#but seriously what even were trump's responses in that debate

[behold-the-daybreak]

"i have the concept of a plan" sounds like something my sister would've said when we were kids and she hadn't done her homework yet

[f1ghtsoftly]

the whole Khelif thing is such a nightmare, like the IBA has been found to have severe ethical issues that prompted their ban by the IOC and are unrelated to the sex testing issue so perhaps this is not a credible source and a bitter IBA is using this as a pretext to damage the IOC’s reputation like please do some research 😭.

Worst case, the IBA is being responsible about raising safety concerns in the sport (doubtful) and the two boxers in question have XY DSDs, ie: they are technically biological males but are observed and have lived their lives as women and are no doubt not intentionally cheating in the sport. Caster Semeya, another prominent intersex athlete assigned female at birth, has been banned from competition due to her high testosterone levels. It remains to be seem whether or not that decision by world athletics will stand.

But why do I call these people women when they are biologically men? Because these are intersex people who were raised from birth as women. By calling them women I’m not making a statement about biology or indeed the factual definition of “woman” or female. I’m recognizing that for all and intents and purposes, these people are socially women who have a DSD. They not ethically culpable for “violating” women’s spaces and deserve to preserve their dignity. Even if their DSD means they might not be eligible to compete in elite athletics. Or maybe they will, other athletes have bodily advantages that also make them faster. It remains to be seen what will happen.

So how!! HOW!! Did the conversation become about how these women are really trans women? Was it because Trump lied about them? Was it because JKR supported an assertion from an extremely dubious organization and called a woman with a potential DSD competing “male violence”. Or was it because thousands of women have been living in an echo chamber around trans issues that encourages invasive “transvestigations” and a destructive sense of personal persecution. Controversy around female sex at the Olympics is actually not a product of the trans issue and is in fact much older. The truth is, it’s a gray area around whether or not it’s ethical to allow women or biological men who outwardly appear as women with totally naturally occurring DSDs to compete. Biological difference among elite athletes is common and natural sex variation is a difference where the science is not always settled. Michael Phelps, for example, has several biological abnormalities that make him a better swimmer. No popular movement has been launched to bar him from competition.

Please take a breath and get out of the GC echo chamber, if you seriously consider yourself a radical feminist and an ally to intersex people, women and LGBT people, this is the wrong path to go down and the wrong issue to stake your reputations on. Most importantly, Carini, Yu-Ting and Khelif do not deserve to become symbolic faces of a debate they have nothing to do with. Khelif in particular is very vulnerable in a country, which is hostile to gender nonconformity/sexual difference, the public outcry could have negative repercussions for her at home.

[centralcitylibrary]

Response to Death Battle's Bowser vs. Dr. Eggman: Part 1/3 - Review

These three parts feature the following media from Sonic the Hedgehog, Super Mario Bros., and Death Battle:

Basically all of Mario

Basically all of Sonic

Death Battle’s Bowser vs. Dr. Eggman

Welcome to part 1 of my response to Death Battle, the review. What do I think about this episode, the first game Sonic episode since Shadow vs. Ryuko? Eggman’s triumphant return since Season 1 over a decade ago?

Well...

Let’s not beat around the bush. This is, without a doubt, Death Battle’s best episode yet. That’s high praise, given it’s had incredible episodes over its lifespan (with multiple contenders for best/favourite episode coming just from Season 10 alone), but this episode has a very small number of episodes that can even compete with it for that position.

As you can probably surmise, major spoilers for the episode in this review, and if you somehow stumbled onto this review without having seen the episode, I urge you to go watch it. Right now. In fact, here’s a link to the episode itself so you can go watch it.

So the fight begins with Bowser’s wedding-

Nah I’m just tricking, I’m not going to skip the analyses like that, I wouldn’t disgrace the debate side of things like that. What am I, a reaction YouTuber?

Anyways, those analyses were given impressive editing, a genius at both being slick and at properly conveying what information the hosts are talking about. It really does sell every single feat and analysis they display, and the information they give flows naturally from point to point as a result.

Bowser’s analysis sets up the family aspect of him and his army quite well, at first masking it behind a joke over being mistreated and farmed for one-ups, planting the seeds for that reading while also being deliberately absurd enough to not take the supposed mistreatment seriously. It’s very well done subliminal priming for their dive into Bowser’s character.

And focusing on family for Bowser’s analysis set up a great contrast to Eggman’s, where it delved into how awesome and intelligent he is, but also on the fact that he’s really all on his own – that army might be formidable, but not a single one of them is a person in his eyes – with the sole exception to Sage. He’s so lonely that his only family was an AI girl that he created.

And both analyses cover a good blend of their most iconic and most dangerous weapons. While blatantly impossible to mention everything (even mentioned by the hosts themselves in regards to just Bowser’s troops), they did cover quite a wide blend, and every single trump card the two possessed was at least mentioned, either in the individual analyses or the post-analysis at the end.

… And yet the analyses also contain the worst part of the episode, and the main reason I wouldn’t call it perfect. Yes, the research was off, even with the black boxes included there were multiple incorrect scaling claims and questionable interpretations of how some of that equipment worked (for example, how they claimed that the Pure Hearts nullified the Chaos Heart, despite the fact that even after two uses of the Pure Hearts the Chaos Heart was still threatening to destroy everything; or how they deemed the Phantom Ruby to lose to real reality manipulation despite the fact that – for anyone caught in the Phantom Ruby’s illusions – it IS real reality manipulation).

Given the sheer size and volume of everything, it’s not a deal breaker for the episode like others are (and like a certain episode just earlier this “season”), but it’s still disappointing to see both sides not quite get their dues.

I won’t focus on it anymore however in this part, and from this point onwards I’ll operate under the assumption that the information presented in the episode is 100% accurate for the sake of the review.

… Now, if the analyses are already this good, and I’m saying the worst part of the episode is contained within them, then what does that say about the actual animation? Especially a fight like this, where it’s simultaneously a fight between two armies and one where both sides have a billion instant win buttons – such a combination is inherently difficult to write and difficult to animate, a recipe for disaster in most circumstances.

… Not this time.

This fight was perfection.

The first quarter or so of the match-up focuses on the armies and how well they fare against each other, and it uses that to transition into the first showcase of one of many trump cards – the phantom ruby.

It being so powerful that when Infinite got one tapped (genius idea to amplify gravity when Thwomps exist, loser), the focus on the two armies’ primary focus became just obtaining that gemstone. It’s chaos, different enemies being thrown around all over – even Orbot and Cubot get involved, that’s how important maintaining control over it is.

And given how powerful just the phantom ruby alone is, when that Chance Time guarantees the destruction of the Phantom Ruby, the battle immediately pivots into both combatants and their generals using their trump cards, with the armies turning into a background detail as a result.

And boy did they really sell the raw power of those trump cards. Neo Metal Sonic defeating standard Bowser in one hit and Super Neo contending with Fury Bowser after the latter overpowered both the Death Egg Robot and Sage, Fury Bowser breaking through the Death Egg Robot in a single strike, and that Grand Star boost being so powerful it obliterates Super Neo and the entirety of the Egg Fleet combined in a single blast.

Everything hits hard, and just from seeing them play out we can see that this is what will call the shots in this war.

And all that raw power comes to a head when Eggman commands Sage to fire the Death Egg’s Final Egg Blaster. This is also where the mini-story that was in the animation comes to a head here – Eggman gathering them all up under the false pretense of a wedding to take them out at once, prematurely assuming the fight’s won (and only entering it himself when he believes that), and how callously he sacrifices any robot if it’s for his own sake. Bowser, meanwhile, focused on keeping his own troops alive when the Phantom Ruby starts decimating them, and unleashed the Grand Star due to his fury at seeing Bowser Jr. harmed (which given that he was already Fury Bowser is saying something), and fighting side by side with his army and generals the whole time.

It all comes to a close with the Death Egg, as Eggman’s troops know that they’re being completely sacrificed – the only reason they’re even able to flee being because they’re all being sacrificed in an instant. Bowser, meanwhile, jumps in the way and sacrificing himself to save his army.

And it all means that when Dry Bowser emerges, Eggman’s left with no tools, no options, against the entirety of the Koopa Troop – despite the fact that only Bowser and his son were needed to close out the fight, periodically closing out Eggman’s last few remaining options one by one. He can’t fire the Death Egg again, he can’t run, he can’t use his jetpack – even his weak little gun is denied the opportunity to even fire off a shot.

And his death is celebrated as coins rain down from the sky onto the entire army.

It’s an incredible animation that really sold just how chaotic such a fight would go down with all of their best stuff combined. My only negative is that Sage ultimately did very little, I definitely think they could’ve given her a moment of commanding the Eggman Armada while Eggman himself is busy elsewhere, or a brief POV shot to showcase her aiming at Bowser’s army instead of Bowser, or gave her a voice actress to provide suggestions from her analyses.

Still though, this was already a battle jam packed full of so many factors that it would be hard to include such scenes without ruining the pacing, so I can’t really hold them against it.

Oh, and the music. I don’t have the words to really describe it properly, but the music’s incredible and fits the fight very well. Calling it Game Over is a nice touch.

And then the post-analysis kicks in, and closes out why the Death Battle team came to this conclusion for the battle. It’s a standard post-analysis, but with some really nice brief looks into alternate scenarios. I don’t like how literally all but one of them is Bowser winning for what is supposedly a really close match (and even that one exception isn’t given a conclusion), but they’re great, I really hope they show up again in future episodes when it’s appropriate to have them.

This episode was originally planned for Season 10, but ultimately had to get pushed back due to taking too long to fit in, but man am I glad they gave it the time they needed to, this is without a doubt my favourite Sonic episode in Death Battle. Wait no, scratch that, it’s my favourite episode overall in Death Battle.

I do not normally do reviews on this blog (as you can probably tell), but if it’s something you’d like to see more I can do it for some future Sonic games and/or future Sonic episodes of Death Battle. I mainly did a review this time because I wanted to preface just how much I enjoyed the episode before I delve into parts 2 and 3.

And before I forget (again), I have a Discord set up for this very blog, a temporary link will be available here, and a permanent link should be edited into my introductory message for the blog.

I hope to see you there!

[gameshowtrainwreck]

An open letter to right-wing Tumblr

Nobody owes you a debate. Their refusal to interact with you isn't an attack on your free speech. Rights exist in the third-person perspective in ways just as solid and just as established as in when they are expressed in the first-.

What makes your right to say whatever you want without government penalty for having done so (except in a few, well-established, well-defined precedents that any reasonable citizen would agree with) any more sacrosanct than my right to exercise free assembly to say "fuck you, fuck this, I got a better life to live than to spend it listening to the same horseshit being argued over and over again?"

The court of public opinion holds a lower standard because it's ultimately the lowest stakes in anything we have the gall to call 'justice' in this nation-- every case is presented to every individual juror who sorted out their findings based on what they had available to them, and judged them one way or the other. Sometimes the cases reach conclusions like (as an example), "the right is more bent out of shape about trans people while also being really fuckin unwilling to do anything about the chimos operating within their own ranks" and found a reasonable consequence for that finding to refuse to consider conservatives in any other relationship besides adversarial.

If you don't like that, either present better info or find better beliefs. Nobody will hate you for changing your mind, everybody does it. It's okay to admit mistakes, and it actually shows a degree of maturity to accept that and take accountability for them.

