big if they don’t screw it up” [Bill Curry, Salon]. “Everyone wants to see Warren and Sanders face off against Biden because the real dividing line is between the middle class and the donor class. Warren and Sanders never attack Obama, Biden or each other and they won’t do it in September. What they will do is compare their ideas and campaigns to his. The facts will be fierce, but the delivery will be civil. It’ll be Biden’s toughest test. Progressives want to take a new path, but I’ve yet to meet a “Never Bidener.” The stakes are too high. To defeat Trump, Democrats need to answer his racism with a message of both racial justice and social conciliation, and answer his corruption with a message of economic justice and political reform. So long as their candidates don’t make a fetish of their small differences, they’ll get there.” • White House counsellor to Clinton. Not seeing a whole lot about “economic justice and political reform” from establishment Democrats. Of course, if they hadn’t spent three years yammering about Russia, they might have had time to come up with something.

El Paso and Dayton Shootings

“Dayton shooter may be antifa’s first mass killer” [NY Post]. • I dunno. It’s the shooters pr0n rock band that gets me. I see the El Paso shooter, who — assuming the provenance proves out — wrote a manifesto as being ideologically serious in a way that the Dayton shooter, who was just a mess by all accounts, was not. (We should also think back to the Orlando shootings, where literally everything about the initial stories was wrong). And speaking of pr0n–

“Photos from Dayton and El Paso illustrate the grim routine of mass shootings” [WaPo]. • If I see one more photo of beautiful young people holding candles… Honestly, it’s like some weird kind of pr0n. I don’t equate viewing digital images of people mourning as actually mourning.

Where “we” are:

Panic in Times Square After Motorcycle Is Mistaken for Gunshots https://t.co/F5qsndMPfD

— Dan Froomkin (@froomkin) August 7, 2019

Somehow, I can’t help thinking that a panicked populace is not conducive to sound democratic decision-making…

“What Experts Know About People Who Commit Mass Shootings” [New York Times]. “Can one mass shooting inspire another? Yes… Are video games to blame for mass shootings? The results of studies attempting to clarify the relationship between violent video games and aggression have been mixed, with experts deeply divided on the findings. How strong is the link between mental illness and mass shootings? Tenuous, at best. Would drugging or confining people showing “red flags” prevent massacres? No one knows for certain.” • This is pretty thin stuff.

2018 Post Mortem

No:

.@ChelseaClinton and I are thrilled to announce "The Book of Gutsy Women," out October 1st. It's a conversation about over 100 women who have inspired us—and narrowing it down was a process! https://t.co/DOhSrVq9SC pic.twitter.com/bOVES73FAQ

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 6, 2019

Realignment and Legitimacy

“Is ‘Bernie or Bust’ the Future of the Left?” [New York Times]. • Report on the DSA convention. I dunno, it seems to me that an organization dedicated to seizing the means of production shouldn’t be getting press this good. Perhaps it’s their stand on open borders.

“Twitter says it won’t verify new candidates until they win their primaries” [The Hill]. • Swell. More incumbent protection. That should certainly help Twitter with regulatory issues!

“Inslee Is Doing Very Well in the Power Primary” [Mike the Mad Biologist]. The conclusion: “Democrats in 2021 will need to make people’s lives better in meaningful ways. If not, we will have a repeat of 2010 in 2022, since next time we won’t get Trump, we’ll get someone smarter and more disciplined. As bad as Trump is, President Tom Cotton would be far worse.” • Yep. 2020 is their last shot. Biden/Harris all the way!

They call it historical materialism:

The political continuum hypothesis states that there exist historical precedents besides Nixon and Hitler. It is widely believed outside the United States, in countries Americans have never heard of

— Pinboard (@Pinboard) August 7, 2019

Stats Watch

JOLTS, June 2019 (yesterday): “Moderation in labor demand is this year’s theme of the JOLTS report” [Econoday]. “Quits, which are tracked by Federal Reserve officials for indications of worker mobility and related wage pressure, remain flat… This report hints at easing capacity pressure in the labor market and will likely be welcome by Fed officials who, with last month’s rate cut, are adding new stimulus to the economy.”

MBA Mortgage Applications, week of August 2, 2019: “A big drop in mortgage rates — the result of last week’s rate cut by the Federal Reserve — triggered a surge of refinancing applications” [Econoday].

Shipping: “Slots in heavy-duty truck production lines are opening up but few fleet operators are getting in line. Orders for Class 8 trucks fell last month to their lowest level since 2010” [Wall Street Journal]. “A factory backlog for Class 8 trucks that exceeded 300,000 orders late last year is down by more than a third, and research group FTR expects production to decline 22% next year. The good news for manufacturers is that cancellations have remained relatively light. That could change if weakness in the broader industrial sector gets worse and trucking companies decide to park their current fleet plans.”

The Bezzle: “A pioneer in the meal-kit market is losing its sizzle. Blue Apron Holdings Inc. narrowed its quarterly loss but is still losing customers… and a turnaround could involve a lot more logistics for a business already laden with complicated fulfillment” [Wall Street Journal]. “New Chief Executive Linda Kozlowski says Blue Apron’s plan to boost revenue and customer growth this year will include serving more households and offering greater menu choices, including flexibility to tailor the options…. Perhaps more challenging, analysts say the overall market is already saturated and likely smaller than companies had hoped.”

Tech: “Trump Wants to Make It Basically Impossible to Sue for Algorithmic Discrimination” [Vice]. “The new rule takes aim at a 2015 Supreme Court ruling, which decided that consumers could combat housing discriminatory business practices by making “disparate-impact claims” under the Fair Housing Act of 1968. In a disparate-impact claim, if you find out that a business practice had a disproportionate effect on certain groups of people, then you can hold that business liable—even if it was an unintended consequence….. HUD’s new rule would throw all that out the window by introducing huge loopholes to shield businesses from liability when their algorithms are accused of bias. As Reveal News reported, ‘A hypothetical bank that rejected every loan application filed by African Americans and approved every one filed by white people, for example, would need to prove only that race or a proxy for it was not used directly in constructing its computer model.’ But there is substantial evidence to show that racial bias is fundamentally baked into the way that these algorithms and their data sets are constructed, even if they don’t specifically take race into account.” • Code is law…

Tech: “Amazon Is Coaching Cops on How to Obtain Surveillance Footage Without a Warrant” [Vice]. “When police partner with Ring, Amazon’s home surveillance camera company, they get access to the ‘Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal,’ an interactive map that allows officers to request footage directly from camera owners. Police don’t need a warrant to request this footage, but they do need permission from camera owners. Emails and documents obtained by Motherboard reveal that people aren’t always willing to provide police with their Ring camera footage. However, Ring works with law enforcement and gives them advice on how to persuade people to give them footage. Emails obtained from police department in Maywood, NJ—and emails from the police department of Bloomfield, NJ, which were also posted by Wired—show that Ring coaches police on how to obtain footage. The company provides cops with templates for requesting footage… Ring suggests cops post often on Neighbors, Ring’s free ‘neighborhood watch’ app, where Ring camera owners have the option of sharing their camera footage.” • It’s a little tough to rank Big. Tech companies for evil right now, but surely Amazon gets a boost for this.

Tech: “Jeff Bezos feels a tap on the shoulder. Ahem, Mr Amazon, care to explain how Capital One’s AWS S3 buckets got hacked?” [The Register]. “After last week’s revelations that a hacker stole the personal details of 106 million Capital One credit card applicants from its Amazon-hosted cloud storage, a US Senator has demanded Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos explain what exactly what went wrong. The sensitive information was siphoned from Capital One’s Amazon Web Services S3 buckets by a former AWS engineer, who was arrested and charged at the end of July…. Wyden is particularly concerned that other companies that store their data in the AWS cloud may have been hit in the same way by the suspected Capital One thief, Seattle-based software engineer Paige Thompson. He cited reports that Ford, the University of Michigan, the Ohio Department of Transportation, and others may have suffered similar losses of information at the hands of Thompson, and that this may point to a systemic weakness in Amazon’s security.” • Uh oh. Keeping my data on my hard disk, thank you very much.