(and before you try; fuckin don't. Democrats are just as fucking terrible-- y'all don't think Palestine is being raped hard enough while liberals try to tell everybody a little of it is necessary. Harris lost more than Trump won. Their best idea to run against a brain-damaged rapist was to find a brain-damaged rapist of their own and then bury #MeToo because sometimes presidential candidates are allowed little a rape, as a treat. Don't explain to me how democrats are bad, too, motherfucker, I actually chaired for the shiftless pieces of shit. the point is to be better than the other assholes, not to be even bigger assholes. They keep trying to muscle in on your brand and y'all keep sliding right in response. The matter of Epstein's death matter less than the idea that several powerful people availed themselves to his hospitality and nothing will ever be done about that because Republicans and Democrats both were involved. The majority of CSA cases are by people who the victim knew and trusted but y'all wanna tell everybody you think is too ugly to shit in a public restroom that you know better-- considering how much nuance Jim Bob Duggar found about child molestation when the world discovered he raised his own flesh and blood to be a serial toucher, are y'all just oblivious or trying to smokescreen your own predation? Half of y'all get real bent outta shape about age of consent laws for some reason)

The fact that you feel it in cumulative is on your own fuckin heads, assholes. You don't blame the people for the idea of messages spreading farther, wider, and faster than the time it took you to think not at all about it before you pressed 'post' any more the Democrats can try to blame voters for not supporting someone more unpopular in 2020 than a sociopathic racist CIA Blacksite dickhead (the rat-faced fuck) who tried to force the most cringe-worthy fucking meme of the election cycle before Hillary Clinton's fight song horseshit (no, seriously, look up the high hopes dance and tell me that ain't fuckin pathetic).

I would say better politics start with you, but taking the law of averages and the current state of the Overton window in American politics into consideration, some of you won't make your best contribution to American politics until you leave this world.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Pat Bagley :: Salt Lake Tribune

* * * *

Kamala Harris leans into border security and immigration

September 28, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

My wife and I hope that everyone affected by Hurricane / Tropical Storm Helene remains safe and well, and we offer our condolences to the families of those killed and injured by the storm.

Kamala Harris addresses border and immigration issues

On Friday, Vice President Kamala Harris leaned into the issue widely view as her biggest political vulnerability in the 2024 election: Border security and immigration. She did so by making a major policy speech near the Southern border (in Douglas, Arizona). The video of the speech is here: Vice President Kamala Harris Live from Douglas, Arizona.

Before addressing the substance, let’s talk about the decision to give the speech at the border and the political effectiveness of the speech.

Republicans and the media have been criticizing Kamala Harris for not visiting the border and for allegedly being “light on policy details.” Her decision to give a major policy speech on border security and immigration after a tour of the Southern border in Arizona was a direct response to her political critics.

By choosing the border as the venue for the speech, she will garner more attention for her policy positions on immigration and border security than if she released the same policy positions in a sit-down interview or position paper. Political theater? In part, yes. But it is what the media beast demanded, and it got more than it bargained for. The speech will become the counterweight to MAGA talking points that misrepresent Harris’s position on the border.

Even if the details of the policy proposals do not make their way into the consciousness of skeptical voters, those voters will know that Harris has policies to address the border. And now that the beast has been fed, it will move on to other manufactured controversies. I wish it were otherwise, but here we are.

As political messaging, the speech was a pleasure to listen to. My wife and I listened to most of the speech while driving across the LA basin. After ten minutes or so, I remarked to my wife that the speech was comprehensible, clear, rational, and thoughtful. Even if people don’t agree with every position taken by VP Harris, she has logical positions that can be debated within a policy framework—unlike Trump's border policies that amount to little more than xenophobia and recycled white nationalism.

Among the many points made by Vice President Harris, were the following:

She began by acknowledging that national security and immigration must co-exist:

The United States is a sovereign nation. We have a duty to set and enforce the rules at our border. I take that responsibility seriously. We are also a nation of immigrants, enriched by generations who have come to contribute to our country and become part of the American story. [¶¶] I reject the false choice that suggests we must choose either between securing our border and creating a system that is orderly, safe and humane. We can and we must do both. She emphasized her background in prosecuting drug cartels and the threat of fentanyl to America’s health and security: As attorney general of a border state, I prosecuted transnational criminal organizations that traffic guns, drugs and human beings. Stopping transnational criminal organizations and strengthening our border is not new to me—and will continue to be a priority when I am president. [¶¶] I have met too many families who have lost loved ones to fentanyl—and the devastation is felt from rural communities to big cities. As president, I will make it a top priority to disrupt the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

And she blamed Trump for playing political games with the border and immigration policy:

It is a choice between common sense solutions, and the same old political games. In the four years that Donald Trump was president, he did nothing to fix our broken immigration system. He did not solve the shortage of immigration judges. He did not solve the shortage of border agents. He did not create lawful pathways into our nation. He did nothing to address an outdated asylum system. And did not work with other governments in our hemisphere to deal with what clearly is also a regional challenge. . . That not the work of a leader. That is not the work of a leader. And that is in fact, I think we all believe, an abdication of leadership. And so, on behalf of all across our nation who want to see these problems solved. I say we cannot accept Donald Trump's failure to lead. Let's not permit scapegoating instead of solutions or rhetoric instead of results.

And she blamed Trump for killing the bipartisan border bill:

It [the border bill] should be in effect today, producing results, in real time right now [but] he prefers to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem

See The Guardian, Harris accuses Trump of playing ‘political games’ during US border visit.

In what may be the most controversial aspects of her proposed policies, Kamala Harris would enforce and extend the current policy of “shutting down” the border when daily encounters exceed 1,500 for a week and bar asylum requests for five years for those who enter the country unlawfully and do not make a legal asylum request at the border. See Washington Post, Harris, in visit to border, proposes new restrictions on immigration. (Accessible to all.)

Kamala Harris continues to run a great campaign. She is becoming more confident and bolder as a candidate. Conventional political wisdom would tell Kamala Harris to avoid the subject of immigration and focus on reproductive rights, the economy, and the threat to democracy.

Instead, she stared down her biggest perceived weakness and took the fight directly to Trump, rightfully accusing him of being a primary cause of the current border situation. So, if friends and family claim that Kamala Harris hasn’t been proactive on the border, set them straight with the facts laid out in today’s speech!

President Zelensky suffers the indignity of meeting with Trump

After a day of productive and supporting meetings with President Biden and VP Harris, President Zelensky suffered the indignity of meeting with Donald Trump—who met with Zelensky only because Trump hates not being the center of attention.

After their private meeting, Zelensky stood next to Trump as the former president spewed lies about Russia’s war against Ukraine and made clear that he is rooting for Russia. Two exchanges illustrate the disrespect and betrayal that oozes from every pore of Trump's being:

As President Zelensky stood uncomfortably next to Trump, Putin’s best friend in the US said the following:

The war should stop, and president [Zelensky] wants it to stop. I’m sure President Putin wants it to stop.

Zelensky must have been thinking, “If Putin wants it to stop, he can pull his troops out of my country immediately.” Indeed, VP Harris made that comment on Thursday: “Putin started this war and he could end it tomorrow if he simply withdrew his troops from Ukraine's sovereign territory."

To be clear, Putin does want the war against Ukraine to stop—by conquering Ukraine and crushing its people. And President Zelensky had to stand next to Trump and resist the overwhelming urge to retch.

In a second incident, this unsettling exchange occurred (edited for brevity):

Trump: I have a very good relationship with President Putin . . . Zelenskyy: I hope we have more good relations with us [i.e., Ukraine] Trump: Oh, ha ha I see . . .

At that point, Zelensky must have had a sinking feeling in the pit of his stomach. Trump could not even bring himself to say that he has a better relationship with the president of Ukraine than the president of Russia.

Trump threatens to seek criminal charges against Google for returning negative stories about Trump

This story is not a joke. Trump is unhappy that Google searches return unflattering stories about him. The reason, of course, is that the truth about Trump is unflattering. So, Trump wants to file criminal charges against Google if he is re-elected as president. See The Guardian, Trump vows to seek criminal charges against Google if re-elected president | Donald Trump.

Trump posted the following:

It has been determined that Google has illegally used a system of only revealing and displaying bad stories about Donald J Trump, some made up for this purpose while, at the same time, only revealing good stories about Comrade Kamala Harris,” Trump said in the post. This is an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, and hopefully the Justice Department will criminally prosecute them for this blatant Interference of Elections. If not, and subject to the Laws of our Country, I will request their prosecution, when I win the Election and become President of the United States.

In the post above, Trump confirmed that he will use the DOJ as a personal political police force to persecute his enemies. It does not matter that he attempts to sugarcoat his words with “subject to the laws of this Country " because nothing in US law allows criminal prosecution for bad publicity.

Trump is telling us that he wants to be a dictator. We should believe him.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[acommonloon]

We get cards sometimes but rarely am I the recipient. It must be a record that I was addressed in three most recently .

A Christmas card comes every year from the Gattles in Florida. It’s addressed to me and my daughter, as if a couple. We don’t know the Gattles and they obviously don’t know us. In spite of many efforts, including most recently, an email and FB message, they are unresponsive, except for the card featuring their family photo and a synopsis of their year. They are a churchy family, proud of their godly exploits. Oddly they haven’t responded to our attempts to contact them so the intended recipients might receive their holiday missives. Maybe they just want to include us as well.

The other Christmas card I get each year is from my last boss in the Air Force. He’s a sad figure to me. He was largely incompetent, abrasive, and just barely self-aware enough to know he was viewed with contempt by most everyone while he held that position. I treated him with respect and in turn he mostly let me get on with my job. I never expected or wanted to have any contact with him when I retired but to my surprise he reached out.

Actually, it was his wife who called me first out of the blue. Hi Shane it’s Maryanne, let me get George. Oookay. When he came to the phone he was ridiculously happy to talk. To that point he may have already been sending Christmas cards. We talked for quite some time and thereafter, when I got a card from him, I’d call him and we’d catch up.

When Maryanne died, George seemed to become a different person. Up until that point we never spoke about religion. I think he always was a Christian but after her death, his religion became front and center. He especially seemed to want to try to save me or at least convince me he understood a…secret of the after life and was desperate to get me on board.

As one who took a long time to throw off the yoke of religion, it’d pretty much take a visitation by God or at least a senior angel to sign me back up. To be honest I’ve been immeasurably happier since I stopped fearing the afterlife or death as we unbelievers call it. I’m happy to debate it respectfully with those who do believe. Sometimes they aren’t happy to debate it with me.

I once spent a couple of hours with a distant cousin who taught theology at a college in Columbus, IN. That he was also a believer was fascinating and I enjoyed our conversation. Afterwards, he never answered my calls or returned my messages. I once met a guy in his church and at some point I said, “Why would I need God if I don’t fear death.” He seemed stumped by that. I don’t recall his response other than we moved on to a different subject. I’ve had dozens of conversations at bars about religion and an afterlife. A guy once asked me what I thought came after death.

I said, “nothing.” He looked at me with shock on his face and asked, “Don’t you find that terrifying?” Not at all, I wasn’t aware of anything before I was born and when my life ends, so will my awareness of anything. No less final than a squirrel’s life ending suddenly under a car wheel. I can’t even imagine any version of Heaven that sounds desirable. It was always fear of hell that kept me on the God train. Once I realized what an abusive relationship really meant, I split. If there’s really a God…

Anyway, back to my old boss. The last time I spoke with him was in 2021. He immediately wanted to talk about the after life and time and existential things but I just told him I wasn’t interested, didn’t need religion to be happy, and those that spent the most time professing religion had elected Trump and were worshipping their orange idol, who happened to be the most unchristian person imaginable. Anyone who took the Bible and its tenants seriously couldn’t possibly want Trump to be their leader. Surprise, Georgie is a Trumper.

During the years with George as my boss, we spent a lot of it debating issues just for fun. He was a pretty good debater, never got mad, and could agree to disagree. He was a Yankees fan and I was a Red Sox fan but it never got uncomfortable. He was unable to defend Trump and seemed uncomfortable. When the conversation ended, I thought all was good.

When his Christmas card came in 2022, I picked up the phone and called. The number was disconnected. Hmmm. The card this year was even more religious than any before. Inside it says,

I will be remembered. Am I already dead to George? Are these flowers on my grave? lol

Nah his hand written note says he hopes life is treating me and my family well. <sigh> I’ve typed a letter to send back suggesting he call me. I feel sad for George, a Trumper, a Christian, and a Yankees fan.

Also my three year old granddaughter sent me a picture she drew…of me!