Tech: “FCC Plans to Redo Flawed Broadband Maps” [Inside Sources]. “Accurate broadband maps would help under [-served] areas get internet access, and they could also be used to hold telecom companies T-Mobile and Sprint accountable for their pledge to build out 5G to cover 85 percent of rural Americans in three years and 99 percent of all Americans in six years once they complete their merger. (The combined company will face financial penalties if they don’t meet these conditions.) According to the FCC’s Report and Order for the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, the FCC will require all internet service providers (ISPs) ‘to submit granular data maps of the areas where they have broadband-capable networks and make service available.’ Previously, ISPs submitted census block data, which means even if they only served one person within a census tract or county, they counted that entire tract or county has having internet access.” • Wow.

Tech: “More on Backdooring (or Not) WhatsApp” [Schneier on Security]. “Yesterday, I blogged about a Facebook plan to backdoor WhatsApp by adding client-side scanning and filtering. It seems that I was wrong, and there are no such plans.” • A retraction, which speaks well of Schneier.

Tech: “Hacked Equifax Customer Receives 10,000 Stolen Social Security Numbers As Share Of Class Action Settlement” [The Onion]. • News In Photos, so the headline is the joke.

Manufacturing: “Boeing Holds Workshops With China Carriers to Bring 737 Max Back” [Industry Week]. “Boeing invited pilots and engineers from China Southern Airlines Co. to a gathering in Guangzhou on Monday, according to an emailed statement from Boeing. More such workshops will be held with Air China Ltd., China Eastern Airlines Corp., Xiamen Airlines Co. and Hainan Airlines Holding Co. in their respective hubs this week. The gatherings are among the latest steps Boeing is taking to bring the plane back, though the exact timing remains unclear. Boeing is redesigning the plane’s flight-control system and is still aiming to present a final software package to regulators by September, though the timeline could slip, a person familiar with the plans has said. China Southern and Air China are among Chinese carriers seeking compensation from the U.S. manufacturer for order delays and losses caused by the grounding of the 737 Max in the wake of two deadly crashes.”

Transportation: “Self-Driving Trucks Are Ready to Do Business in Texas” [WIRED]. “The truck developers come for the weather: It can get chilly in Texas, but the state doesn’t get the months of snow, which can bedevil automated vehicle sensor technology.” • So, when the headline says “in Texas,” it really does mean “in Texas.”

Transportation: “How Much Traffic Do Uber and Lyft Cause?” [CityLab]. “Today the ride-hailing giants released a joint analysis showing that their vehicles are responsible for significant portions of [vehicle-miles traveled (VMT)] in six major urban centers… Now, the Fehr and Peers memo indicates that [transportation network companies (TNCs)] accounted for nearly twice the VMT in San Francisco than the SFCTA had estimated, said Gregory Erhardt, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Kentucky who has researched Uber and Lyft’s effects on public transit ridership. That means the services are likely delaying commuters more, too… On average, between the six cities, just 54 to 62 percent of the vehicle miles traveled by Lyfts and Ubers were with a rider in tow. A third of these miles involve drivers slogging around in between passengers (“deadheading,” in taxi-driver argot); 9 to 10 percent are drivers on their way to a pickup.”

Transportation: “Swiss Post Suspends Drone Delivery Service After Second Crash” [IEEE Spectrum]. “For about a year, Swiss Post and Matternet have been collaborating on a drone delivery service in three different cities in Switzerland, with drones ferrying lab samples between hospitals far faster and more efficiently than is possible with conventional ground transportation. The service had made about 3,000 successful flights as of last January, but a January 25th crash into Lake Zurich put things on hold until April. A second crash in May caused Swiss Post to suspend the service indefinitely, and a recently released interim report published by the Swiss Safety Investigation Board provides some detail on what happened—and a reminder that for all the delivery drone hype, there are some basic problems that are still not totally solved.” • In this case, parachutes that deploy “if something goes wrong.” More: “We have no idea exactly how safe Amazon’s drones are, or Google’s drones are. Even Zipline, which has been flying drones dozens of times per day for years, is still working to make their drones safer. What we do know is that crashes can (and do) happen, and the Swiss Post incidents are further evidence that we’ll need a much better understanding of where all of the risk is if we want drones flying regularly over populated areas.”

Concentration: “Australia Strips Google/Facebook to Their Underwear” [Matt Stoller, Big]. “The [Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC)]’s most important contribution to the debate is to say, unvarnished, that Google and Facebook have exceptional amounts of market power and the incentive to use it to manipulate and exploit publishers, businesses, and users. Over the past fifteen years, Google and Facebook have become, as Sims put it in his press conference, “essential gateways for consumers and businesses.” The consequences of this shift are the killing of the free press and the mass manipulation of users….” • Most NC readers already know that, but Stoller’s post is well worth a read for the wealth of detail and clarity of exposition.

Mr. Market: “Carry On Like Nothing Really Matters. Until It Does” [John Authers, Bloomberg]. “It’s no secret that yields on sovereign bonds around the world remain stunningly and historically low. And that, in turn, means a revival in the ‘carry trade.’… Carry trading is best known from its incarnation in the foreign-exchange market. It involves borrowing in a currency where interest rates are low and parking that money in a currency with higher rates, pocketing the difference, or ‘carry.’ Ideally, you get paid for doing nothing… In practice, any increase in volatility or perceived risk — which can be nicely proxied by the CBOE Volatility Index, or VIX — spells doom for the carry trade.” • Uh oh.

Today’s Fear & Greed Index: 20 Extreme Fear (previous close: 27, Fear) [CNN]. One week ago: 48 (Neutral). (0 is Extreme Fear; 100 is Extreme Greed). Last updated Aug 7 at 12:19pm. • Restored at reader request. Note that the index is not always updated daily, sadly.

The Biosphere

“Who Will Save the Amazon (and How)?” [Foreign Policy]. “Aug. 5, 2025: In a televised address to the nation, U.S. President Gavin Newsom announced that he had given Brazil a one-week ultimatum to cease destructive deforestation activities in the Amazon rainforest. If Brazil did not comply, the president warned, he would order a naval blockade of Brazilian ports and airstrikes against critical Brazilian infrastructure. The president’s decision came in the aftermath of a new United Nations report cataloging the catastrophic global effects of continued rainforest destruction, which warned of a critical “tipping point” that, if reached, would trigger a rapid acceleration of global warming. Although China has stated that it would veto any U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Brazil, the president said that a large “coalition of concerned states” was prepared to support U.S. action. At the same time, Newsom said the United States and other countries were willing to negotiate a compensation package to mitigate the costs to Brazil for protecting the rainforest, but only if it first ceased its current efforts to accelerate development.” • Ulp.

“Humans versus Earth: the quest to define the Anthropocene” [Nature]. “Crawford Lake is one of ten sites around the globe that researchers are studying as potential markers for the start of the Anthropocene, an as-yet-unofficial designation that is being considered for inclusion in the geological time scale. The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), a committee of 34 researchers formed by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) in 2009, is leading the work, with the aim of crafting a proposal to formally recognize the Anthropocene. This new epoch would mark a clear departure from the Holocene, which started with the close of the last ice age. To define a new epoch, the researchers need to find a representative marker in the rock record that identifies the point at which human activity exploded to such a massive scale that it left an indelible signature on the globe. Given how much people have done to the planet, there are many potential markers. “Scientifically, in terms of evidence, we’re spoiled for choice, but we have to pin it down,” says Jan Zalasiewicz, a palaeobiologist at the University of Leicester, UK, and chair of the AWG…. In the end, it will be the rocks that have the final say.” • In more ways than one.