[bllsbailey]

Trump Flipped Support From 2 GOP Holdouts In Mike Johnson’s Favor, Securing Speaker Role

Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump walks toward the stage to speak at a rally at the Brick Breeden Fieldhouse at Montana State University on August 9, 2024 in Bozeman, Montana.

President-elect Donald Trump spoke with two of the GOP holdouts preventing Speaker Mike Johnson from retaining his role as House speaker, flipping the votes and resulting in Johnson retaining his position.

Reps. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) and Keith Self (R-Texas)

were the two House members who initially voted against Johnson (R-La.), in favor of other House Republicans, in a move which would have left Johnson without enough votes to secure the speaker’s gavel.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) another Republican who denounced Johnson’s leadership, declared that he was a “Hell no” on re-electing Johnson, under any circumstances.

Former House Rep. Matt Gaetz also asked if a possible compromise could flip Massie’s vote in favor of Johnson during an episode of “The Matt Gaetz Show” on One America News prior to the vote.

Massie soon responded to Gaetz’s query, stating: “Oh no, you can pull all my fingernails out. You can shove bamboo up in them. You can start cutting off my fingers. I am not voting for Mike Johnson tomorrow. And you can take that to the bank.”

“President Trump’s agenda needs to become law. Speaker Johnson has already demonstrated he is not the man who can get that done,” Massie added in an X post.

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 3, 2025

Meanwhile, Norman and Self both confirmed that they spoke with Trump on Friday, along with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who was lockstep with Trump in attempting to persuade Norman and Self to fall in line.

“We have got to make sure this Congress is as strong as possible when we go up against the Senate on the reconciliation package, because there are debates on what the reconciliation package even looks like. So that’s all I wanted to do today, is to make this Congress successful for the Trump agenda,” Self stated.

The reconciliation package is a legislative tool utilized to fast-track budget-related bills, allowing legislation to pass in the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the usual 60 votes needed to bypass any potential filibusters.

Nearly an hour after the votes were cast, while the first ballot remained open, both Norman and Self returned to the House chamber, asking the clerk to reverse their votes to “Aye” for Johnson, securing the current speaker’s victory. “Aye” is used to signify “yes” or approval of the motion. “Nay” is used to signify “no” or disapproval.

Following the vote, Self revealed that he reversed his position in favor of Johnson because “Mike gave us the assurance that he was going to fight for everything as it moves forward.”

“We just impress on Mike the seriousness of what he’s about to do. Is he gonna fight for financial stops? Is he gonna fight? And that was our whole question. Trump was helpful, but I knew where Trump stood,” he added.

“My sole focus was advancing the Trump agenda. To ensure this, I expressed concerns to Speaker Johnson about fiscal responsibility and holding the line on deficit spending—key priorities for my constituents. After receiving firm assurances from the Speaker, that Republicans in the House will have strong representation during the budget reconciliation process—a cornerstone of President Trump’s agenda—I changed my initial vote,” Self wrote in an X post. “I appreciate Speaker Johnson addressing these critical issues. Let’s get to work.”

— Rep. Keith Self (@RepKeithSelf) January 3, 2025

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

[head-post]

Zelensky suspected of meddling in US election

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky used US military property to campaign for Vice President Kamala Harris during a visit to Pennsylvania on Monday, The Federalist reports.

On another trip to ask the US government for money and ammunition, Zelensky toured a munitions plant in Pennsylvania with Governor Josh Shapiro, a known supporter of Kamala Harris, and other Democrats, including Senator Bob Casey. Zelensky arrived in Scranton, Pennsylvania (the birthplace of President Joe Biden, who is often mentioned) aboard a US Air Force C-17 aircraft, images of which he used to promote his visit. In a message recorded from inside the plane, Zelensky said:

“This fall will determine what’s next in this war.”

Sean Parnell, former Pennsylvania Republican candidate for US Senate, said at a Trump rally Monday:

“Zelensky is in Pennsylvania today, signing bombs with Gov. Shapiro. Zelensky is also attacking J.D. Vance in the biggest, most important battleground state in the country during an election year. Folks, if that ain’t foreign election interference, I don’t know what is.”

Notably, Zelensky’s trip came a day after The New Yorker magazine published an interview in which he criticised former President Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio. Zelensky took note of Trump’s response at a debate about the war in Ukraine, in which the Republican said he wanted the war to end. Zelensky said:

“Trump makes political statements in his election campaign. My feeling is that Trump doesn’t really know how to stop the war even if he might think he knows how. With this war, oftentimes, the deeper you look at it the less you understand. I’ve seen many leaders who were convinced they knew how to end it tomorrow, and as they waded deeper into it, they realized it’s not that simple.”

The Ukrainian leader also called Vance “too radical,” saying his plan to end the war with Russia was “just slogans.” Zelensky said:

“For us, these are dangerous signals, coming as they do from a potential Vice-President. I should say that it hasn’t been like this with Trump.” 

“I don’t take Vance’s words seriously, because, if this were a plan, then America is headed for global conflict,” he continued, comparing a negotiation with Russia to appeasement of Adolph Hitler prior to World War II.

Dan Caldwell, public policy advisor at Defense Priorities, posted on social media:

“The Biden-Harris admin is using military assets to fly a foreign leader into a battleground state in order to undermine their political opponents.” 

In response to an enquiry from The Federalist, the Department of Defence did not deny the use of US military funds for the trip, but declined to comment on Zelensky’s statements or his apparent campaign work.

Without mentioning Trump by name, Zelensky appeared to go on to criticise the former president later in the interview when he criticised world leaders for seeking a working relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which Trump often emphasises as key to foreign policy success. Zelensky said:

“A lot of world leaders want to have some sort of dealings with Putin, to reach agreements, to conduct some business with him. I look at such leaders and realize that they are very interested in playing this game — and for them, unfortunately, it really is a game. But what makes a real leader? A leader is someone whom Putin needs for something, not a person who needs Putin. Flirting with him is not a sign of strength. Sitting across the table from him might make you believe you’re making important decisions about the world.”

Ironically, Zelensky also said:

“I think Ukraine has demonstrated the wisdom of not becoming captured by American domestic politics.”

During his trip to Pennsylvania, Zelensky visited the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant. According to Military.com, the plant is one of the few in the country to produce 155mm artillery shells. The US has already supplied Ukraine with 3 million such shells.

The artillery shells that Zelensky inspected and signed along with Shapiro have a range of 15 to 20 miles, but Zelensky has been persistently seeking longer-range missiles to fire at Russia. However, the Biden administration has not approved these munitions and claims that the Ukrainian military already has the ability to bombard Moscow with its own drones.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian president was criticised by Donald Trump and his son after Volodymyr Zelensky arrived in the US. The presidential candidate called the Ukrainian president a “salesman” at a rally of his supporters. Trump said:

“I see Zelensky has arrived. I consider Zelensky the greatest salesman in history. Every time he comes to our country, he comes back with $60bn. Billions!”

Trump’s son wrote a post where he criticised Zelensky for his words in an interview with the New Yorker magazine, where he said that Trump “doesn’t really know how to stop a war.” Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

“So, a foreign leader who has received billions of dollars in funding from the American taxpayer comes to our country and has the audacity to attack the Republican Party’s nominee for president? And he does this right after a pro-Ukrainian bigot tried to kill my father? Shameful!”

Read more HERE

[talkingpointsusa]

Charlie Kirk's take on the second Trump assassination attempt was moronic and irresponsible as all hell

If you haven't heard, shots were fired at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Golf Course and the FBI is investigating this incident as an assassination attempt. As was the case with the first shooting, new details are coming in hour by hour and by the time this post comes up it very well could be outdated already. I'll try my best to cover this responsibly with the information that I have but it's important to acknowledge that political violence of any kind is unacceptable from either side of the aisle.

You know who isn't covering this responsibly? Far-right media. And that brings us to Charlie Kirk who put out an "emergency episode" this Sunday the day of the assassination attempt. It's mainly just him and his co-host spinning baseless conspiracy theories without providing any evidence, you know like responsible journalists do.

00:59, Charlie Kirk: "Ok everybody, usually we don't stream on Sundays or do any broadcasts on Sundays as you well know, I wanna thank Real America's Voice for taking us, we are here also on Rumble. Joining me is Blake for this breaking news day. Blake, this is something else. We -- we thought that, you famously said 2024 might be a boring year."

Blake Neff: "Might"

Oh great, so we have Tucker Carlson's old producer who got fired for anonymously spewing out slurs on an online forum co-hosting Charlie's very serious assassination attempt coverage. This is like bringing in David Duke to co-host your Kennedy assassination broadcast, only Blake Neff is even more of a D-squad tier figure.

Another thing that you'll notice here is that the mood here is pretty light for a video entitled "They Tried To Kill President Trump — Again" and I have a theory as to why that is.

All of these guys in the right-wing media really seemed to enjoy the weeks after the first assassination attempt because it seemingly confirmed all of their narratives about being oppressed and targeted by the government (never mind that the gunman was a lone nutjob who was a registered Republican). Now, in the wake of a debate that was a complete disaster for Trump and the right-wing media, they get to steer the conversation away from Trump's flailing performance and onto this failed assassination attempt. For these guys this is a godsend.

02:06, Charlie Kirk: "Now, we're learning a lot about Ryan Routh, the first of which is that he is a Democrat doner. Over nineteen transactions to Democrats that we know of since 2019. Ryan Routh is also a very -- he is a pro-Ukrainian lunatic, very much in favor of the Ukrainian War."

This attempt to ascribe a Democrat-based motivation to the shooter is exactly what happened the last time and just like last time it's murky at best.

Ryan Routh seems like a guy who was pretty mentally ill and his politics are all over the place. Routh's social media posts indicate that he was a Trump supporter in 2016 before becoming disillusioned with the former president around 2020 and pivoting to supporting a Nikki Haley/Vivek Ramaswamy ticket. While a man with the same name as Routh who appears to be him at the time of writing did donate to the Democrats, a large number of those donations were to Tulsi Gabbard who's as much of a Democrat as RFK Jr is. Routh did post about the War in Ukraine and his posts demonstrated a Pro-Ukraine stance, even going as far as to involve himself in the recruitment of American's who wished to volunteer overseas.

While it appears, at least with the information that we have now, that this guy leans to the right I think that it's pretty clear that this was just a seriously mentally ill guy who was as all over the place politically as he was mentally. The right-wing drive to pin this on the left doesn't help this climate of political violence that they are supposedly oh so against.

03:26, Charlie Kirk: "Now, here are two pieces of items (sic) and I want to be very clear on facts. Number one, how did this guy know that Donald Trump was going to be golfing at this moment? It's not public, it must have been a very very good guess or somebody might have leaked the information. And number two, what, if any connections did Ryan Wesley Routh have with US intelligence services? With the Department of Defense? With the Central Intelligence Agency? With NATO or the Pentagon? Considering his entire lifes work is about supporting Ukraine or trying to take out Vladimir Putin."

"I want to be very clear on the facts, now here's a mountain of unfounded speculation."

There are a million reasons why this guy knew when Trump was golfing besides "Oh, the CIA leaked it to him". He had a car that he fled the scene in, is it that hard to believe that he hung out there waiting for signs that Trump was on the course or even cased out the course previously. As a matter of fact, recently unveiled cellphone data shows that the would-be assassin waited near the golf course for nearly twelve hours. If the CIA was involved, this would've been a million times more thought out as opposed to "Oh, I'm going to hang out in the bushes and hope for the best!"

Also, Routh as of the time of writing has no documented ties to NATO or any of those other organizations and I seriously doubt that this fact will change.

So, Charlie throws it to Blake and it's just him reading Ryan Routh's deranged tweets. They probably shouldn't be showing how insane this guy was if they want to push the narrative that he was somehow stable enough to be working with the CIA but whatever. Oh yeah, and Blake is also a total moron. Here's some of his "analysis".