“A mission to Mars could cause learning impairment and anxiety, study says” [CNN]. “On a long-term spaceflight mission to Mars, astronauts will be continuously exposed to low-dose radiation in deep space. A new study found that this exposure can cause impairments in the brains of mice, resulting in learning and memory issues as well as anxiety… Based on their findings, the researchers believe that one out of five astronauts on a deep space mission would likely experienced anxiety. One in three would be more likely to deal with memory issues. And all of them may struggle when it comes to making decisions, which would be crucial on a mission to Mars where communications with the Earth are delayed by up to 20 minutes.” • Surely there is a science fiction story with this premise, though I can’t remember one. Certainly lots of potential for dark comedy…

“This tiny insect could be delivering toxic pesticides to honey bees and other beneficial bugs” [Science]. “According to a new study, neonicotinoids can kill beneficial insects such as honey bees, hoverflies, and parasitic wasps by contaminating honeydew, a sugar-rich liquid excreted by certain insects…. The study suggests honeydew could be another way beneficial insects are exposed to deadly insecticides. This can devastate more insects across the food web than nectar contaminated with insecticides could, the team says, because honeydew is more abundant, especially in agricultural fields… neonicotinoids still account for more than 20% of the world’s insecticide market.”

Our Famously Free Press

“The GateHouse takeover of Gannett has been finalized” [Poynter]. • Ugh. I expect the imminent gutting of USA Today, which has been a surprisingly good paper.

“How to do something about local news” [Substack]. • Basically a hymn of praise to substack by a founder, but it still sounds like an interesting, er, platform (akin to WordPress, not Facebook).

Games

“Investigative journalism startup uses mobile gaming to finance its future” [Journalism]. “In the game, the player uses tools and skills that McGregor and his editorial team need in their day-to-day investigations and reports. With image verification being an example of one of the most difficult challenges, the game will ask players to assess whether a viral image is accurate or not by using software to spot areas of the image that have been edited. ‘It’s the basics and 101 of journalism – teaching people to be sceptical and what tools to use to crack the conspiracy, like searching court records or sting operations on a more extreme level,’ he explained.” • It sounds like the stories and games are fictional. I don’t see why they couldn’t be real.

The Last of the Feral Hogs, I Swear

For our readers in the United Kingdom:

“30-50 of them, you say?” pic.twitter.com/M07mLraoSE

— Josephine Long come to my show please it’s urgent (@JosieLong) August 5, 2019

A kind soul summarizes:

in the final analysis, the great moral victory of feral hog twitter was that it was much more of a carnival atmosphere with people aiming to make each other laugh than a dunkfest on the feral hog guy

— elizabeth bruenig (@ebruenig) August 6, 2019

News of the Wired

Bake like an Egyptian. Wonderful thread:

Two weeks ago, with the help of Egyptologist @drserenalove and Microbiologist @rbowman1234, I went to Boston’s MFA and @Harvard‘s @peabodymuseum to attempt collecting 4,500 year old yeast from Ancient Egyptian pottery. Today, I baked with some of it… pic.twitter.com/143aKe6M3b

— Seamus Blackley (@SeamusBlackley) August 5, 2019

* * *

Readers, feel free to contact me at lambert [UNDERSCORE] strether [DOT] corrente [AT] yahoo [DOT] com, with (a) links, and even better (b) sources I should curate regularly, (c) how to send me a check if you are allergic to PayPal, and (d) to find out how to send me images of plants. Vegetables are fine! Fungi are deemed to be honorary plants! If you want your handle to appear as a credit, please place it at the start of your mail in parentheses: (thus). Otherwise, I will anonymize by using your initials. See the previous Water Cooler (with plant) here. Today’s plant (EM):

EM writes: “You have been saying you need plant photos. I was just in the garden weeding when I remembered to capture this and send it to you. The pink hydrangea on the left is my favorite this year but I am also partial to the coreopsis beneath it.” I like the path, which looks like it would be nice to walk on in bare feet.

Bonus (PS):

PS writes: “Does this fill the bill?” Re Silc sent in his mobile, and Mark52 sent in his steel silhouette, and now PS. I didn’t expect a response like this. Reader, how about you?

* * *

Readers: Water Cooler is a standalone entity not covered by the annual NC fundraiser.Remember, a tip jar is for tipping! So if you see a link you especially like, or an item you wouldn’t see anywhere else, please do not hesitate to express your appreciation in tangible form. Regular positive feedback both makes me feel good and lets me know I’m on the right track with coverage. When I get no donations for five or ten days I get worried. More tangibly, a constant trickle of donations helps me with expenses, and I factor in that trickle when setting fundraising goals:

Here is the screen that will appear, which I have helpfully annotated.

If you hate PayPal, you can email me at lambert [UNDERSCORE] strether [DOT] corrente [AT] yahoo [DOT] com, and I will give you directions on how to send a check. Thank you!

2:00PM Water Cooler 8/7/2019

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2ZFjVI7 via IFTTT

[lovehardenemycollector]

“Can I call you Hillary?”Hillary Clinton’s appearance on Bravo’s Watch What Happens Live With Andy Cohen was never going to be the typical interview with the former secretary of state and presidential candidate, what with the talk show’s penchant for getting guests liquored up and loose enough to swan-dive into rumor pools they ordinarily would never even dip a toe into. It was never not going to be the hardest-hitting, news-making sit-down with Clinton, who was promoting Hulu’s documentary series Hillary, which chronicles her life and 2016 presidential campaign and launches Friday. But that was precisely what made the appearance such a delight. It’s not every day you see Hillary Clinton take a shot with a Real Housewife and kiki with some drag queens in the Bravo Clubhouse. The interview was taped Wednesday, which means Clinton wasn’t asked to weigh in on the biggest news on the minds of many viewers by the time it aired Thursday night: Elizabeth Warren’s announcement that she was suspending her own presidential campaign, leaving it statistically near-impossible for a woman to swing open the door she cracked open in 2016. (But you do you, Tulsi.)But Cohen has always had a talent for making his guests comfortable enough to use his show as a pitching mound to throw shade—this is the show, remember, that birthed Mariah Carey’s “I don’t know her” dig at J. Lo—and Clinton seemed happy to take aim at a few choice batters.Asked what she really thinks of Melania Trump’s “Be Best” anti-bullying campaign, Clinton quipped, “I think she should look closer to home.” And she divulged that, while she’s spoken with varying degrees of regularity to most of the Democratic candidates throughout primary season, “I’ve not been in touch with a few of them, most notably Bernie Sanders.” Had Sanders reached out to her, she clarifies, she would have gladly spoken to him. Still, the comment echoes a saltiness that’s already generated plenty of headlines, when it was revealed that, in one episode of Hillary, she slams Sanders pretty harshly.“Honestly, Bernie drove me crazy,” she says. “He was in the Senate for years. Years! He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him. Nobody wants to work with him. He got nothing done. He was a career politician. He did not work until he was like 41, and then he got elected to something. It was all just baloney, and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.” Asked about the comment afterwards, she’s stood by it. It’s clear that Clinton knew what kind of party she was being invited to when she showed up on Cohen’s show, and she seemed totally game to engage in all of its demented joy. The episode opened with Cohen tossing off a series of HRC-themed puns, soundtracked by Clinton’s clearly amused laughter off-camera: “Let’s make like a glass ceiling and get smashed.” “I’m with her, literally.” And, in reference to the show’s drinking