05:54, Blake Neff: "This was a deeply unhinged guy but he was a deeply unhinged guy deeply involved with the single biggest cause that our elites in DC care about and are obsessed with. I think the prospect that no one in DC never met this guy or interacted with this guy is quite unlikely and as we dig into this I think it's quite possible that we will discover there are people who at least heard this guy spout off about going after Trump."

I'm sure that politicians hear guys spout off about going after people on both sides of the political aisle. What that doesn't mean is that they have some kind of database with the names of every lunatic who has said something dumb on Twitter. Do you know how many people on both sides are tweeting out dumb things right this very second? Keeping track of all of them would be a herculean effort.

Also, this guy was not "deeply involved" in the war in Ukraine. We're not even sure right now if his little conscription agency even successfully sent a guy overseas. He was some Twitter addicted bit player trying to insert himself into something bigger than him.

Unfortunately, Charlie's other Z-Tier co-host Andrew Kolvet is also here to deliver his "hard hitting analysis". Andrew Kolvet is basically the guy they dragged in to replace Tyler Bowyer, a man who I previously described as being "as articulate as an intoxicated long-haul trucker". Does Andrew Kolvet live up to the lofty standard of suckiness that Tyler established? No, because intoxicated long-haul truckers are a million times more charismatic and entertaining than Andrew Kolvet is.

10:12, Andrew Kolvet: "And I think Charlie, one of the most appalling parts of this entire saga today is the piece of tape, and I believe we have it, during the press conference where they basically admitted that had Trump been the current president that they would've had the entire perimeter of the golf course closed down, no roads would have been opened, but they don't have enough resources for President Trump since he's not the current president."

It took me a little bit of time to dig up what Andrew was talking about but when I did it proved to be a nothing-burger. Andrew Kolvet is talking about something that the Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw said when responding to a question from the press about how the shooter managed to get on the grounds of the golf course. Quote:

""Well, you got to understand, the golf course is surrounded by shrubbery, so when somebody gets into the shrubbery, they're pretty much out of sight, all right," Bradshaw said after a question about how the gunman could get so close. "And at this level that he is at right now, he's not the sitting president. If he was, we would have [the area around the] golf course surrounded. But because he's not, security is limited to the areas that the Secret Service deems possible. So I would imagine that the next time he comes at a golf course, there'll probably be a little bit more people around the perimeter. But the Secret Service did exactly what they should have done. They provided exactly what the protection should have been, and their agent did a fantastic job."

Ric's not wrong, ex-presidents get less protection than the current president. Keep in mind that there are only 3,200 special agents in the Secret Service and special agents are the ones in charge of protecting the president. To give you some context, that's only 31.68% of active FBI special agents (10,100) and 14.83% of active CIA agents (estimated at 21,575). The Secret Service is a relatively small agency with relatively low numbers.

This combined with the fact that there are currently six living presidents who have also received death threats and in the case of Obama had attempts made on their lives as well, multiple congresspeople who need protection, and the actual president and his cabinet to protect and you realize that the department is stretched for people and needs to prioritize. Trump's life was saved by the Secret Service and they did their job properly. Giving Trump the same level of protection as the current president is absurd given what the Secret Service has at it's disposal.

I'm also willing to bet that Trump gets more Secret Service protection than the average former president given the previous assassination attempt.

The other thing that we should keep in mind here is that Trumps golfing habit has been a notorious security risk for years. After Trump became president, the secret service warned him of the risks that his golf courses posed even going so far as to provide him with visual aids. Trump responded by shrugging off the threat. It doesn't help that Trumps visit to the golf course on Sunday was apparently unplanned which led to the Secret Service having to work on the fly. Given the circumstances I'd say that they even went above and beyond.

13:28, Blake Neff: "It's so obvious what's been whipped up here and we're having to sit through -- one of the things that's most appalling is it's like on each successive major threat you've seen the press get more flagrant with what they do. So there were like, gestures at this being unacceptable after the first shooting in Butler but after this one it's pretty much an immediate turnaround of Lester Holt saying 'Yeah, you know President Trump brought this on himself because he talked about Haitian migrants in Springfield.'"

Holt didn't say that. He talked about the assassination attempt and then said quote;

“Today’s apparent assassination attempt comes amid increasingly fierce rhetoric on the campaign trail. Mr. Trump, his running mate JD Vance continue to make baseless claims about Haitian immigrants.”

First of all, they cut off in the middle of Holts sentence which is always a major red flag. Even still, that's not saying that Trump deserved to get shot, that's a basic cable news pivot and a factual statement.

The assassination attempt happened right after Trump made xenophobic comments at the debate. Does that mean that Trump making statements about migrants pushed this guy over the edge? No, not with the evidence that I have. However, Holt isn't wrong to point this out. Trump's inflammatory rhetoric doesn't help this political climate that we've found ourselves in cool off, it only escalates things. That's not victim blaming or saying that Trump deserved to die, that's stating the obvious. I don’t really like Lester Holt or MSNBC but this is just dishonest. Everybody has roundly condemned political violence and this fantasyland nonsense will not change that.

Rounding off Charlie Kirk's quartet of bullshit is Jack Posobiec who joins the show to say basically the same things that Charlie, Blake, et all were saying earlier. This whole show is just repetitive dreck that could have been trimmed down into a 20 minute video. There was zero need to make this show an hour long. It's obvious that they did the bare minimum to prepare for the show and are now struggling to fill an hour.

As a result you get this, just rehashing old bullshit from the last assassination attempt and putting an anti-Ukraine bow on top. It's just a slog all around for everyone involved and I feel like everyone's time would have been better spent if they just took Sunday off and worried about this story during the work week. *Sigh*, well lets hear from Jack. This promises to be enlightening.

20:17, Jack Posobiec: "We're living in a situation now where political violence is not just a myth, it is not just a potentiality, it is something that we now live with on a regular basis."

So that's why Jack always condemns political violence from his side like, oh I don't know, January 6th right?

Oh. Extremely sincere political actor Jack Posobiec strikes again. What an absolute tool. The rest of the show is basically just this same redundant schtick. It'll be interesting to see how the narrative evolves with time. I'll tell you one thing, it really sucks now.

Conclusion:

This episode made the journalism major in me very irritated. Don't get me wrong, Charlie Kirk's repetitive ass BS always makes me very irritated but for some reason this particular episode really struck a cord.

I don't think there could be a more irresponsible way to cover an assassination attempt than this. I don't think I could be more irresponsible if I tried. The only thing you could possibly do to make this more irresponsible is to outright call for violence and retribution.

This is a serious event that has the potential to severely inflame people on both sides of the aisle, particularly Republicans. The way that a real journalist would cover this is by sticking to the facts and leaving speculation behind. If only because, again, this was a breaking story involving a major political figure and as a result you need to be extremely careful when you talk about it in the capacity as a person who people are getting their news from.

Charlie on the other hand barged in without preparing, randomly linked the shooter to NATO without providing any proof, implicated everybody on the political left, and then spewed conspiracy theories for an hour. The fact that they occasionally threw in "Oh, this is all speculation" isn't enough! You can't "speculate" on a news show, Charlie's supposed to be the big brain conservative that uses FACTS and LOGIC for crying out loud.

Oh well, can't expect anything less from Charlie Kirk. Cheers and I'll see you in the next one, stay safe everybody!

Sources Cited:

Falconer, Rebecca. "What to know about the suspect in the Trump golf club assassination attempt". Axios.

Folk, Zachary. “Who Is Alleged Trump Golf Course Gunman Ryan Wesley Routh?” The Daily Beast, The Daily Beast, 15 Sept. 2024.

Gerstein, Josh. "Man charged in Trump incident may have waited near his golf course for nearly 12 hours". Politico

“Frequently Asked Questions about Us | United States Secret Service.” Www.secretservice.gov.

“The Job of a Special Agent | United States Secret Service.” Www.secretservice.gov.

Leonnig Carol, Dawsy Josh, et all. "Trump’s golf outings have long concerned Secret Service". Washington Post.

[mariacallous]

There’s no shortage of threats to democracy this political season, and, during a debate last week in Ohio, two candidates for the U.S. Senate were asked what they thought the greatest danger might be. Representative Tim Ryan, the Democrat, who spoke first, said that it was “extremism,” and then got more specific: his opponent, J. D. Vance, he said, has no ability to stand up to his own party, or “to anybody.” At a recent rally in Youngstown, Donald Trump had bragged, “J.D. is kissing my ass, he wants my support.” But what was even more troubling to Ryan was Vance’s response, which was to join Trump onstage, “shaking his hand, taking pictures.” Ryan said, “I don’t know anybody I grew up with—I don’t know anybody I went to high school with—that would allow somebody to take their dignity like that.”

With the midterms now only a few weeks away, one shouldn’t expect an overflowing of dignity in any of the half-dozen or so states, including Ohio, where Senate seats are being seriously contested. At the rally, Vance, who came to prominence as the author of “Hillbilly Elegy” and then reinvented himself as a MAGA man, said that Ryan doesn’t seem like an Ohioan because he’s a fan of yoga. Vance has also suggested that President Joe Biden was letting fentanyl stream across the border in order to punish Republican voters—an insinuation that G.O.P. candidates around the country have echoed. Recent polls have Ryan and Vance within a few points of each other, but Trump won the state in 2020 by more than eight points.

According to projections by the research firm AdImpact, a hundred and thirty-eight million dollars will be spent in the Ohio race on media advertising alone. Roughly a quarter billion dollars is expected to be spent on ads in Senate races in Nevada, in Arizona, and in Pennsylvania, and two hundred and seventy-six million is the estimate for the most expensive race, in Georgia. The motive for these outlays is clear. A sitting President’s party usually loses seats in the midterms, and that seems likely to happen in the House, where the Democrats have a margin of just eight. Barring a blue wave, Kevin McCarthy, not Nancy Pelosi, will be Speaker in January. But the Democrats have a decent shot at holding on to the Senate, which is now evenly divided, and even of picking up a seat or two.

It helps that, of the thirty-five seats being contested, twenty-one are held by Republicans. And, owing to Republican retirements, there are open seats that now seem to be in the Democrats’ reach in Ohio and in Pennsylvania, where John Fetterman, the hoodie-wearing lieutenant governor, is in a close race against Mehmet Oz, the Trump-endorsed television doctor. The situation is similar in North Carolina, where a Democrat, Cheri Beasley, is running a strong race against Representative Ted Budd. Beasley, who would be the state’s first Black woman senator, is a former chief justice of the state’s Supreme Court; Budd has said that the January 6th assault was “just patriots standing up.”

In the House, Budd co-sponsored a bill that would ban abortion nationwide after about the six-week mark, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Democrats around the country appear to be benefitting from public anger at this summer’s Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and made bills such as Budd’s plausible. Republicans, in turn, have focussed on discontent with inflation and, in attacks that are more and more crudely drawn, on immigration and crime. In Wisconsin, ads for Ron Johnson, the most vulnerable G.O.P. Senate incumbent, portray his challenger, Mandela Barnes, the state’s Democratic lieutenant governor, as an inciter of mobs who wants to empty prisons and unleash havoc in the streets. The January 6th committee linked Johnson to Trump’s “fake elector” scheme; the Senator called the allegation a smear and said that he’d been involved for only “a couple seconds.”

Pennsylvania, however, has been seen as the Democrats’ best pick-up chance. The Fetterman campaign gained ground by portraying Oz as a huckster whose true home is New Jersey. The question is Fetterman’s health. He had a stroke a few days before the primary, in May, and by his own account has not fully recovered. He has spoken at some rallies, but still has difficulty with auditory processing. In interviews, he uses transcription software: he reads what is said to him, then responds. That technological work-around will get its biggest test on October 25th, when the candidates debate. The health discussion has exposed the lowness of Oz’s campaign, which at one point said that, as a debate accommodation, it would let Fetterman “raise his hand and say ‘bathroom break!’ ” More recently, Oz has focussed on claiming that Fetterman is weak on crime, calling him “Free-Them-All Fetterman.”

The Democrats also need to hold on to the seats they have. In Arizona, Senator Mark Kelly has had a small but steady lead over Blake Masters, a Trumpist who is funded by Peter Thiel, the tech billionaire. (Thiel is also backing Vance.) In Nevada, though, in some polls, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto is falling behind Adam Laxalt, the grandson of Paul Laxalt, the late Nevada senator. Earlier this month, Laxalt appeared with Trump at a rally where the former President said that, because of Democrats, American cities are “drenched” in blood.

But the most concentrated locus of G.O.P. indignity is in the race in Georgia between Senator Raphael Warnock, a Democrat who won a special election in 2020, and Herschel Walker, whose tight connection with Trump extends back to his stint, in the nineteen-eighties, with the New Jersey Generals, a team (in the ill-fated U.S. Football League) that Trump briefly owned. In the latest spectacle—in a campaign that has been full of them—a woman told reporters that Walker had pressured her to get an abortion and had paid for it. (She is also the mother of one of his children.) Walker, who supports an abortion ban with no exceptions, has offered bafflingly phrased denials—as he does on many subjects. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, is still standing behind Walker. Last week, Senators Tom Cotton, of Arkansas, and Rick Scott, of Florida, joined Walker at a campaign stop.

Cotton said that fans of the Razorbacks, the University of Arkansas football team, had not forgotten how Walker dominated them when he played for the University of Georgia Bulldogs. But, Cotton said, “they have no hard feelings, because they want Republicans back in charge in Washington.” The message to G.O.P. voters is that they all need to see themselves as indulgent Razorback fans. The Republicans are going after the Senate with Trump’s team, and they have stopped caring what it takes to get over the line. ♦

[itsclydebitches]

There seems to be no middle ground with RWBY+, they trust you or they don’t. Some have no chance to “earn” it, but others don’t do anything to gain it. James should’ve earned it a hundred times over. He did so much but it wasn’t enough. What did Robyn do? She tried to attack Ruby and was only stopped by Penny. After that? Yang trusts the woman who almost hurt her sister over the man who gave her an arm, then blamed Ruby. Any wonder I hate these characters so much?

The frustrating thing is that I think I can see what RT was going for. Frustrating because it's the reading most of the fandom falls back on, despite the fact that the show... never actually wrote that story. In short, it's the belief that there's established good and bad in this world and we have a responsibility to uphold the former regardless of personal trust. So if a friend of mine is, say, being a racist asshole and a stranger is not, I have a moral responsibility to side with the stranger, despite the fact that I don't know them, technically can't trust them on other matters, and have little to no emotional investment in them as an individual. You need to take the side of what's right, no matter how hard that is. It's why we get so many heroes facing off against former friends and mentors. "You'd really betray me for them?" they say, pointing to the sidekick our hero only met at the start of the story, maybe a couple months ago in-world. "Yeah," they reply. "Because they're not trying to kill everyone." Basic humanity trumps long-term relationships.

That, as far as I can tell, seems to be the basic setup that RWBY was going for: Robyn may be a stranger, but she's the Good Person sticking up for Mantle, whereas Ironwood may be an ally and friend, but he's also the Bad Person hurting Mantle. Ergo, aligning with Robyn wins out, no matter that she's a stranger and Ironwood an ally. That's likewise why fans are so quick to dismiss evidence of Ironwood's good nature. Things like Yang's arm or the licenses aren't accepted as evidence for why the group should have started with more trust in him, they're reframed as excuses for why critics supposedly want to overlook his presumed, horrific nature — something that the story later made real with him shooting Oscar, killing the councilman, hacking Penny, and threatening to bomb Mantle. Viewing the good Ironwood did as some manipulative temptation the group was right to resist depends entirely on seeing Ironwood as the archetypal bad guy to Robyn's good guy.

However, this attempt failed spectacularly for numerous reasons already discussed over the past two years. Ironwood's actions were never revealed as manipulations. The group continued to work with him, thereby shouldering responsibility for his choices. Ruby actively pushed to complete Amity, despite the harm it was doing to Mantle. Robyn never did anything with the resources she stole, etc. This presumed line between Ironwood and Robyn simply doesn't exist in the text — or at least it's incredibly blurred — so when Yang and Blake run to share intel with her, it doesn't feel like the heroes turning away from the wrong path to back the real hero. We don't understand how resources to build a communications tower are hurting everyday peoples' lives. We don't understand why Weiss can't just go up and plug the hole with a bunch of ice. We don't understand why, if hurting Mantle is such an objectively awful thing, our hero Ruby keeps pushing to finish Amity anyway. We don't understand why there isn't at least an acknowledgement of good intentions here, considering that the tower is meant to save the world from Salem, helping Mantle in the long run. We don't understand why, if the group is so concerned with Ironwood's choices, they don't tell him the one piece of information that would get him to stop. And we don't understand Robyn.

Because here's the thing: it's badly written. The whole Amity debate straight through to the Fall of Atlas is a mess of ill thought out morals, shoddy worldbuilding, and outright contradictions. There's no salvaging that without rethinking Volumes 6-8, starting with the group's response to Ozpin. But all that aside, even if we kept things exactly as they are and bought into the assumption that Ironwood is as Bad and Robyn is as Good as the story wants us to believe... the group still should have at least hesitated to trust Robyn. More than a line or two of dialogue between Yang and Blake. I mean actual hesitation and a serious acknowledgement of the complications here. The concept of trust is now a focal point of RWBY and there's enough material across the entire series to make the Robyn situation way more complicated than just the group going, "We should side with her because she wants to do right by the people." Here I'm not talking about what we the audience know about RWBY's construction as a story, I mean what the characters have experienced on screen. It's a simple question at the core of the trust Robyn debate:

How do they know she's telling the truth?

Seriously, how do they know Robyn is who she says she is? That she doesn't have ulterior motives? That she's not outright lying to them and the rest of Atlas? Everything I've heard in defense of the group's fast-track trust falls short. "Well, she's presented as one of the good guys in Atlas, fighting for what's right." You mean like how Cinder, Emerald, and Mercury once posed as huntsmen and joined Ruby's school, supposedly fighting for what was right? "She's interested in politics. It's not like she's out there attacking them like Tyrian." You mean like how Salem infiltrated a kingdom via Lionheart, the White Fang has likewise tried to worm their way into positions of power, and Jacques is currently trying to steal an election? The bad guys don't limit themselves to just trying to murder people straight out. "But she stole resources back for the people!" And did... what with them? For all we actually know, she put those towards a different, nefarious plan. "But she's so passionate and she's sworn she wants to help." People lie! That was the whole thing with Ozpin! Ruby just lied at the start of the Volume. And, funnily enough, Robyn has the semblance that forces others to tell the truth, but no one can make Robyn do the same.

To be clear, I don't actually have a conspiracy theory that she's secretly a baddie. My only point is that fans were right to wonder if she was a White Fang or Salem agent and our group absolutely should have wondered the same. Take away all the personal reasons to trust Ironwood (defending Weiss, Yang's arm, friend of the inner circle, etc.) and we're still left with proof of his intentions in the form of things like Amity's plans and him continually giving the heroes more power, more resources, more connections, more ways to hurt him if they were to ever turn against him. In as much as you can prove anyone is trustworthy, Ironwood was there. But Robyn? Robyn had none of that work. More importantly, that lack interferes with our "She's doing the right thing, so we need to back her" reading. How did the group know she really wanted to do right by the people? And since that's always hard to prove, what did they do to at least attempt to reassure themselves? Absolutely nothing. Which is why the current writing makes them look stupid. They watched the bad guys infiltrate their school, organize the Fall of Beacon, stalk them, pose as allies, turn on them, lie to their faces, are telling lies themselves... and none of them came up when the question of trusting Robyn was put on the table. The idea of someone tricking them (again), or betraying them (again), or lying about Important Topics even though they're doing the same seems to have, somehow, escaped them.

It doesn't matter what Robyn's stance on Mantle is because the group never justified trusting her word and the story failed to show us (and them) that Robyn was doing good. Literally all she does pre-trust is stand for election and, again, we could say the same of Jacques. If the story wanted to make at least a miniscule improvement on this arc, we needed to see either a compelling reason to believe Robyn is all she presents herself as (for example, Penny could have known and vouched for her), or gotten an explanation for why they'd take an unjustified leap of faith when others haven't gotten one, people who have done much to earn that trust. It's a problem that grew exponentially once Oscar trusted Hazel and the group trusted Emerald, but it has existed since Ilia. As it stands, by this logic, Cinder should be able to walk up to the group and go, "I'm not bad anymore. I actually want to help now. No, I'm not lying :)" and that's that. That's what trust means to them. Taking people at their word ...unless you're a flawed ally who has made mistakes. Then trust takes months to rebuild, or is off the table completely.

Ozpin is not trustworthy. Ironwood is not trustworthy. Qrow saying "Hey" is not trustworthy. According to the fandom, Tai is not trustworthy.

Ilia is trustworthy. Robyn is trustworthy. Emerald is trustworthy. Hazel is trustworthy.

It's completely backwards and Robyn was a large part of that strange flip.

[arcticdementor]

In a democracy, every vote is supposed to be equal. If about half the country supports one side and half the country supports another, you may expect major institutions to either be equally divided, or to try to stay politically neutral.

This is not what we find. If it takes a position on the hot button social issues around which our politics revolve, almost every major institution in America that is not explicitly conservative leans left. In a country where Republicans get around half the votes or something close to that in every election, why should this be the case?

This post started as an investigation into Woke Capital, one of the most important developments in the last decade or so of American politics. Although big business pressuring politicians is not new (the NFL moved the Super Bowl from Arizona over MLK day), the scope of the issues on which corporations feel the need to weigh in is certainly expanding, now including LGBT issues, abortion laws, voting rights, kneeling during the national anthem, and gun control.

…

As I started to research the topic, however, I realized there wasn’t much to explain. Asking why corporations are woke is like asking why Hispanics tend to have two arms, or why the Houston Rockets have increased their number of 3-point shots taken over the last few decades. All humans tend to have two arms, and all NBA teams shoot more 3-pointers than in the past, so focusing on one subset of the population that has the same characteristics as all others in the group misses the point.

I think one reason Woke Capital is getting so much attention is because we expect business to be more right-leaning, and corporations throwing in with the party of more taxes and regulation strikes us as odd. We are used to schools, non-profits, mainline religions, etc. taking liberal positions and feel like business should be different. But business is just being assimilated into a larger trend.

Corporations are woke, meaning left wing on social issues relative to the general population, because institutions are woke. So the question becomes why are institutions woke?

…

Through the lens of ordinal utility, in which people simply rank what they want to happen, we are about equal. I prefer Republicans to Democrats, while you have the opposite preference. But when we think in terms of cardinal utility – in layman’s terms, how bad people want something to happen – it’s no contest. You are going to be much more influential than me. Most people are relatively indifferent to politics and see it as a small part of their lives, yet a small percentage of the population takes it very seriously and makes it part of its identity. Those people will tend to punch above their weight in influence, and institutions will be more responsive to them.

Elections are a measure of ordinal preferences. As long as you care enough to vote, it doesn’t matter how much you care about the election outcome, as everyone’s voice is the same. But for everything else – who speaks up in a board meeting about whether a corporation should take a political position, who protests against a company taking a position one side or the other finds offensive, etc. – cardinal utility maters a lot. Only a small minority of the public ever bothers to try to influence a corporation, school, or non-profit to reflect certain values, whether from the inside or out.

In an evenly divided country, if one side simply cares more, it’s going to exert a disproportionate influence on all institutions, and be more likely to see its preferences enacted in the time between elections when most people aren’t paying much attention.

…

Here are two graphs that have been getting a lot of attention

What jumps out to me in these figures is not only how left leaning large institutions are, but how the same is true for most professions. Whether you are looking by institution or by individuals, there are more donations to Biden than Trump. Yet Republicans get close to half the votes! Where are the Trump supporters? What these graphs reveal is a larger story, in which more people give to liberal causes and candidates than to conservative ones, even if Americans are about equally divided in which party they support (and no, this isn’t the result of liberals being wealthier, the connections between income and ideology or party are pretty weak). Here are some graphs from late October showing Biden having more individual donors than Trump in every battleground state.

…

In the 2012 election, Obama raised $234 million from small individual contributors, compared to $80 million for Romney, while also winning among large contributors.

…

In September 2009, at the height of the Tea Party movement, conservatives held the “Taxpayer March on Washington,” which drew something like 60,000-70,000 people, leading one newspaper to call it “the largest conservative protest ever to storm the Capitol.” Since that time, the annual anti-abortion March for Life rally in Washington has drawn massive crowds, with estimates for some years ranging widely from low six figures to mid-to-high six figures. March for Life is not to be confused with “March for Our Lives,” a pro-gun control rally that activists claim saw 800,000 people turn out in 2018. All these events were dwarfed by the Women’s March in opposition to Trump, which drew by one estimate “between 3,267,134 and 5,246,670 people in the United States (our best guess is 4,157,894). That translates into 1 percent to 1.6 percent of the U.S. population of 318,900,000 people (our best guess is 1.3 percent).” Even if the two left-wing academics who did this research are letting their bias infuse their work, there is no question that protesting is generally a left-wing activity, as conservatives themselves realize.

People who engage in protesting care more about politics than people who donate money, and people who donate money care more than people who simply vote. Imagine a pyramid with voters at the bottom and full-time activists on top, and as you move up the pyramid it gets much narrower and more left-wing. Multiple strands of evidence indicate this would basically be an accurate representation of society.

Another line of evidence showing that the left simply cares more about politics comes from Noah Carl, who has put together data showing liberals are in their personal lives more intolerant of conservatives than vice versa across numerous dimensions in the US and the UK. Those on the left are more likely to block someone on social media over their views, be upset if their child marries someone from the other side, and find it hard to be friends with or date someone they disagree with politically. Here are two graphs demonstrating the general point.

…

There’s a great irony here. Conservatives tend to be more skeptical of pure democracy, and believe in individuals coming together and forming civil society organizations away from government. Yet conservatives are extremely bad at gaining or maintaining control of institutions relative to liberals. It’s not because they are poorer or the party of the working class – again, I can’t stress enough how little economics predicts people’s political preferences – but because they are the party of those who simply care less about the future of their country.

Debates over voting rights make the opposite assumption, as conservatives tend to want more restrictions on voting, and liberals fewer, with National Review explicitly arguing against a purer form of democracy. Conservatives may be right that liberals are less likely to care enough to do basic things like bring a photo ID and correctly fill out a ballot. If this is true, Republicans are the party of people who care enough to vote when doing so is made slightly more difficult but not enough to do anything else, while Democrats are the party of both the most active and least active citizens. Yet while being the “care only enough to vote” party might be adequate for winning elections, the future belongs to those at the tail end of the distribution who really want to change the world.

The discussion here makes it hard to suggest reforms for conservatives. Do you want to give government more power over corporations? None of the regulators will be on your side. Leave corporations alone? Then you leave power to Woke Capital, though it must to a certain extent be disciplined and limited by the preferences of consumers. Start your own institutions? Good luck staffing them with competent people for normal NGO or media salaries, and if you’re not careful they’ll be captured by your enemies anyway, hence Conquest’s Second Law. And the media will be there every step of the way to declare any of your attempts at taking power to be pure fascism, and brush aside any resistance to your schemes as righteous anger, up to and including rioting and acts of violence.

…

From this perspective we might want to consider this passage from Scott Alexander, who writes the following in his review of a biography of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The normal course of politics is various coalitions of elites and populace, each drawing from their own power bases. A normal political party, like a normal anything else, has elite leaders, analysts, propagandists, and managers, plus populace foot soldiers. Then there's an election, and sometimes our elites get in, and sometimes your elites get in, but getting a political party that's against the elites is really hard and usually the sort of thing that gets claimed rather than accomplished, because elites naturally rise to the top of everything.

But sometimes political parties can run on an explicitly anti-elite platform. In theory this sounds good - nobody wants to be elitist. In practice, this gets really nasty quickly. Democracy is a pure numbers game, so it's hard for the elites to control - the populace can genuinely seize the reins of a democracy if it really wants. But if that happens, the government will be arrayed against every other institution in the nation. Elites naturally rise to the top of everything - media, academia, culture - so all of those institutions will hate the new government and be hated by it in turn. Since all natural organic processes favor elites, if the government wants to win, it will have to destroy everything natural and organic - for example, shut down the regular media and replace it with a government-controlled media run by its supporters.

When elites use the government to promote elite culture, this usually looks like giving grants to the most promising up-and-coming artists recommended by the art schools themselves, and having the local art critics praise their taste and acumen. When the populace uses the government to promote popular culture against elite culture, this usually looks like some hamfisted attempt to designate some kind of "official" style based on what popular stereotypes think is "real art from back in the day when art was good", which every art school and art critic attacks as clueless Philistinism. Every artist in the country will make groundbreaking exciting new art criticizing the government's poor judgment, while the government desperately looks for a few technicians willing to take their money and make, I don't know, pretty landscape paintings or big neoclassical buildings.

The important point is that elite government can govern with a light touch, because everything naturally tends towards what they want and they just need to shepherd it along. But popular/anti-elite government has a strong tendency toward dictatorship, because it won't get what it wants without crushing every normal organic process. Thus the stereotype of the "right-wing strongman", who gets busy with the crushing.

So the idea of "right-wing populism" might invoke this general concept of somebody who, because they have made themselves the champion of the populace against the elites, will probably end up incentivized to crush all the organic processes of civil society, and yoke culture and academia to the will of government in a heavy-handed manner.

To put it in a different way, to steelman the populist position, democracy does not reflect the will of the citizenry, it reflects the will of an activist class, which is not representative of the general population. Populists, in order to bring institutions more in line with what the majority of the people want, need to rely on a more centralized and heavy-handed government. The strongman is liberation from elites, who aren’t the best citizens, but those with the most desire to control people’s lives, often to enforce their idiosyncratic belief system on the rest of the public, and also a liberation from having to become like elites in order to fight them, so conservatives don’t have to give up on things like hobbies and starting families and devote their lives to activism.

[shreddedleopard]

Scene 1 - Erwin, Serum & Levi’s Dream

For @rivahisu107​

Okay, where to start. My apologies if these are very rambling!

So this is a scene very early on in my writing journey for AQR, appearing in chapter 5 - Consent - so my thoughts at this point were in many ways very different to how I feel now. I will say though that a lot of my intent for the sentiment of this scene hasn’t changed. So when I first came up with the idea of AQR as a story, I wasn’t necessarily very deeply into the Rivahisu ship. Don’t get me wrong - I’d toyed with pairing them together simply for the fact that they were both very aesthetically pleasing as a pairing, but it wasn’t deeper than that. Then I caught up with the manga and Hisu’s pregnancy had JUST been revealed and I thought hey, wow. Okay. Who’s the dad then? Because the farmer seemed like a deliberate red herring for me. But anyway, let’s not get into THAT debate right now lol. So I head online and do some googling, looking for some decent theories. I see the Eren stuff, I see other characters considered, but never Levi. And it surprised me. Because at that point, when we knew nothing past chapter 108 or so of the manga, I felt like there could be a plausible argument built for Dad Levi. AQR is basically the result of me wanting to explain why logically, logically, it could have been done, but not having the balls (at that point LOL) to write the theory out seriously, so I opted for FanFiction instead.

Um yeah sorry for that garbled explanation, but I feel like I needed to explain that first, because that brings me on to the point I wanted to make firstly about this particular passage. I’ve never really shipped Eruri, but I was completely drawn in by Levi and Erwin’s relationship from the get go, and even though I hadn’t poured over the manga with as finer detail as I have now, even then I think I understood the gravity of Levi’s choice and how it impacted him psychologically. Writing AQR was never about pushing any Rivahisu agenda (lol now I’m hooked obvs but still). It was about exploring a theory and seeing whether I could convince people that two unlikely characters could be romantically involved. I never really buy into the idea of one pairing the trumps the rest - I enjoy all the relationships between the characters for their own individual merits - and so throughout AQR, I wanted to explore Levi and Historia as people with real histories and complicated pasts, not just one-dimensional objects to pair with other one-dimensional objects and be done with it. 

Here I’m gonna be crazy and hold my hands up and say I essentially failed with this in terms of Historia (yeah the Levi simp in me gets the better of me sometimes HA) and this is why I started The Other Side of History - my attempt to give BOTH these characters the attention they deserve, rather than too much indulgence with Levi and not enough consideration of Historia’s past loves and losses.

Okay talk about the damn scene, Soron. Yes. Okay. Gotchu. 

I wrote Levi resisting, resisting, resisting this idea of Historia’s. Which, I still think, he would’ve. But I needed a reason for him to change his mind. I knew Levi’s inner compassion had to be the thing that would win out in the end, and he’d do it for Historia herself. So I needed something to trigger this sort of, protective reaction in him. And when I thought back to moments where Levi had to make choices before, and compassion won out over logic, of course Erwin and Shiganshina and the serum came to mind. I wanted to combine that image for him but also bring Historia into it, so the idea of this dream came to me. 

I think Levi of course retains a lot of trauma inwardly from that day, so seeing Erwin with that serum again would immediately cause an emotional response from him. But also, I needed Levi to be shown the direct consequences of his choice, and what better man to do it than Erwin himself - the man Levi trusted and respected above all. Erwin was never a man Levi could simply brush off - so the crux of the dream, while it evokes lots of haunting imagery from Levi’s past, was to have Erwin hold Levi directly responsible for the consequences of the choice he was going to make with Historia. Of course, it’s not Levi’s fault that Historia has put him on the spot and made him responsible for this choice, but then, didn’t Levi do the exact same thing to her, back when he told her to either take the throne or run away? Both of them once again being burdened by their bloodlines - Historia’s makes her royal and so the only one who could have taken the throne, Levi’s gives him super strength and makes him the perfect choice to father an heir. They put one another on the spot because of their ancestry. 

We see Levi come face to face with the idea that if he doesn’t act and make the right choice, Historia will very likely be turned into a titan. It’s the dilemma on the rooftop all over again, except this time, Levi doesn’t actually have to sacrifice anyone’s humanity in favour of another’s. He has to commit to bringing new life into the world, and that itself should save Historia from the fate of becoming a monster. 

The irony is, Levi’s choice actually never prevented Historia’s destiny, in the end. (But don’t worry - things will work out as they should!)

This I think makes Erwin’s words to Levi all the more important - Don’t regret your decision, Levi. 

[wilwheaton]

Do not let them get away with this lie.

McConnell is pushing this new lie that Trump was so distracted and completely occupied by his impeachment, he just didn’t have any time to prepare a national response to COVID-19.

This is a giant lie, what George Conaway calls “Gaslighting of the highest order.”

Look at the calendar. The impeachment trial ended on Feb. 5. In reality, it was over before it even started, thanks in large part to McConnell. The only drama was about whether there’d be any witnesses — and that ended on Jan. 31, when the Senate voted not to hear testimony. That left plenty of time to deal with the virus.

And while some lawyers in the executive branch and Congress were working on impeachment around the clock, impeachment didn’t consume the government. Trump managed to get to Mar-a-Lago at least four times in January and February, working in a few rounds of golf along the way. He held five campaign rallies around the country during the impeachment trial.

Trump even had the bandwidth during the trial to comment on the coronavirus: On Jan. 22, he told CNBC “we have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China.” On Jan. 24, he tweeted, “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!” On Jan. 30, at a speech in Michigan, he said again, “We think we have it very well under control.” On Feb. 2, referring to his administration’s Jan. 31 order partially banning travel from China, Trump told Sean Hannity, “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.”

Most importantly, impeachment didn’t keep U.S. intelligence agencies from warning the president and Congress in January and February about the danger of the virus. In particular, as Josh Rogin wrote, impeachment notwithstanding, “throughout January and much of February, senior Trump administration officials heatedly debated the scope and scale of the coronavirus pandemic.”

Nothing is going to stop Trump and his Fascist allies from lying about everything, and all of us who know the truth have a duty to keep repeating the truth.

The problem wasn’t impeachment — it was the president. There was never any chance that the government was going to take sufficient action on the virus when the president himself wasn’t taking the virus seriously. It was Trump, after all, who claimed — at the very end of February, weeks after the impeachment trial had ended — that criticisms such as Murphy’s were a “hoax” and that “within a couple days,” the number of coronavirus cases “is going to be down to close to zero.”

Trump is a catastrophic disaster for America and the world. If McConnell and his party took their oaths of office seriously, if they cared at ALL about the rule of law, they would have voted to remove Trump from office. 

Instead, because Republicans care only about their own money and power, we are facing the greatest public health crisis in a generation, with a malignant narcissist at the top of the federal government, who is incapable of leading us through it.

[ga-yuu]

~Kurama~Main Story Chapter 25~Part 2

Warning!! Sexual content below because it's the avatar challenge story. And Kurama is too cute.

Part 1

*

*

*

-------Part 4-----

Kurama: “Do you know what I’m thinking now, Yoshitsune?”

Yoshitsune: "Somewhat likely I do."

Likewise, Yoshitsune-sama does not look at Kurama."

Kurama: "Yoshitsune! Let's me make break our deal and the promise I made to you."

Ibuki: "-----No way."

Ibuki's eyes widened in realization.

Yoshitsune-sama smiled faintly and held out his hand to Kurama.

Yoshitsune: "You're not breaking our promise. You're asking me for a favor for the first time. The power you have given to me, I'm willing to give it back to you with grace."

(....They're breaking their pact!)

-----Kurama's plan is about to come to fruition.

A moment later, Kurama took Yoshitsune's hand and dazzling light-flooded around us.

Ibuki: "So, that's why."

For the first time, Ibuki backed away impatiently, but with a smile still on his lips.

Ibuki: "The power of love and friendship. I didn't expect you to use it as a trump card. How did you learn to do that? Kurama."

Kurama: "Not really. I'm just using what I already had in me."

Kurama then opens his fan.

Kurama: "----You know, Ibuki, I've never understood why I was able to control such an enormous amount of magical power to break Yoshino's spell."

Ibuki: ".....Oh, so now you understand?"

Kurama: "Yeah."

The air around Kurama distorted like a daylight tower, swirling and kneading into one solid mass.

(Kurama.....)

Kurama: "Because I wanted to protect her at all cost. This desire along with my power will be my new strength."

His magic which was twice as much power after breaking his deal struck Ibuki like a shockwave and attacked him.

Ibuki kicked the ground and created a huge sand shield but it was quickly destroyed.

Kurama: "Repent, Ibuki. You woke me up."

Ibuki: ".....Haa...what a boring end."

The light enveloped Ibuki and blew him away, from where he was too dazzled to see anything.

Yoshino: ".....Did we win?"

Kurama: "Yeah, it's over."

Tamamo: "Haa...I'm tired Kurama. Remember, you owe me one for this."

Kurama: "I don't remember."

Kurama and Yoshitsune's eyes meet and Yoshitsune smiles faintly.

Yoshitsune: "I'm glad you're safe, Kurama."❤

Kurama: "----It's only natural."

(Yoshitsune-sama rushed here to find out everything, he even went with Kurama's plan to break their deal without a second thought.)

(But that means that Yoshitsune-sama will lose a great weapon against the Shogunate in this war...)

When I think of his fierce determination, my heart is struck.

(I wonder how much trust there is between them.)

Yoshitsune: "Also, thank you. Tamamo, Yoshino."

Yoshino: "Eh?"

Yoshitsune: "For protecting Kurama."

Tamamo: "You should thank Yoshino in particular."

Jokingly, Tamamo let his long hair flutter in the wind.

Tamamo: "Let's go. Yoritomo must have achieved something by now."

.....................

In response to a night raid by the Imperial Court, Yoritomo led the main body of troops to meet them. At the end of it....

Akihito: "Nice to meet you, Minamoto no Yoritomo."

Yoritomo(fake smile): "As a Shogun, I have a problem with killing a nobleman of the Imperial Court."

-------Part 5-------

Yoritomo(fake smile): "As a Shogun, I have a problem with killing a nobleman of the Imperial Court. But no one will be able to charge you with killing a ghost that isn't supposed to be there now, Your Majesty."

Akihito: "Oh dear, I was supposed to be in the back of the line, but I got dragged out. Samurai's skill in battle is quite remarkable, isn't it?"

Akihito gives out a troubled laugh on his horseback.

Divided between his allies he is left with only a dozen private soldiers around him.

Akihito: "Well, you've got me cornered."

In spite of the hopelessness of the situation, Akihito's face never changed.

Akihito: "Go fast----"

On the horseback, Akihito waved his sleeves and several white dolls fell from his sleeves to the ground.

Shogunate soldier 1: "Be careful! He's doing something weird!"

The paper dolls swell to the size of a human and attack the Shogunate soldiers.

Yoritomo, who was in command smiled sarcastically.

Kagetoki: "Those paper dolls are Onmyoji magic. It must have been made by Yasuchika-dono."

Yoritomo: "Looks like it. We can hold out a little longer with few men. But that's only going to buy us time."

Akihito: "................"

Akihito's calm eyes captured Yoritomo and Kagetoki at a distance.

Akihito: "Neither soldier nor general will let this degree of deceit create an opening. It's not a good time to be on the offensive. In the end, I had to rely on Ibuki....but he seems to have disappeared. That's it."

With one hand, Akihito rolled up his sleeves and removes his bracelet from his hand.

Soon the air around him suddenly became heavy.

Akihito: "....Yasuchika, forgive me. I had to break our promise."

He didn't care that the soldier around him was spooked.

Akihito turned his horse's head in the direction of the Shogunate.

Akihito: "It's been a long time since I've used one of these."

The hair of Akihito turned to golden from black in a matter of seconds.

Akihito: "Sleep---"

Yoritomo: "What the---!?"

The Shogunate's soldiers, who were close to Akihito began to fall off their horses.

Kagetoki: "Kotodama? No----"

Yoritomo: "It's clearly not something a human can do. All back! Don't listen to him!!!"

Yoritomo's calm voice brought the Shogunate's soldiers to their senses.

Akihito: "....There are too many of you. Samurai are all so strong-willed and I'll have to use a strong Kotodama."

Akihito sighs and opens his mouth when-----

Akihito: "....Die-----"

Yasuchika: "DON'T DO THAT!"

Akihito: "Yasuchika!"

Yasuchika on his horse rushes up to Akihito and grabs his hand.

Yasuchika: "I've cleared our way of escape. So please come with me."

Akihito: "I was...."

Yasuchika interrupts Akihito.

Yasuchika: "I'll do anything. Anything no matter how dirty it is. I'm used to it. But don't take away from me the task of keeping your hands clean. Otherwise---For whom did I become an Onmyoji for?"

The blood-curdling words of Yasuchika caused Akihito's beautiful face to contort slightly.

Akihito: "....I'm always weak to that kind of face. Okay, Yasuchika. Let's retire for now."

Akihito and Yasuchika, both kicked their horse and runs out of the battlefield.

The soldiers hired by the Court, unable to grasp the situation clearly, rushed after him.

....................

Thus the long time on the battlefield has come to an end.

But-----

Kurama: "Yoshino, why are you running away?"

Yoshino(blushing): "B-Because...no one told me we're going to sleep together..!!!"

~~~~"I Will Love You, Forever." (Normal Story)~~~~

Kurama: "Yoshino, why are you running away?"

Yoshino(blushing): "B-Because...no one told me we're going to sleep together..!!!"

Kurama: "Why are you acting like this is the first time?"

Yoshino(blushing): "I know everything happened at the last minute...but still!!"

As I pushed and shoved my way through this pointless debate, I tried to remember why it had happened.

The war came to an end with the disappearance of Akihito-sama and Yasuchika-san.

Ibuki was knocked down by Kurama, and his life and death remain unknown to this day.

Since then, Yoritomo-sama and Yoshitsune-sama held a meeting lasting several hours and agreed on a temporary truce.

......It was only later that a small but significant problem arose for me.

-------FLASHBACK------

Kurama: "Then we'll going to my tent. Yoshitsune, are you ready?"

Yoshitsune: "Yeah, but...."

Yoritomo: "Kurama, are you seriously going to carry 'that' around with you all the time?"

Kurama: ".....? What are you talking about?"

Yoshino(blushing): "Ummm....Kurama. I don't understand why are you carrying me like this. Also Yoritomo-sama please don't address me like I'm some kind of thing."

Kurama, who had been carrying me in a bridal style as a matter of course, had a disapproving look on his face.

Kurama: "What? Do you want me to hold you up vertically? You're a selfish woman."

Yoshino(blushing): "It's not a question of orientation."

Kurama: "....? Then? I can't carry you on my back, there are wings back there."

Shigehira: "That's enough!!"

Shigehira-kun, who had been looking at me with a scornful expression, interrupted us as if he couldn't bear it.

Shigehira: "We hadn't see Yoshino in a really long time. But I don't get it. Why are you, the enemy, carrying her like that!?"

Kurama: "Because we're in love."

(He said it....again...without any hesitation.)

Shigehira(blushing for literally no reason): "Haaa!!!!????"

Sure enough, Shigehira-kun's face turned red and he stopped moving.

(I can't complain, I'm even embarrassed than Shigahira-kun...)

Kurama: "At first, I thought she was just my toy that I'd eventually let go. But I love this woman and she loves me too. There you have it----is there any reason not to touch?"

Yoshino(tomato red): "K-Kurama!! please don't say those kinds of things in public..."

Kurama: "I'm taking you to Hiraizumi tomorrow. Everything will be fine if you just look at me without worrying about other people."

Yoichi: ".....Awww, you two are making me blush"

(I can't stand this atmosphere. I'm so embarrassed!)

Then a calm voice interrupts me as if hearing my wish.

Kagetoki: "But, isn't Yoshino's official owners here? If Yoshino, who is the fox princess is removed from the Shogunate, won't our strength fall?"

Benkei: "Come on, man. It's a matter of how two people feel. Don't shove your rules and regulations onto them."

Yoichi: "He's right. Also, Yoshino spent a fair amount of time in Hiraizumi, so maybe she actually likes us better, right?"

Shigehira: "Don't count the time when she was a prisoner."

Yoichi: "I'm just stating the facts, FACTS."

Then Morinaga-san looked at me and gave his usual soft smile.

Morinaga: "I was also surprised by the news of Yoshino and Kurama being together...and I also know that you've been through a lot."

(Morinaga-san...)

Morinaga: "So I think we should all respect Yoshino's opinion."

Everyone's eyes were drawn to me and I opened my mouth shyly.

(I know it's hard to say, but it's the right thing to do, so I have to explain it properly.)

Yoshino: "As you may have guessed, I fell in love with Kurama. I am sorry to the members of the Shogunate."

Kurama: "..............."

Yoshino: "We decided to fight each other as enemies, and then things changed.... and he saved my life. So, if I'm allowed, I would like to live with Kurama."

(My life is limited, so I always want to be close to Kurama.)

Yoshino: ".....But I don't want to cause trouble for the Shogunate."

I say the best I can and kept my mouth shut.

Kurama: "It's no fun. Asking the Shogunate members for permission to live your life how you want. In fact, Yoshino is not even a fox princess anymore."

Yoshino: "Hm?"

Kurama: "Tamamo, why aren't you telling them?"

Tamamo: "Hm? Ohhh that...."

Tamamo who had been listening silently smiled mischievously.

Kurama: "The battle with Ibuki would have accumulated the amount of magic power needed to break your deal, right?"

(Really...?)

Tamamo: "I'm just sad to leave Yoshino's side. I just couldn't bear the thought of giving her to you."

Tamamo's red tongue was peeking mischievously.

Yoritomo: "What the hell do we do now? We all love Yoshino, don't we?"

Kurama: "So that's it. Should I just kill them all?"

Shigehira: "Control your emotions!!!!!"

Yoshino: "I'm sorry I'm sorry for that!!"

-----After that, Tamamo told me he likes the Shogunate and would be staying there.

We broke our deal and-----

Tomorrow, I will be going to Hiraizumi with the Rebels.

------FLASHBACK END------

(.....But, I didn't know about this arrangement.)

Kurama: "Are you out of your mind? Get over here quickly."

Yoshino: "!!"

He pulls me close and makes me sit on his lap.

My heart thudded as he puts his arms around my back to confine me.

Kurama: "----You're alive and warm."

(Kurama....?)

Yoshino: "It was Kurama who kept me alive. Remember?"

Kurama: "---Yeah, but one wrong move and I would have killed you. If I hadn't realized how much I loved you."

I can't read the emotion in that quiet voice, but....

(Maybe he's still worried?)

And when I think about it, the tension is gone.

I boldly put my arm around Kurama's back.

Yoshino: ".....I would still be alright."

Kurama: "What do you mean?"

Yoshino: "Because Kurama always gets things right, even if he doesn't know it....probably without even knowing it. I've felt that."

(And that's how he forcefully takes my hand and makes me aware of unfamiliar landscapes.)

We have been through a lot, from hurting each other to getting lost. But all that was necessary.

Yoshino: "Kurama."

Kurama: "What is it?"

Yoshino: "....I love you."(〃＾▽＾〃)

Kurama: "................you're full of sunshine."

Yoshino: "That's because I'm so happy."

Kurama frowns and pinches my cheeks with both hands.

Then his face finally approaches.....

Yoshino: "Mm...."

After a gentle kiss, Kurama separates and sighs painfully.

Kurama(blushing): "Seriously, who are you? How can you excite me so much so easily? It feels so unsettling now that I know about it too."

(....So, that's what you're thinking?)

Yoshino: "I feel the same about Kurama. So we bother are the same."

Kurama: "But it's still not enough. I might feel better if I take all of you and make love to you until you cry and beg for me."

This low voice sweetly echoes and had a dangerous scent to it.

Yoshino(blushing): "Mm..wait...."

Kurama: "I like that voice. I want to make you cry like that more."

Yoshino(blushing): "Ohh....Mmm...Ku..rama..."

The tip of his tongue tickles my earlobe and then crawls down to my neck.

A shiver ran down my spine and I instinctively understood it.

(Tonight, Kurama will not let go of me, no matter how much I complain.)

Yoshino(blushing): "Mmm....you also wanted to do..this...even before you realized...you're love for me..."

Kurama: "Yeah, and you'd always stop me without letting me go all the way."

Kurama scoops up my chin with his fingertips and laughs.

Our kiss deepened, and his soft tongue enters through the slightly opened thin lips.

Yoshino: "Hmm....Nn..Mmm...."

(Ohh..he..already knows...my weaknesses...)

He stroked my hair, tickling the nape of my neck, and his tongue traced the back of my mouth probing the sweet moans to easily escape from my lips.

Yoshino: "Ha...ah...."

The kiss ended with a wet sound and I fell against Kurama's chest.

My obi was already loosened, and his fingers enter through my loose collar.

Kurama: "You're body is begging me to torment you more, even if you try denying it with words."

Yoshino(showing her orgasm face): "No..such..thing...."

Kurama: "Then why is your body reacting to everywhere I touch? And why are you making that face?"

His finger follows down to massage my breasts....

Yoshino: "Ahh.....Nnmm...Mm.."

As soon as his fingers lightly touch me in a scratching motion, my body jumps...

Yoshino(Orgasm face): "Ku..ra...ma....n...more..."

Kurama: "Do you want more?"

Yoshino(Orgasm face): "No..more..."

Kurama smiles and kisses my eyelids, while I glare at him in tears.

Kurama: "I like the way you resist despite having a fragile body."

Is was horrified but at the same time happy to see his lovely smile.

(Does Kurama knows that he's smiling now?)

Kurama: "You are the one who clings to reason at the very end while squirming. Before, if I got the heat up to this point, you'd stiffen up, so I'd pull back."

Yoshino: ".......Why was Kurama being so much considerate before?"

I wince at the kisses on my neck and say a few words of resistance, but....

Kurama: "Ohh?"

Yoshino(blushing): "No! Nothing!"

I look away in embarrassment when I saw those ferocious red eyes.

Kurama: "I was overlooking it because I didn't find fun in simply robbing everything from you."

He purposely whispers into my ear and I shiver at his giggles.

Kurama: "Now that you have come forward and cleared that you liked all of that? Are you ready now?"

Yoshino(Orgasm face): "Ahh...I...."

He quickly uncovers my skin.

(.....Why have I fallen in love with such a troublesome demon?)

(But I never thought I'd be so happy to even be drowned.)

I could just feel the heat in my cheeks in the moonlight.

Chapter 26

[uboat53]

As a moderate liberal who grew up in a small conservative town, I believe I have an advantage over many liberals in that I understand many of the unspoken assumptions behind the seemingly nonsensical arguments conservatives make (yes, we liberals have our own hidden assumptions about the world that name conservatives side-eye us too, but that's a different story). If you're interested, I'm going to try to highlight some of these and bring them out into the open in order to help liberals make more convincing arguments to their conservative friends/enemies/frenemies.

Also, to the few "genuine" conservatives out there, those who hold to the principled worldviews defined by the Goldwater and Reagan movements, or even the older Eisenhower ideals, an apology, this isn't about you. You've unfortunately lost control of what "conservative" means and I'm only addressing the majority of those who call themselves conservative today. Maybe that will be you again in the future, but the Trump movement owns the term "conservative" today and we just live in that reality.

How to Speak Conservative

Next in my poorly updated series of "How to Speak Conservative", I think it's important to take a look at a debating tactic that's become more and more relevant over the last decade. This is the Gish Gallop.

WHAT IS THE GISH GALLOP?

To start with, Duane Gish was a young-Earth creationist who was a mover and shaker in the movement. More importantly, he engaged in numerous debates held between evolutionists and creationists in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. He had "a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics quickly." In other words, he raised a lot of points really quickly without really backing them up.

This is what's known as the "Gish Gallop". To quote the person who coined the phrase and named it after him, "...the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate."

WHY SHOULD I CARE?

This tactic of debate is becoming increasingly relevant today because, in case you haven't noticed, this is exactly what Trump and his supporters do.

With regards to the conduct of the 2020 election, they've argued that voting machines were hacked, illegal ballots were added, legal ballots were destroyed or discarded, judges corruptly ignored evidence of malfeasance, and that Congress incorrectly accepted the votes of certain states among other claims. With regards to the January 6th Insurrection they've argued that it was ANTIFA and not Trump supporters, that it was a setup by the FBI, that Nancy Pelosi is responsible for not having managed security responsibly, that no one was armed, and that it really wasn't as big of a deal as everyone is making of it among others. You can find the same pattern on nearly every issue from Covid-19 to immigration to voting rights.

Note that each of these arguments takes only seconds to make but minutes or even hours to properly refute.

Also note that the arguments don't even have to make sense together. Think about it, "it was those violent ANTIFA people!" is a completely incompatible argument with "it was completely peaceful", yet you'll hear the same person make both arguments, sometimes in the same breath.

THAT'S CRAZY!

"Why do they do that?" you might ask. How does someone manage to get up in public and make a bunch of arguments that don't even make sense with each other, much less hold up to actual consideration? Well, you have to understand two things about the point of view of anyone who still supports former-President Trump after the four years of his term in office and the never-ending campaign that he wages.

First, facts are not actually important to them. Seriously, the reason they believe the election was stolen or that the Insurrection was either a good thing or no big deal isn't because they've examined evidence and come to a conclusion, it's because that's their side's point of view. The "facts", if you want to call them that, come later. The "reasons" are just justifications for what they already want to believe. If you refute one, it doesn't matter, they'll just come up with another. The claims they put forward in public debate aren't significant to them, they're just the decorations that allow them to claim that their argument isn't completely irrational. This means they can be swapped out with other claims without any problem, they were never the point to begin with.

Secondly, you have to realize that they don't engage in debate to find out who is correct, they engage in public debate to win and, more importantly, they desperately don't want to lose. Because, you see, to them there is no case where both people can improve as a result of a debate. Everything is zero-sum. There is only a winner and a loser and you can guess which one you really don't want to be. If they cared about accuracy and correctness, then they would care enough to make a coherent argument. Hell, they would care enough to change their opinion if confronted with enough facts to the contrary. This isn't how the mind of a Trump supporter works. the only thing that is important is to win, and winning means that they didn't lose. If, at the end of a debate, their opponents haven't managed to completely refute every single claim they made because they ran out of time, then they didn't lose.

When you put these two together, you can see how this particular style of public discourse comes to be. If you don't care about factual accuracy and your primary consideration is not losing a debate, then it can be an effective strategy to just make up more stuff than your opponent could ever fact-check in a reasonable amount of time and start talking.

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?

Well, there's two answers to this question and it depends on what role you have in a given debate.

If you're just a listener, someone who is watching two other people debate, the most important thing you can do is listen closely. Too many people just listen to the claims and take them at face value. Listen a bit more closely and see who actually provides evidence and detail for their claims. As a rule of thumb, you could actually just count the claims a person makes; a person who is providing detail and evidence isn't going to be able to make as many claims as a person who isn't in the same amount of time. Less truly is more in some cases. Finally, you can also just start comparing their claims side-by-side. If one of the claims they make doesn't make sense together with another claim they make, that's usually a big tell.

If you're the debater, it gets a bit more complicated. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

1) You will not convince your opponent. If they are debating in this style, they are not willing to be convinced. Don't approach the debate from this perspective. Instead of addressing your arguments to convincing your opponent, you will have far greater success if you tailor your arguments to the audience observing the debate. Depending on where you are this might be different. If you're in a huge lecture hall, there's a lot of people, if you're in a public place or among family, it's the people around you, and if it's online, then it's whoever can read whatever is being posted. Focus on them instead of the person you're ostensibly debating.

2) Help your audience along. The Gish Gallop works because of a few features of human psychology. We generally assume that, if someone is willing to say something in public, they must believe it, and, if they believe it, then there must be some basis to it. Your audience will likely not notice that your opponent is spewing nonsense unless you point it out. Call them on things like when their arguments mutually contradict each other. Also...

3) Change the frame of the debate. The Gish Gallop relies on the presumption of truth. In other words, if you start with the assumption that everything each debater says is true, the Galloper wins because there simply isn't enough time to prove it untrue. To change the frame of the debate, force them to prove their assertions true. Don't start with the assumption that things are true, start with the assumption that they're untrue. Press them on their assertions and, if they resort to simplistic and vague justifications, call them on that too. Be aggressive and force them to spend minutes defending a point instead of just seconds asserting it. Usually they won't be able to defend their point and, in the time it takes to press it, they won't be able to make any other claims.

CONCLUSION

If there's one thing I can say for certain it's that we need to change our perspective on political debate. We no longer have two equal sides, each of whom is seeking to build a coherent and rational argument for their worldview and their preferred policies, and we need to stop acting like we do.

Engage rationally and responsibly with those who do the same, but don't be afraid to call out those who don't. The Gish Gallop was create specifically to take unfair advantage of the terms of rational debate on behalf of those who did not engage rationally. In order to avoid being taken advantage of, you need to change the tactics of the debate.

I hope this was helpful or at least interesting. Let me know what you thought and especially if you think there was something I got wrong or you think that I missed. Finally, here's some sources for some of the background stuff:

Duane Gish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish The Gish Gallop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Hope this helps and let me know if there are any other fruitless arguments you've been beating your head against a wall on that I might be able to help with.