game, an encouragement for audience members to “drink until all Hill breaks loose.” We Need to Talk About Hillary Clinton’s Disturbing Harvey Weinstein TiesHillary Clinton Slams Bernie and Dismisses Email Scandal in New Doc: ‘All These Things About Us Get Disproved’Cohen asked Clinton what was going through her mind during iconic photos throughout her political history. About being at Trump’s inauguration, she says she was thinking, “This is even worse than I thought.” About the presidential debate in which he notoriously stalked behind her while she spoke, she remembers thinking, “This guy really has problems.” And as for the famous photo of her looking exasperated during the 11-hour Benghazi Senate hearing, she captions it, “I cannot believe these idiots.”I don’t know if this is the first time the meme of Clinton cringe-inducingly shimmying with excitement during one of the 2016 debates was brought up in her presence, but it was definitely the first time it was used as the theme for a Never Have I Ever-inspired parlor game in which she would recreate the shimmy every time she’s done the thing Cohen prompts her with. The revelations were nothing particularly scandalous, but they were pretty fun. She’s forgotten the name of a world leader she’s meeting before. She’s taken a roadie with her in a motorcade. She’s gotten tipsy with Obama. She’s gone skinny-dipping, but not in the White House pool. She’s been to a gay bar. It was all very cute!She followed tradition and delivered what she said would be her Real Housewives tagline, hilariously turning her back to the camera so she could dramatically whip herself around to deliver it: “I’m neither as good or as bad as people say.” (This is what she also reveals in Hillary as what she wants etched on her gravestone.)There’s a bit of news in her earnest defense of Nancy Pelosi’s controversial State of the Union gesture, tearing up the text of Trump’s speech after he finished. “I thought she was making a very strong point in demonstrating that so much of what he said was untethered from reality and just plain factually wrong,” she said. “Sometimes it’s the only way to get attention because otherwise his speech, which was filled with so many errors, would have been taken at face value. Because she visibly did that, which then went viral across the internet, people said, wait a minute, maybe we better take another look. I thought it was an interesting and effective gesture.” Even when she was deflecting the few more uncomfortable questions, she was quippy and fun. “I’m the last person to comment on anybody’s relationship,” she responded to a question about Melania repeated swatting Trump’s hand. The entire thing ended in a drag pageant, with RuPaul’s Drag Race alumni Trinity the Tuck, Peppermint, and Alaska modeling looks inspired by Clinton’s college days, time as first lady, and modern style, respectively. The plastered politician’s smile immediately elasticized, nearly spreading off Clinton’s face as she cackled breathlessly at the whole ordeal. She seemed to be having the time of her life. The entire thing was a blast. Sometimes it’s just fun to see a world leader be allowed to enjoy herself with such abandon, freed of shackles of political propriety. More, in the wake of the Warren news Thursday, it was a much-needed elixir for many crestfallen Bravo viewers. As one tweeted me during the show, “It could not have been better timed for this thoroughly disappointed woman tonight.”There is a necessity for Clinton to engage in the heavy news of the current election cycle, and there has been and will be ample opportunity for that. But sometimes it’s just nice to have a little fun. Preferably in the presence of some drag queens. Hillary Clinton Basically Endorses Biden After Vowing to Stay NeutralRead more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/3cAue7k

[morningusa]

“Can I call you Hillary?”Hillary Clinton’s appearance on Bravo’s Watch What Happens Live With Andy Cohen was never going to be the typical interview with the former secretary of state and presidential candidate, what with the talk show’s penchant for getting guests liquored up and loose enough to swan-dive into rumor pools they ordinarily would never even dip a toe into. It was never not going to be the hardest-hitting, news-making sit-down with Clinton, who was promoting Hulu’s documentary series Hillary, which chronicles her life and 2016 presidential campaign and launches Friday. But that was precisely what made the appearance such a delight. It’s not every day you see Hillary Clinton take a shot with a Real Housewife and kiki with some drag queens in the Bravo Clubhouse. The interview was taped Wednesday, which means Clinton wasn’t asked to weigh in on the biggest news on the minds of many viewers by the time it aired Thursday night: Elizabeth Warren’s announcement that she was suspending her own presidential campaign, leaving it statistically near-impossible for a woman to swing open the door she cracked open in 2016. (But you do you, Tulsi.)But Cohen has always had a talent for making his guests comfortable enough to use his show as a pitching mound to throw shade—this is the show, remember, that birthed Mariah Carey’s “I don’t know her” dig at J. Lo—and Clinton seemed happy to take aim at a few choice batters.Asked what she really thinks of Melania Trump’s “Be Best” anti-bullying campaign, Clinton quipped, “I think she should look closer to home.” And she divulged that, while she’s spoken with varying degrees of regularity to most of the Democratic candidates throughout primary season, “I’ve not been in touch with a few of them, most notably Bernie Sanders.” Had Sanders reached out to her, she clarifies, she would have gladly spoken to him. Still, the comment echoes a saltiness that’s already generated plenty of headlines, when it was revealed that, in one episode of Hillary, she slams Sanders pretty harshly.“Honestly, Bernie drove me crazy,” she says. “He was in the Senate for years. Years! He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him. Nobody wants to work with him. He got nothing done. He was a career politician. He did not work until he was like 41, and then he got elected to something. It was all just baloney, and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.” Asked about the comment afterwards, she’s stood by it. It’s clear that Clinton knew what kind of party she was being invited to when she showed up on Cohen’s show, and she seemed totally game to engage in all of its demented joy. The episode opened with Cohen tossing off a series of HRC-themed puns, soundtracked by Clinton’s clearly amused laughter off-camera: “Let’s make like a glass ceiling and get smashed.” “I’m with her, literally.” And, in reference to the show’s drinking game, an encouragement for audience members to “drink until all Hill breaks loose.” We Need to Talk About Hillary Clinton’s Disturbing Harvey Weinstein TiesHillary Clinton Slams Bernie and Dismisses Email Scandal in New Doc: ‘All These Things About Us Get Disproved’Cohen asked Clinton what was going through her mind during iconic photos throughout her political history. About being at Trump’s inauguration, she says she was thinking, “This is even worse than I thought.” About the presidential debate in which he notoriously stalked behind her while she spoke, she remembers thinking, “This guy really has problems.” And as for the famous photo of her looking exasperated during the 11-hour Benghazi Senate hearing, she captions it, “I cannot believe these idiots.”I don’t know if this is the first time the meme of Clinton cringe-inducingly shimmying with excitement during one of the 2016 debates was brought up in her presence, but it was definitely the first time it was used as the theme for a Never Have I Ever-inspired parlor game in which she would recreate the shimmy every time she’s done the thing Cohen prompts her with. The revelations were nothing particularly scandalous, but they were pretty fun. She’s forgotten the name of a world leader she’s meeting before. She’s taken a roadie with her in a motorcade. She’s gotten tipsy with Obama. She’s gone skinny-dipping, but not in the White House pool. She’s been to a gay bar. It was all very cute!She followed tradition and delivered what she said would be her Real Housewives tagline, hilariously turning her back to the camera so she could dramatically whip herself around to deliver it: “I’m neither as good or as bad as people say.” (This is what she also reveals in Hillary as what she wants etched on her gravestone.)There’s a bit of news in her earnest defense of Nancy Pelosi’s controversial State of the Union gesture, tearing up the text of Trump’s speech after he finished. “I thought she was making a very strong point in demonstrating that so much of what he said was untethered from reality and just plain factually wrong,” she said. “Sometimes it’s the only way to get attention because otherwise his speech, which was filled with so many errors, would have been taken at face value. Because she visibly did that, which then went viral across the internet, people said, wait a minute, maybe we better take another look. I thought it was an interesting and effective gesture.” Even when she was deflecting the few more uncomfortable questions, she was quippy and fun. “I’m the last person to comment on anybody’s relationship,” she responded to a question about Melania repeated swatting Trump’s hand. The entire thing ended in a drag pageant, with RuPaul’s Drag Race alumni Trinity the Tuck, Peppermint, and Alaska modeling looks inspired by Clinton’s college days, time as first lady, and modern style, respectively. The plastered politician’s smile immediately elasticized, nearly spreading off Clinton’s face as she cackled breathlessly at the whole ordeal. She seemed to be having the time of her life. The entire thing was a blast. Sometimes it’s just fun to see a world leader be allowed to enjoy herself with such abandon, freed of shackles of political propriety. More, in the wake of the Warren news Thursday, it was a much-needed elixir for many crestfallen Bravo viewers. As one tweeted me during the show, “It could not have been better timed for this thoroughly disappointed woman tonight.”There is a necessity for Clinton to engage in the heavy news of the current election cycle, and there has been and will be ample opportunity for that. But sometimes it’s just nice to have a little fun. Preferably in the presence of some drag queens. Hillary Clinton Basically Endorses Biden After Vowing to Stay NeutralRead more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines