#do you want a larger voting bloc or not | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

leupagus · 22 days ago

Text

Tuesday's House Budget Vote and what you may not have heard about

I'm reposting this from a reblog of a really great post about the work that Representatives Mullin and Pettersen did in voting against the GOP budget on February 25th, because I don't want to detract from that message.

Instead, I want to talk about the larger implications of H. Con. Res. 14 itself, and why the Democrats risked so much (in Mullin's and Pettersen's cases, actual harm) in order to show up for this vote.

The vote in question is starting the first of quite a few votes for the upcoming GOP budget; it's not a done deal by any means, this was just the vote to get it started, so to speak. But it was still a very, very, VERY important vote, because not only would failure be catastrophic, but so would a win that just barely squeaked by.

And this one squeaked like a fucking mouse in Murray's Cheese Shop.

Speaker Johnson has been waffling on putting this to a vote because there were several outspoken GOP members who talked a big game about opposing it. Usually this doesn't matter, since most bills get some bipartisanship, but at present the House is in GOP hands with only a three-member margin of error, with two seats vacant (note: those two vacancies are FL 1 and 6, which are holding their special elections on April 1 — lol — and which are EXTREMELY unlikely to flip but hey miracles happen! Donate or phonebank if you'd like!). And Democratic representatives have been voting in a bloc against...well pretty much everything the GOP's been pushing through since Trump took office. Not only that, but this budget is legit unpopular with a number of Republicans, so much so that Johnson pulled the vote at first on Tuesday because he knew it would fail if the GOP members who'd threatened to vote against it actually went through with it. What he needed was to either convince them all to fall in line, or resort to cheating.

So he did both!

He and Trump strongarmed all but one of the GOP holdouts into voting yes (Congressman Massie is in many ways a turd in a toilet, and his reasons for voting no were bad, but he did stick to his guns, I'll give him that). Reports of Trump actually screaming at one of the (female, naturally) GOP holdouts are...well, unsurprising, but that's how panicked they were about getting this bill started. Usually the Whip does this work, but Tom Emmer's been laughably bad at it and so they had to get Trump to actually do some work. Which is itself sort of astonishing. But even then, they weren't sure they could get it done.

Which leads us to part two of Johnson's plan: blatant cheating. During Pelosi's last session as Speaker, she allowed for proxy voting in light of COVID and, you know, the general state of things, but the second the GOP got back the gavel they nixed it right in the bud. This puts the Dems at a disadvantage right now because at least three of them are out for medical reasons — Mullin and Pettersen, as well as Congressman Raúl Grijalva who's fighting cancer at present. (He was the only Democrat who couldn't get to the floor for this vote, fwiw, and anyone who insists he should've can suck my left tit.)

So Johnson adjourned the House for the evening, sending everyone home, but told the GOP members to stay and then tried to rush through the vote before the Dems realized what was happening. His hope was that enough Dems would be caught flat-footed/not see the recall notice/be asleep watching Taskmaster (whoops that was me) by the time they got the message to get back to the floor. That way he could lose the holdouts but still pass the budget onto the next phase.

However! While Nancy Pelosi no longer rules the Democratic caucus with her iron fist and fabulous coats, my man Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries learned quite a lot from her (and is pretty fucking genius himself). Not only did he and the other House leadership expect this kind of chicanery from Johnson, they had planned on it.

Because here's the thing: Mullin and Pettersen didn't get on a plane at the last minute on Tuesday; they'd gotten to DC on Monday, without telling anyone they were in town. They actually hid from the GOP members all day Tuesday in order to lull Johnson into thinking he had more of a margin than he did; if the GOP holdouts really had voted against the budget, then it would've failed. Which would have been a biiiiiiig problem for Johnson and Trump.

As it is, it's still a biiiiiiig problem for Johnson and Trump, because now they know just how razor-thin their margin is. More importantly, they also now know that the Dems will fuck with them just as much (if not more) as they will fuck with Dems. Congress (and the USA in general) has operated for years on the assumption that Democrats operate in good faith, while taking it for granted that of course the GOP ratfuck as much as humanly possible.

This moment is a chilling one for the GOP; they can't assume anymore that Dems will play fair or fight clean. Which seems like a very small thing in the larger picture right now, I know, and I also know that people would love for their Democratic representatives and senators to be more vocal and angry in public ways. I get that!

But this move on Tuesday night? Is actually going to have far bigger consequences than any meme or viral video or clever soundbite from a politician. Democrats are no longer playing by the rules that the GOP's ignored for years (if not decades); they're playing by the GOP's own rules, and they just might win.

#politics!#us politics #sidenote: remember that thing about no proxy voting? well #Congressman Byron Donalds voted yea with his GOP buds #but...he was on set with Bill Maher at the time of the vote #no of course no explanation has been offered #nor has any news organization sought on as far as I've been able to determine #but still: interesting! isn't it!

1K notes · View notes

captainjonnitkessler · 1 year ago

Note

As someone in their early twenties, at a relatively liberal liberal arts school, it has been horrifying to watch the amount of fliers around campus that talked about "Don't give biden your vote in the primaries, and don't give it to him in november until he's divested from death" AKA palestine. And it's like, I understand the sentiment, but also,wow...we as impressionable 20 year olds are in fact not immune to propaganda. Because the idea that somehow the whole of voting age gen-Zers have fallen for the "don't vote as a form of protest" is horrifying to witness because there are enough of us to sway the vote!

What are you talking about, you're not going to vote??? So playing into the hands of conservatives who've pushed to raise the voting age because they're afraid of us? Seriously? It is mind boggling.

I just want to sit down every single one of them, and make they watch this fantastic video (www.tiktok.com /@bellekurve/video/7345300384161860910?lang=en) because the reaction they are all having is so deeply childishly naive, and they are framing it as brave, and it is potentially going to hurt a lot of people if they follow through with it.

[Here's the linked tiktok]

It is baffling to me that people are still pushing the "not voting as a form of protest that will push the Democrats left" thing. Politicians are not going to court your vote if your demographic historically doesn't vote in large numbers, which young left-leaning people do not.

Refusing to vote is never, ever going to make politicians swing left to court your vote because they don't think you're going to show up anyway. They're going to swing even harder towards reliable voting blocs, and those lean heavily conservative. The 60+ age bracket leans heavily conservative and consistently votes at rates 20-30 points higher than the 18-29 bracket, and religiosity correlates with both higher turnout and conservatism. That's why so many politicians are courting them on both sides of the aisle.

Evangelicals got a lot of their power in this country by being a consistent, unified voting bloc that turns out for every election. I genuinely think that if young leftists voted in larger numbers they could do the same. Refusing to vote isn't a protest, it's an abdication of any power you could have had.

#us politics

148 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 2 months ago

Text

When movements for social and political change gather to work together, there are always three essential elements that movements should keep in mind: Affinity, Identity, and Tactics. Affinity refers to your political goals, that is, your vision of a what a good society looks like. Communism, anarchism, and mainstream liberalism are all different Affinities with different political projects. Identity is created by your position in your society, and is made up of facts about you that affect your experience of life. Your race, gender, (dis)ability, and socioeconomic status are all parts of your Identity in a political sense. Tactics are the methods that you are willing to use to bring about the political goals set by your Affinity. Boycotts, public educational campaigns, voting in elections, and black bloc are all Tactics. Planning successful political campaigns and actions requires that we pay attention to all three of these elements without leaving any of them out. How and why should we address each one?

Affinity

Do you want to live in a society in which everyone can get medical care without having to worry about whether they will go bankrupt? What about a society in which police aren’t just another kind of predator? A society that seriously works protect the future of this planet and the beings that inhabit it? Your answers to these questions and others like them define your Affinity. As people learn more about the history and current reality of movements, they tend to define their Affinity more precisely and start to use words like “anarchist” and “socialist” to refer to themselves and their comrades. Sometimes we combine terms to emphasize what we think is important, such as “eco-socialist” or “anarcho-communist.” We choose these Affinities because we share the goals of larger movements. Consider some choices of Affinity within the Left:

If you oppose capitalism but not the State, then your Affinity is authoritarian communism. If you believe that the State can limit the worst parts of capitalism and that both can coexist in a reformed version of our current society, then you are a liberal. If you oppose both capitalism and the State, then you are an anarchist. These are just some of the choices of Affinity available to you. While activism can work by just being reactive, that is, by seeing that some problem needs fixing and working on it together, it is hard to broaden and sustain our movements without a clear idea of where we are going together. For example, if we are working together to fight the spread of dangerous opiates around our community, will it be a good solution for the local police to promise to arrest more people who sell drugs? An activist group built entirely around “solving” this problem will likely split on this issue. Liberals and authoritarian communists may be satisfied, while anarchists will not be, because anarchists believe that police don’t solve problems at their root. Understanding the big picture of what you and others in your group believe will help you explain your disagreements, find common ground, and reject inadequate solutions.

We want to see the big picture, not just the little issues. If you haven’t yet, begin the work to understand your Affinity. Read about diverse political movements, follow politically active people on Twitter, watch historical documentaries and go to university lectures. Revolutionary Left Radio is a podcast with a big archive of people having smart conversations about their political Affinity. Remember that the Left has more commonalities than differences, but that the differences are still very important. Most people change their Affinity as they learn more, and that’s alright too. Political traditions offer rich lessons, ideas, and inspiration. The work and sacrifice of others in the struggle for justice was meant to nourish us, and when we understand our political beliefs, it does.

7 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 1 year ago

Text

Jayden Camarena, in Northern California, is contemplating blowing off the 2024 presidential election. Evan McKenzie, in battleground Wisconsin, is looking for any other candidate than the current front-runners. In Philadelphia, Pru Carmichael isn’t even convinced this race matters.

These young voters live in different cities, work different jobs and have varying political beliefs. But among the things they have in common: They voted for Joe Biden in 2020 — and now say the president can’t count on their support in 2024.

“I genuinely could not live with myself if I voted for someone who’s made the decisions that Biden has,” said McKenzie, a 23-year-old working at Starbucks and as a union organizer in Madison, Wisconsin. “I didn’t even feel great about" voting for Biden in 2020, he said.

The feeling helps illustrate why Biden’s ratings and support among young voters have dipped noticeably in recent polling. In November, NBC News’ latest national poll showed Biden locked in close competition with former President Donald Trump at the moment for voters ages 18-34, a sharp drop from the margins Biden enjoyed over Trump in the 2020 election, according to exit polling.

“We’ve been seeing this in our data and focus groups actually since May,” said Ashley Aylward, a senior researcher at the Democratic polling firm HIT Strategies. “And to me, it’s because the 2024 campaign season for Democrats hasn’t started yet.”

Polling a year out from an election is a snapshot in time, and Biden and his party have time to bring young voters back into the fold. But Aylward and others said it will take work.

“This is the alarm bell that we needed to make sure that not only the Biden campaign, but every other Democratic operative out there and all the campaigns down the ballot — state and local — actually invest in young people, because we know how much they can change the outcome,” Aylward said.

NBC News spoke with voters who responded to the poll, as well as other voters 18-34 who supported Biden in 2020, but who now say he hasn’t earned their vote for next year, to get a clearer picture of why they are unhappy with Biden and what they want to see him do to earn their support back.

“It’s so complicated, because it almost feels like if I were to give my vote for Biden, I will be showing the Democratic Party that what they are putting out is enough, which is the bare minimum in my opinion,” said Camarena, a 24-year-old living outside the Bay Area.

Voters cited a number of policy areas that disappointed them, including insufficient moves to address climate change and Biden’s inability to fully cancel student loan debt or codify Roe v. Wade, as the president deals with a closely divided Congress. However, Biden’s response to the Israel-Hamas war may be having the greatest effect on his relationship with this voter bloc.

The NBC News national poll, conducted more than a month after the start of the Israel-Hamas war, shows 70% of voters under 35 disapproving of Biden’s handling of the war.

McKenzie cast his first presidential ballot three years ago for Biden, when the Democratic candidate carried Wisconsin narrowly, in part thanks to young voters like McKenzie. He said he urged his friends to vote for Biden then, telling them, “You’ve got to do this.”

He now says he won’t be having those conversations this election cycle. He’s angry at the president for his handling of the Israel-Hamas war, and the threat of losing the White House to the Republican Party has done little to win over his vote.

“I want to show the Democratic Party as a young person that you still need to earn our vote and if you don’t, the consequences will be your career,” McKenzie said. “A Republican getting elected isn’t the end. It is the beginning of a much larger fight.”

Big promises unfulfilled

In 2020, Biden carried young voters by more than 20 points against Trump, but some of that support appears to have been tepid — and tied to enormous campaign promises from Biden that he has not been able to deliver as president of a closely divided nation.

“I mean, he made a lot of really big promises in his campaign and virtually none of them were followed through on,” said Austin Kapp, a 25-year-old living in Castle Rock, Colorado. “I mean, he could have codified Roe v. Wade, he could have stood up for the rights of people all over the country, he could have done a lot of things, but he didn’t.” ________________

While Biden and Democrats pushed to codify the protections of Roe at the federal level, congressional realities made legislative efforts impossible. A vote to codify Roe in May 2022 failed in the Senate, with Biden lashing out at Republicans afterward and urging voters to “elect more pro-choice senators this November, and return a pro-choice majority to the House.” Democrats kept the Senate but lost the House in November 2022.

Biden also backed a rules change to the Senate filibuster, which would have allowed legislation to pass by simple majority instead of a higher, 60-vote threshold, but the change was blocked in a bipartisan vote.

Biden wasn’t Kapp’s first choice as a candidate in the last election, and this year he plans to vote third party if the contest is a Biden-Trump rematch. He graduated from school just last spring carrying both private and federal student loans.

When asked how he felt about his loan repayments beginning soon, Kapp groaned: “Oh, yeah, that was another thing.”

“It’s kind of sad to see that the quote unquote lesser of two evils that we were all promised, is this,” Kapp said of Biden.

Camarena agrees. Though she is vehemently against Trump, she says she only supported Biden in 2020 reluctantly.

“It was more of a well, [Biden]’s better than Trump, you know?” she said.

Camarena’s feelings toward Biden now are worse. She works for CalFire and is passionate about addressing climate change. She says she was “turned off” when the Biden administration approved the controversial Willow oil drilling project in Alaska.

“It made me really angry,” she said. “He painted himself as, you know, trying to advance or improve climate change.”

When she talks to other voters her age about Biden, she says, the sentiment is similar and discouraging. “It feels like the best option that we have isn’t good enough,” Camarena said with a sigh, adding, “It can feel really powerless.”

Worried voters cite higher prices

Sentiments like these among a constituency Democrats rely on to win elections mean campaigning in 2024 will be critical, maybe even more so than in previous elections, said Daniel Cox, director of the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute.

“I think on some level, you can say that the Biden-Harris team have not been as aggressively pitching their accomplishments to voters and maybe that they don’t feel like they’re in campaign mode yet,” he said. “You certainly see this with the economy, which the sort of macroeconomic indicators have been positive for quite a while and keep surprising analysts that things seem to be doing much better than folks thought they would.”

While the economy is performing stronger than when Biden first took office, Olivia Thompson, a 26-year-old mother in Elko, Nevada, says she doesn’t feel those improvements.

“Not even a little bit, and I’m living it firsthand,” Thompson said.

Her family of five lives paycheck to paycheck. She says Biden earned her vote last election based on promises for a more prosperous future.

“I was more excited about the fact that he was saying that he was gonna fix the economy and get everything back on track and then everything just skyrocketed,” she complained. “All of like our grocery bills and gas — it just never went back down.”

Thompson plans to vote for a third-party candidate in November.

Some of the economic anxiety voters have may be because they’re not hitting the same economic milestones that their parents did, said Aylward, the Democratic opinion researcher.

“I think it would do Biden wonders if he came out with a really, really clear plan for that to help these young people’s anxiety,” she said. Millennials and Generation Z voters "are seeing just how far out of reach buying a home is or saving money and, of course, student loans are really the first barrier and piece to that.”

Several voters said they supported Biden on the expectation he would tackle the student debt crisis. The administration successfully erased $127 billion in student debt — more than any president in history, but after the Supreme Court ruled against his original plans to cancel up to $400 billion in student debt, that failure became the lasting headline.

“Whether you like it or not, Biden has done a number of things, but young people are just far less likely to give him credit, good or bad, on anything that he’s done,” Cox said.

McKenzie, who graduated in the spring, said he remains unimpressed by the accomplishments of the administration.

“I’m glad it’s the most ever" canceled student debt, he said. "It’s still not even close to what was promised,” he added. “And I think that that’s sort of what I’m going into this campaign feeling, like broken promises all around.”

Combating that sentiment will be crucial to winning back support.

Cox said he thinks the Biden campaign "is in deep trouble at this stage.” He said, “There’s still plenty of time, but the trajectory is not good for him.”

Camarena is one voter leaving the door open for her mind to be changed.

“I think that there is a chance” of Biden winning back her support, she said, adding that she expects the president to call for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war.

“If he would do that, that would make me reconsider. Though, she said, she would "still be a bit skeptical.”

Another voter said it’s already too late.

Carmichael, of Philadelphia, hoped the Biden administration would remind her of the Obama days. She says she is disappointed by both Biden and Trump and wants to spend her time focusing on local community care and voting in local elections.

“I don’t think the presidency has too much of an effect on what happens in my day-to-day life,” she said.

Carmichael won’t be supporting Biden in November. If the choices next fall are Biden and Trump, she says, she will likely leave those boxes empty.

“I gave him one shot and it was not worth it,” she said.

#nunyas news #A lot of the complaints #in this article #are things the man has no control over #but I'm glad to see #voters saying this kind of thing #even if I don't think most have the spine #to not still vote for the same guy

12 notes · View notes

biblenewsprophecy · 10 months ago

Text

‘EU elections: Netherlands kicks off 4-day parliamentary vote’ ‘Germany begins a dance?’

@bible-news-prophecy-radio

COGwriter

While many, particularly in North America, are focused on the USA Presidential election, a significant election is to take place during June in Europe–its parliamentary election. Voting has started in the Netherlands:

EU elections: Netherlands kicks off 4-day parliamentary vote

6 June 2024

The Netherlands has begun voting in the European Union parliamentary elections. Dutch voters will provide an early litmus test for the far-right. …

What you need to know

Voters in The Netherlands are casting their ballots in the European parliamentary electionsIreland and the Czech Republic go to the polls on Friday while the other member states will vote over the weekendPolls are opening amid fear of a surge in far-right parties across the bloc …

Geert Wilders, of the far-right PVV, was among the first senior politicians to vote on Thursday.

Six months ago, his party sent ripples across Europe by becoming the biggest party in the Dutch national parliament.

He is looking to build on that popularity and set the tone for much of the bloc, with calls to give powers back to national capitals and away from the EU so member countries have more autonomy on issues such as migration.

At the same time, Wilders wants to get more powers in the European parliament to weaken the bloc from within.

“You also need to have a strong presence in the European Parliament and make sure that, if necessary, we will be able to change the European guidelines in order to be in charge of our own immigration policy and asylum policy,” news agency AP cited Wilders as saying after voting in The Hague.

He called for a broad alliance of far-right parties to break up the traditional coalition of Christian Democrats, Socialists, pro-business Liberals and Greens.

“Making a larger group in the European Parliament,” Wilders said, “that gives us power to change all those European regulations in order to be more in charge of it ourselves — here in the national parliaments.”

Young voters expected to give boost to the far right

Young voters fueled a Green wave in 2019. Now, under-30s seem poised to boost the far right in the European Parliament.

It’s not quite a youth wave, but eurosceptic, anti-immigrant parties are no longer just for the old. https://www.dw.com/en/eu-elections-netherlands-kicks-off-4-day-parliamentary-vote/live-69285235

There is a shift going on in the European Union. Islamic and other immigrants are becoming less welcome as are politicians that welcomed them in. Young female voters do not wish to fear being raped, whereas young male voters see migrants impacting their employment prospects.

Related to the election and a shift to the right for European voters, a reader sent me a link to the following last March:

BERLIN/BRUSSELS (own report) – In next June’s European elections extreme right-wing parties threaten to become the strongest force in a third of member states and the second or third strongest force in another third. This finding comes from an analysis by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), a pan-European think tank. The latest polls predict a major shift in the make-up of the European Parliament. The far-right ECR parliamentary group and ID group will together be stronger than either the Social Democrats or the conservative EPP. The study indicates that the EPP parties and Social Democrats are about to face significant losses. Although they might mathematically still form a narrow majority in an alliance with the liberal Renew Europe group, such a parliamentary coalition would be unstable and unworkable in practice. This is the background to a debate in the EU on whether, under conservative EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, forces on the far right should be embraced as partners after the election. The focus is on cooperation with the ECR group, which includes the Sweden Democrats and Vox from Spain. In the European Parliament this group is led by the ultra-right Fratelli d’Italia under Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

A ‘grand coalition’ in decline

This year’s European elections will be held from 6 to 9 June. The political groupings that have traditionally backed the policies pursued by the European Commission are likely to suffer painful losses. This is the conclusion of a study by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) based on numerous national polls. The analysis predicts that the seats taken by conservative European People’s Party (EPP) will probably fall from 178 to 173, Social Democrat MEPs from 141 to 131, and those of the liberal Renew Europe from 101 to 86. The Greens, too, are expected to see their representation shrink, taking 61 seats instead of 71. These losses add up to a shift with consequences for coalition options in the Parliament. According to the forecast, the ‘grand coalition’ of EPP and Social Democrats, which had already lost its absolute majority back in 2019, will now slip from its current 45 per cent to 42 per cent of seats. A potential ‘super grand coalition’ that includes Renew Europe would reach 54 per cent, creating a mathematical majority. But in practice it would fall short of having the numbers needed for a stable coalition in the parliament. This, as the ECFR study points out, is because parties within parts the political groups in the European Parliament frequently refuse to vote with the majority, reflecting the divergent national interests involved.[1]

The far right is gaining

The ECFR analysis predicts that parties of various shades of far right politics will make significant gains. They are likely to become the strongest force [2] in nine countries and the second or third strongest [3] in nine others. They have already claimed the leadership of the Italian government, with Giorgia Meloni of the Fratelli d’Italia party as prime minister. They have prevailed in Netherlands, although Geert Wilders of the Partij voor de Vrijheid narrowly failed to become prime minister. The hard right now hold the post of deputy prime minister of Finland (Riikka Purra of The Finns party). They have participated in a coalition government in Austria in the form of the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) and been tolerated in Denmark (Dansk Folkeparti). The radical-right spectrum also includes, according to the ECFR analysis, Hungary’s governing party Fidesz, with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and Poland’s only recently ousted ruling party PiS (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość) under Jarosław Kaczyński. In Germany, the far right is mainly organised within the AfD. In the European Parliament, the parties of the far right have so far been loosely united either in the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group or the Identity and Democracy (ID) group. The ECR, centred around the Fratelli d’Italia and the PiS, can hope to increase its number of seats from 67 to a predicted 85. The ID group, formed around Austria’s FPÖ, the Italian Lega and the French Rassemblement National (RN), is likely to be the big winner, growing from 58 to 98 seats. There is also a sizable number of mainly extreme right-wing MEPs who are not attached to any group. 03/26/24 https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/news/detail/9525

Consider also that the waves of Islamic migrants into Europe was something a pope of the last century was concerned about:

Pope John Paul II (March 1993), as reported by Monsignor Mauro Longhi on October 22, 2017: ‘Tell this to those whom you will meet in the Church of the third millennium. I see the Church afflicted by a deadly scourge. … ‘It’s called islamism. They will invade Europe. I saw the hordes coming from the West to the East’, and he described to me the countries one by one: from Morocco to Libya to Egypt, and so on to the eastern parts. The Holy Father added, ‘They will invade Europe, Europe will be like a cellar, old relics, shadowy, cobwebs. Family heirlooms. You, the Church of the third millennium, will have to contain the invasion. Not with armies, armies will not suffice, but with your faith, lived with integrity.’ ” (McLean DC. Newly revealed vision of St. Pope John Paul: Islam will invade Europe. LifeSite News, November 23, 2017. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/newly-revealed-vision-of-st.-pope-john-paul-islam-will-invade-europe)

Europe is going to change–and will deal with Islamism as Islam is NOT the prophesied religion of the coming European Beast power–he will initially feign some version of Roman Catholicism.

UPDATE 1225: Just saw the following:

German leader hardens on deportations amid row with far right as EU election looms

Chancellor says violent, foreign-born criminals, even from Syria and Afghanistan, may be forced to leave

6 June 2024

The German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, has told parliament he backs the deportation of violent, foreign-born criminals even if they come from Syria or Afghanistan, as he signalled a more hardline stance three days before Germans vote in European elections.

In a heated debate days after an Afghan asylum seeker allegedly killed a police officer at a far-right rally, Scholz responded on Thursday to accusations by the conservative opposition and the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) that his government was lax on deportations.

He told MPs, to applause: “Let me be clear: it outrages me when someone who has sought protection here in our country commits the most serious crimes.

“Such criminals should be deported, even if they come from Syria and Afghanistan.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/06/scholz-hardens-line-on-deportations-after-row-with-far-right-as-german-election-looms

Yes, Germany is starting to get more serious about deporting Muslims.

Consider something posted here back in 2017:

Notice a Catholic prophecy:

Old English Prophecy: In Germany begins a dance, Which passes through Italy, Spain, and France, But England shall pay the piper. (Dupont Y. Catholic Prophecy: The Coming Chastisement. TAN Books, Rockford (IL), 1973, pp. 21-22)

What kind of a dance?

One that will impact Muslims. … a European ruler will push Islam out of Europe (Thiel B. ‘Germany sees record number of people with immigrant background’. COGwriter, August 1, 2017)

Could this be a step?

Consider also that other Roman Catholic writings also point to Islam being pushed out of Europe:

Brother Louis Rocco (19th century): Terrible wars will rage all over Europe. … In Istanbul (Constantinople) the Cross will replace the half-moon of Islamism, and Jerusalem will be the seat of a King. The southern Slavs will form a great Catholic Empire and drive out of Europe the Turks (Mohammedans), who will withdraw to North Africa and subsequently embrace the Catholic faith. (Dupont, p.76)

St. Francis de Paul (d. 1507): A new order will be founded, that of the Cruciferi, because its members will carry the cross on their banners…The Crusaders will lead the Mohammedans, the teachers of heretical doctrines and bad Christians back to Christ…the power of Islam {was} destroyed by the Great Monarch. (Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, p. 142).

Note: Sometimes the expression “the Turks” refers to Islam and not just people from Turkey.

Power will be given to a leader, that sounds like the ‘Great Monarch,’ as Europe is prophesied to go through at least two major reorganizations in Revelation 17:

12 “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. 13 These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. (Revelation 17:12-13)

Many of the migrants that Europeans are concerned about are Muslim, from Islamically dominated lands.

With that in mind, notice the following Roman Catholic prophecy:

Rudolph Gekner (died 1675): A great prince of the North with a most powerful army will traverse all Europe, uproot all republics, and exterminate all rebels. His sword … will combat on behalf of the true orthodox faith, and shall subdue to his dominion the Mahometan Empire. (Connor E. Prophecy for Today. Imprimatur + A.J. Willinger, Bishop of Monterey-Fresno; Reprint: Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford (IL), 1984, p. 36)

If the above has a lot of accuracy (and it has certain biblical consistency), it seems to also show that all (or at least some) republics in Europe are to be uprooted and a “great prince of the North” (also called the King of the North in Daniel 11:40) will rise up–he is prophesied to eliminate a power of the currently Muslim-dominated nations in Daniel 11:40-43. The Bible in Revelation 17:12-13 supports the idea of republics being replaced by a different form of governance.

Related to Islam’s future in Europe, we made the following video on our Bible News Prophecy YouTube channel:

youtube

17:19

Will Islam be Pushed Out of Europe?

On June 8, 2018, Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurz announced the closing of seven Islamic mosques in an effort to reduce “political Islam.” In the past several years, at least 6 European nations have banned the wearing of a commonly used garment by Islamic females. Heinz-Christian Strache (later Vice Chancellor of Austria) has declared that Islam has no place in Europe. Did Germany’s Angela Merkel call multiculturalism a failure? Will there be deals between the Muslims and the Europeans? Will a European Beast leader rise up after a reorganization that will eliminate nationalism? Will Europe push out Islam? What does Catholic prophecy teach? What does the Bible teach in Daniel and Revelation? Is Islam prophesied to be pushed out of Europe? Dr. Thiel addresses these issues and more.

Here is a link: Will Islam be Pushed Out of Europe?

That said, the coming European leader will work with the Church of Rome (whose ‘Catherdra’ is within the borders of the ‘City of Seven Hills’) for a time (cf. Revelation 17:1-13). Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Catholic private prophecies point to him (sometimes referred to as the ‘Great Monarch’) to rule over ‘New Babylon’:

Abbott Joachim (died 1202): The city of Babylon shall then be the head and guide of the world…this holy Pontiff will ask the cooperation of the generous monarch of France (Great Monarch)… A man of remarkable sanctity will be his successor in the Pontifical chair. Through him God will work so many prodigies that all men shall revere him. (Connor, pp. 31-33)

Monk Leontios (died 543): Rejoice, oh most unhappy one, oh New Babylon! . . . You, who are the New Babylon rejoice now on behalf of Zion! New Babylon, dance, bounce and leap greatly, make known even those in Haydes what a Grace you have received. Because that peace which was yours to enjoy in times past, and which God has deprived you of in course of battles, receive it once more from the hand of an Angel . . . oh, the City of Seven Hills the dominion will be yours. (Otto, Tzima. The Great Monarch and WWIII in Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Scriptural Prophecies. Verenika Press, Rock City (SC), 2000,��pp. 82-83)

Speaking of Babylon and the Europe, it may be of interest to note that the European parliament building shows similarities to the unfinished Tower of Babel from the Old Testament:

As far as the connection between what is going on in Europe and the ancient Tower of Babel, notice the following European poster from several years ago:

The trappings and the agenda that are going on do align with the type of political power that the Bible warns about. Notice also the following:

Europe has many ties to the Beast and the woman who rides it and this is reflected in official European coinage and art. The Bible warns against the woman who rides the Beast in Revelation 17.

The Bible itself warns about a religious system based out of the city of seven hills that rides the European Beast power.

That said, Europe is inching towards putting in leaders that would be more supportive of pushing Islam out of the continent.

June’s Parliamentary elections look to possibly be a step in that direction.

Ultimately, Europe will push Islam out. And that will have to involve political leaders who want that done.

LATEST NEWS REPORTS

LATEST BIBLE PROPHECY INTERVIEWS

0 notes

longwindedbore · 3 years ago

Text

If GOP and/or Evangelicals were actually *Pro-Life for the Fetus* because *Gawd’s Will* or because a fear there a won’t be *White People in 2040* ~ they would have already incorporated pre-natal care to insure their objectives. As well as come up with a way to exclude non-whites from the neo-natal.

They don’t care about fetus or babies of any race.

*Pro-Life* is misdirection. I’m suggesting not wasting your energy arguing with them. Or trying to educate.

Spend time doing something useful in your local community if you want to expend energy.

++++++++++WHY?++++++++++

Do we - or even the other voting bloc- really *believe* that Kavanaugh or McConnell or any of the turds on SCOTUS or in Congress or the State Housez are Devout Christians? Or worried about future generations of USAmericans?

When have any of them demonstrated the LEAST concern for anyone in their State or Community today let alone the future? Concern for anything but their own enrichment?

“Follow the Money”

The Economy is 70% based on consumers. Particularly people creating family units and spending beaucoup dollars on what is needed IMMEDIATELY for 2.5 children families: multi-bedroom apartments, larger suburban homes, mini-vans, weekend travel, clothing, food, toys, etc. participation in Church because ‘how will children learn morality’? All local municipalities depend on sales and property taxes from these activities and upgrades. Businesses depend on Family Obligations to keep employees tied to their current employer.

Unfortunately for the Consumer Economy, every generation after the Boomers are spending LESS. Not getting married. Looking for small apartments. We have the largest numbers of adults living with their parents since the Great Depression.

Forced birthing is forced family creation

The relentless GREED of the 1% of the 1% has strangled the circulation of money in their consumer paradise.

Why would anyone consider having children in a world facing looming disasters of Climate, Energy costs, Consumer inflation, perpetual pandemic, poisons in the processed food and environment, crushing debt, multiple daily mass shootings, criminalization of poverty, rising fascism and Theocracy, and the inertness of government in dealing with these crises? Plus this year the return of the threat of thermonuclear annilation? At any minute if a Putin or a Trump gets cranky?

The Economy has been propped up twice in 12 years by Federal *loans* to Corporations, Banks and Wall Street for a total of $14,000,000,000,000. (14 Trillion)

Does that sound like a *healthy* economy? Or one collapsing?

Trying to force us to spend money we don’t have is a intelligent an answer as the Rich and Powerful can come up with.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

INCIDENTALLY, the $14 Trillion in *loans* were secured with the assets of the Corporations, Banks, and Wall Street. We could foreclose immediately and re-open the Banks and Fortune 500 as co-ops. Shut down Wall Street.

Institute Universal Base Income and Universal Healthcare. Ban poisonous additives. Fund public education and public healthcare facilities. Accelerate the move away from fossil fuels. Shrink the footprint of Cities, expand public transportation, have more parks.

Or opt for *normalacy*

3 notes · View notes

afniel · 2 years ago

Text

I'll keep this relatively short because I don't really have the energy to go into it but:

I literally do not give a shit what you do federally, but not all elections are created equal and if you are not disenfranchised, you NEED to be voting in your local elections. Those matter, enormously, for your day-to-day shit. You want your infrastructure maintained? You want your libraries funded? You want schools to support the arts? You want fewer pigs and more social workers if you need to call 911? You want to put officials in power that could look at horrible shit like bathroom laws and say, "No, this is not what this community stands for. We will not enforce this here."? That's shit that's decided locally, in elections that in many smaller areas can be decided by literally tens of votes. Even in larger areas it can be a few hundred simply due to how few people turn out for them. If you convince ten friends to vote and they convince just two friends each, you could already have created a surprisingly major power bloc if you live rurally.

No, it won't fix everything obviously. It's not perfect. It's still working in the system that exists. I'm not pitching it like it's a silver bullet, because it's not. But local votes are THE one kind of vote you can cast that is absolutely the most likely to enact visible, concrete change in your life, and relatively few people who can cast them even bother. You're also most likely to see independent and no-party candidates win on local levels, which is cool, because fuck the useless-ass bipartisan system, it was a mistake from the start.

(Bonus points if you can show up to town hall meetings and the like because that gets into actual boots on the ground activism, but I'm not gonna preach anything I don't practice and I don't have the spoons for it.)

Never forget that during the 2020 US presidential election season, while one of the largest popular uprisings in human history was occurring, mutual aid networks were seeing an unprecedented surge in response to the pandemic, and fascist violence and rhetoric was ramping up rapidly, liberals were still pissing their pants and hollering "well what ELSE do you EXPECT us to DO!!!!" whenever the thought of taking some kind of action other than just voting was brought up

That was when I realized that reaching out to "blue no matter who" libs is just as hopeless as reaching out to conservatives. We'll be here when you decide to pull your heads out of the sand - until then, I'm not wasting my time

#ah man I don't want this post to bite me in the ass but arguments like this are like #talking like voting is ONLY for federal representation gets me so chafed #you wanna see a guy who makes a big difference but you don't know they do? go look up what your county controller does #anyway that's enough out of me I'm not here to fight I'm just here to remind people about this and bounce

4K notes · View notes

antoine-roquentin · 5 years ago

Link

First, take a look at the very equivocal position of the Democratic leadership. One little noted detail is important. An amendment inserted in the lame-duck legislation that enshrined the “Swaps Pushout” weakening of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill in January 2015, made it easier for big donors to funnel much larger sums of money to the national party committees. This has, I think, made it even easier for blocs of big donors to control those committees, even as small contributions sometimes surge. Not only in 2018, but in the 2020 primaries, I think this mattered.

As a result, the Democratic National Committee has not been subordinated to the Biden campaign, at least not yet. The surge in the southern Democratic primaries that destroyed the Sanders boom involved many big Democratic donors along with many black congressmen and women, together with the political and financial networks of former president Barack Obama and the Clintons. It was a coming together of the entire Democratic establishment to stop Sanders. Congressional black leaders were thus heavily identified with the “Stop Sanders” movement, too.

But with the combined economic collapse and the pandemic revealing the bankruptcy of the traditional establishment, the whole top of the party has had to scramble. How they have responded is very interesting. Thanks to the dissemination of so many videos, the realization about the racism that black Americans face — and not just by so many police — is very widespread. The revulsion is deep and real.

In response, the Democratic establishment is taking a leaf from the past — not the late ’60s, when groups highly critical of the Democrats became prominent, but the early ’60s. Joel Rogers and I described the process in our book Right Turn. When the civil rights movement emerged, major foundations, prominent business leaders of major multinationals, and foundations allied to them heavily supported that groundswell. John F. Kennedy famously called Martin Luther King in jail, while prominent Wall Street lawyers flew down south or otherwise helped represent civil rights campaigners who were under legal attack. That’s what’s happening right now, with groups closely allied with the Democratic Party helping to raise money. There will be tensions now, as there were then, between the party and the movement, but that’s the basic direction things are taking.

So how does this play into the election?

I think the basic script each party is following is evident. Democrats are hoping for a repeat of 2008. In that election, policy was hopelessly bungled by the Republican leadership. After Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, nobody in opposition had to say very much. Democrats could just sit and watch John McCain flail helplessly.

Donald Trump, by contrast, is clearly copying the Nixon playbook, though because he’s in power, 1972 is closer to the mark than 1968. His administration’s heavy-handed appeals to “law and order” are obvious, and so are the ways he tries to bait protesters. The “law and order” mantra is looking a bit thin, though, partly because the videos and protests so clearly touch a chord with many members of the public. But it is also apparent that the US military wants no part in quelling domestic protests, so that the best Trump is likely to be able to do is to try to irritate protesters and hope for strong public reactions. Attorney general William Barr is also pitching in, in spectacular fashion.

The other thing the White House is bent on doing is finding a way to levitate the economy. In 1972, Richard Nixon famously relied on Arthur Burns at the Fed to engineer a legendary political business cycle. Today’s Fed certainly reacts to pressures from Trump, but the drastically different world situation severely limits its room for maneuver. It can hardly do more than it has even if it wanted to.

This is why the president and the vice president are trying so desperately to downplay the pandemic. They want to drive people back to work and push up the GDP. Vice president Mike Pence is plainly encouraging state leaders to talk up their successes and downplay bad news, including spiking COVID-19 cases in the South and West. The White House thinks they have to get the economy moving again or Trump will be toast in November.

How different is this from what the administration was doing earlier?

It represents a doubling down on policies that Trump and his camp wanted to promote earlier and did for a while. As the pandemic hit, all over the developed world, prominent business figures and conservative economists warned about the dangers of a long lockdown. Some, including an occasional central banker, even talked sotto voce about how such policies would reduce state pension obligations. In the United States, the UK, and other European countries, advocates talked up the idea of “herd immunity.” Trump’s “kitchen cabinet” of business figures, including prominent private equity managers, were repeatedly cited as pushing the president to take a “go slow” attitude on lockdowns.

After the publication of the Imperial College estimates of the death rates such policies would entail, though, enthusiasm waned. The UK changed policy. The switch definitely affected the Trump administration’s attitudes. It helped, along with the ghastly reality of what was happening on the ground, especially on the East and West coasts of the United States, to force the administration to accept lockdowns and sheltering in place. Both in the United States and in the UK, though, pressures from business groups for rapid reopening remained very strong. Conservative groups have even urged reopening without establishing a viable testing regime, which is exactly what the administration has now done.

Clear camps are forming within business, and those look to be seeping into politics. Many small companies whose business models rest on low wages, along with financiers — meaning private equity first and foremost — whose strategies depend on buying and breaking up firms, continue to plump for rapid reopening.

By contrast, many firms in the rest of finance, and especially in high-tech and capital-intensive industries whose strategies do not rest on low wages, are less heedless of the dangers of quick opening. Many tech firms enthusiastically promote their products as solutions to the problems the pandemic creates — as is obvious with many internet and software companies. Robert Rubin called for joint panels of medical professionals and economists to decide when reopening was feasible and for contact tracing; even robotic assistance has been touted.

Where the rubber meets the road, though, is the critical question of worker safety. Trump gutted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Not only is the number of inspectors way down, but key appointees are plainly uninterested in regulating on the issue at all.

It seems to me that this is a potentially fateful intersection between the movement growing out of Minneapolis and the Democrats. Calls to reopen quickly are basically demands by affluent white-collar managers who can work at home. They want to send blue-collar workers back to work under conditions the senior executives would not accept for themselves. Many of the blue-collar workers are, it is important to add, black or Latino. Though you would never know from reading any major newspaper, wildcat and other strikes have soared since Minneapolis. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of them, as Mike Elk’s Payday Report website is documenting. It seems clear that the protests have inspired many black and Latino workers to demand safe working conditions.

I don’t have much to say for the classic financial bailouts the United States has pursued — they protect the wealth of those that have it, while the government does something, but not much, to protect the livelihood of average citizens. But it would make a great deal of sense to move onto the national balance sheet the costs of redesigning work to make it safe. That would be a really good use of public resources.

So how does this play out in the election?

Right now, COVID-19 cases are soaring in many Southern and Western states, whose Republican governors had followed the White House lead and pretended the pandemic was over or would somehow never reach them. As a result, you can feel a seismic tremor in Trump’s support: the fabled 40 percent or so base level for him that people thought could never be breached is being broken.

But I remember 1988 very well, when Michael Dukakis was almost 20 points ahead of George H. W. Bush in late summer. A lot can happen to change what looks like an all but insurmountable advantage. One needs to remember that Biden looks good mostly next to Trump; the Democratic candidate doesn’t generate much enthusiasm from voters on his own. How the Biden campaign can tap the energy that fueled Sanders, and, to some extent, Warren, is not clear yet. The terms of trade between the camps are still being worked out, and the effort could fail. If Democratic elites are dumb enough to believe the claims so many have made that 2016 had nothing to do with economics, they could repeat that disaster.

I have a hard time believing that people who are out of work and watching how the government is allowing insurers to slip out of covering the costs of COVID tests will be inspired to vote for Biden without something far stronger than a “public option” for health care instead of Medicare for All, for example.

Plenty else can go wrong, too. Let’s just bracket the possibility of some foreign crisis, especially in the South China Sea, since it’s also clear Trump right now is still hoping that a big trade deal with China might come through. Otherwise, there are the old reliables for the GOP: efforts to hold down voter turnout and giant flows of big money.

This year, though, there’s a wrinkle to the first one. Trump’s campaign against the Post Office may have started out as a fight with Amazon, but right now, it’s clearly turned into something else. Empirical evidence from the Wisconsin primary is clear that voting in person led to several waves of new COVID infections.

As a result, interest in mail balloting is way up. Of course, Republicans are mostly opposed to that, though empirical evidence up to now does not suggest that mail ballots have strong partisan advantages one way or the other. But, of course, a broke Post Office won’t be delivering much of anything. My guess is that you’ll see Trump dig in ever more obdurately on this issue as election day approaches.

Which brings us to the money question. Here, I don’t have much to add to what my colleagues Paul Jorgensen, Jie Chen, and I wrote earlier in the year. In 2016, we found that Trump floated to victory on a big wave of late money from large private equity firms, among others. We also conjectured that the perfect correlation for the first time in American history between Republican success in Senate elections and the outcome of the presidential vote in states was not an accident. That turned out to be true. Trump did a bit better in states with Senate races. We’ve now shown how late money turned around those Senate races, when prospects just weeks before the election looked hopeless. That example is instructive. Democratic candidates who lost elections in those final days have told me how they watched the inflow of money turn around what had seemed a favorable situation. Problems with even counting ballots are, I think, likely to make 2020 very tense, no matter what polls say now or even the day before. Whether we live in a pre- or a post-apocalyptic era might be tested.

10 notes · View notes

newstfionline · 5 years ago

Text

Headlines

With Washington Deadlocked on Aid, States Face Dire Fiscal Crises (NYT) Alaska chopped resources for public broadcasting. New York City gutted a nascent composting program that could have kept tons of food waste out of landfills. New Jersey postponed property-tax relief payments. Prisoners in Florida will continue to swelter in their cells, because plans to air-condition its prisons are on hold. Many states have already cut planned raises for teachers. And that’s just the start. Across the nation, states and cities have made an array of fiscal maneuvers to stay solvent and are planning more in case Congress can’t agree on a fiscal relief package after the August recess. House Democrats included nearly $1 trillion in state and local aid in the relief bill they passed in May, but the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has said he doesn’t want to hand out a “blank check” to pay for what he considers fiscal mismanagement, including the enormous public-pension obligations some states have accrued. There has been little movement in that stalemate lately.

As California burns, the winds arrive and the lights go out (AP) New wildfires ravaged bone-dry California during a scorching Labor Day weekend that saw a dramatic airlift of more than 200 people trapped by flames and ended with the state’s largest utility turning off power to 172,000 customers to try to prevent its power lines and other equipment from sparking more fires. California is heading into what traditionally is the teeth of the wildfire season, and already it has set a record with 2 million acres burned this year. The previous record was set just two years ago and included the deadliest wildfire in state history—the Camp Fire that swept through the community of Paradise and killed 85 people. That fire was started by Pacific Gas & Electric power lines. Liability from billions of dollars in claims from that and other fires forced the utility to seek bankruptcy protection. To guard against new wildfires and new liability, PG&E last year began preemptive power shutoffs when conditions are exceptionally dangerous. That’s the situation now in Northern California, where high and dry winds are expected until Wednesday.

Unhealthy eating and the poor (Bloomberg) It’s no secret that the cheapest food in the western world is often the stuff that’s worst for you: fast meals and ultra-processed food, usually loaded with salt, fat and sugar. For the poorest, it’s typically what they can afford, and that’s only grown more acute during the coronavirus pandemic. Unhealthy diets are poised to worsen the obesity problem all over the world, contributing to a “global pandemic in its own right,” the UN’s Food & Agriculture Organization said in July. Healthy and nutritious food has already been out of reach for more than 3 billion people. With economies sinking and unemployment at historic highs, millions more will find themselves trying to balance their budgets with the need for vital portions of fresh fruit, vegetables and proteins.

Facial recognition failure (OneZero) A new report from the Government Accountability Office of the federal government found that the Customs and Border Patrol was doing a bad job of alerting the public when facial recognition was being used on them, hiding the clear, legible signs disclosing this and describing how to opt out behind larger signs. It’s also not entirely clear that the enormous investment put into this tech is genuinely useful, as the report also found that of the 16 million passengers arriving in the U.S. through May 2020 that the CBP scanned in airports, they resulted in stopping 7 imposters.

At Least 37 Million People Have Been Displaced by America’s War on Terror (NYT) At least 37 million people have been displaced as a direct result of the wars fought by the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, according to a new report from Brown University’s Costs of War project. That figure exceeds those displaced by conflict since 1900, the authors say, with the exception of World War II. The findings were published on Tuesday, weeks before the United States enters its 20th year of fighting the war on terror, which began with the invasion of Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001; yet, the report says it is the first time the number of people displaced by U.S. military involvement during this period has been calculated. The findings come at a time when the United States and other Western countries have become increasingly opposed to welcoming refugees, as anti-migrant fears bolster favor for closed-border policies. The report accounts for the number of people, mostly civilians, displaced in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya and Syria, where fighting has been the most significant, and says the figure is a conservative estimate—the real number may range from 48 million to 59 million. The calculation does not include the millions of other people who have been displaced in countries with smaller U.S. counterterrorism operations, according to the report, including those in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali and Niger.

Will the U.K. Crash Out of the EU? (Foreign Policy) U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has set a deadline of Oct. 15 for the United Kingdom’s talks with the European Union as the latest round of negotiations gets underway today to determine the post-Brexit EU-U.K. economic relationship, again raising concerns that the United Kingdom could crash out of the bloc without a deal in place. The announcement comes as the British government is working to push legislation through Parliament that would override key parts of last year’s Brexit withdrawal agreement. The Financial Times reported on Sunday that the so-called internal market bill is expected to remove the legal force of the highly contentious Northern Ireland protocol, which observers have long argued is vital to preserving peace and stability in Ireland after Brexit. Economists have consistently warned that the economic impact of a no-deal Brexit could be severe. On Monday, business leaders in Britain doubled-down on those warnings, telling Johnson that securing a Brexit deal was essential for the United Kingdom’s economic recovery following the coronavirus pandemic.

‘We are in the second wave’: Europe on edge as cases spike (NBC News) Cases of the coronavirus are spiking in France, Spain and the United Kingdom even as social distancing restrictions ease, stoking concerns among doctors and policymakers about a “second wave” in countries still reeling from the pandemic’s first wave. France set a new record Friday after health authorities reported 8,975 new cases, far higher than the previous record of 7,578 the country set March 31 at the height of the pandemic. In the U.K., new infections soared to nearly 3,000 in one day—the country’s biggest jump since May. And Spain saw nearly 9,000 cases Thursday. Unlike the pandemic’s punishing first round in the spring, France’s troubling rise in new cases has yet to cause a significant surge in deaths and hospitalizations, a salutary statistic for policymakers who remain determined to press ahead with reopenings of schools and businesses.

Belarus activist resists authorities’ push to leave country (AP) A leading opposition activist in Belarus was held on the border Tuesday after she resisted authorities’ attempt to force her to leave the country. Maria Kolesnikova, a member of the Coordination Council created by the opposition to facilitate talks with longtime leader President Alexander Lukashenko on a transition of power, was detained Monday in the capital, Minsk, along with two other council members. Early Tuesday, they were driven to the Ukrainian border, where the authorities told them to cross into Ukraine. Kolesnikova refused, and remained on the Belarusian side of the border in the custody of the Belarusian authorities. The authorities have applied similar tactics to other opposition figures, seeking to end a month of demonstrations against the re-election of Lukashenko in a vote the protesters see as rigged. Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, the main opposition challenger to Lukashenko, left for Lithuania a day after the Aug. 9 vote, under pressure from the authorities.

Myanmar army deserters confirm atrocities against Rohingya (AP) Two soldiers who deserted from Myanmar’s army have testified on video that they were instructed by commanding officers to “shoot all that you see and that you hear” in villages where minority Rohingya Muslims lived, a human rights group said Tuesday. The comments appear to be the first public confession by soldiers of involvement in army-directed massacres, rape and other crimes against Rohingya in the Buddhist-majority country, and the group Fortify Rights suggested they could provide important evidence for an ongoing investigation by the International Criminal Court. More than 700,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar to neighboring Bangladesh since August 2017 to escape what Myanmar’s military called a clearance campaign following an attack by a Rohingya insurgent group in Rakhine state. Myanmar’s government has denied accusations that security forces committed mass rapes and killings and burned thousands of homes.

Australia evacuates journalists from China amid ‘national security’ probe (Reuters) Two Australian foreign correspondents were rushed out of China for their safety with the help of Australian consular officials after being questioned by China’s Ministry of State Security, their employers said on Tuesday. China correspondents for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Australian Financial Review (AFR) sought shelter in Australia’s embassy in Beijing and consulate in Shanghai as diplomats negotiated with Chinese officials to allow them to leave the country, the ABC and the AFR reported. The two journalists—the ABC’s Bill Birtles and the AFR’s Michael Smith—had been banned from leaving China until they answered questions about detained Australian citizen and television anchor Cheng Lei, the media companies reported. Both journalists were told they were “persons of interest” in an investigation into Cheng, a high-profile business anchor on Chinese state television, who was detained by authorities in August, the AFR report said. The president of Australia’s Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, Marcus Strom, said the treatment of the Australian journalists by Chinese authorities was “appalling”.

Kiwi expats (BBC) Approximately 50,000 New Zealanders have returned from abroad since the beginning of the year. Behind Ireland alone, New Zealand has the second-highest proportion of its citizens living abroad, with between 600,000 and a million New Zealanders living abroad compared to a population of 5 million people in the country itself. Many are in Australia, where they can work without a visa, but others go to other countries further off for work or school. A University of Auckland sociologist estimated 100,000 could return depending on how long the pandemic lasts

Syria wants more Russian help (Foreign Policy) Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said he wants to expand his country’s economic and business ties to Russia as a way of bypassing crippling U.S. sanctions during talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Monday. Lavrov hinted that Russia was prepared to come to Assad’s aid, noting during a subsequent press conference that Syria needed international assistance to help rebuild its economy now that Assad is in control of most of the territory he lost during the country’s brutal civil war. The meeting was Lavrov’s first visit to the country since 2012, demonstrating Moscow’s continued interest in Syria after providing Assad with critical military support throughout the civil war.

Jordan resumes regular commercial flights after six-month halt during pandemic (Reuters) Jordan resumed regular international flights on Tuesday after being suspended for nearly six months because of the novel coronavirus epidemic, officials said. They said Queen Alia international airport would initially handle six flights a day before expanding to ensure that airport authorities can enforce strict social distancing and other health rules.

Virus puts new strain on Gaza’s overwhelmed health system (AP) Dr. Ahmed el-Rabii spent years treating Palestinians wounded by Israeli fire during wars and clashes in the Gaza Strip. Now that the coronavirus has reached the blockaded territory, the 37-year-old physician finds himself in the unfamiliar role of patient. El-Rabii is the first Gaza doctor diagnosed with COVID-19 and is among dozens of health-care workers infected during the local outbreak, which was detected late last month. The spread among front-line workers has further strained an already overburdened health-care system. Since 2007, Gaza has been under an Israeli-Egyptian blockade meant to isolate Hamas, the Islamic militant group that seized control of the territory that year from the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority. Few people can move in and out of the territory, and Hamas placed anyone returning to Gaza into mandatory quarantine centers for three weeks. Before last month, the handful of Gaza’s coronavirus cases were confined to the isolation facilities. But on Aug. 24, the first cases were detected among the general population, and the numbers have multiplied since.

When will tourists return to Africa? (AP) Africa will lose between $53 billion and $120 billion in contributions to its GDP in 2020 because of the crash in tourism, the World Travel and Tourism Council estimates. Kenya expects at least a 60% drop in tourism revenue this year. South Africa a 75% drop. In South Africa, 1.2 million tourism-related jobs are already impacted, according to its Tourism Business Council. That’s not far off 10% of total jobs in Africa’s most developed economy and the total damage isn’t yet clear. “Devastation,” council CEO Tshifhiwa Tshivhengwa said. South Africa’s borders, including virtually all international flights, have been closed for nearly six months and there are no signs of them reopening.

#headlines #news

3 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 5 years ago

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Do all younger Democrats have an Uncle Joe that they hate or something? Because there’s a good chance that Democrats under the age of 45 will prove crucial in preventing former Vice President Joe Biden from winning — or even getting close to winning — the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. Younger Democrats, particularly younger white Democrats, are emphatically rejecting his candidacy. That cohort is a big reason why Biden has struggled in the first three states and fallen from front-runner status.

In fact, age might be the most important fault line in the 2020 Democratic primary.

Of course, Biden’s weakness among younger Democrats is in part the result of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s strength with that group. But Sanders’s appeal doesn’t totally explain Biden’s struggles. In Iowa, for example, Biden received just 4 percent of the under-45 vote, according to entrance polls. That trailed Sanders (41 percent), but it also lagged behind former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (21 percent), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (16 percent) and tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang (10 percent). Biden also finished in the single digits among voters under 45 — and behind Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren — in New Hampshire and Nevada. A recent poll of Democrats in California, a Super Tuesday state, found Biden at 9 percent among voters under 45. He’s not faring better in other Super Tuesday states, as recent polls have him at 4 percent in Colorado, 11 percent in Texas and 11 percent in Virginia with this group.

Biden has a real problem with young voters

Candidate vote shares from entrance polls in Iowa and Nevada and from exit polls in New Hampshire, by age

Voters under 45 Over 45 Iowa N.H. Nev. Iowa n.h. Nev. Biden 4% 5% 8% 25% 10% 23% Buttigieg 21 22 13 24 25 16 Klobuchar 5 8 4 19 27 13 Sanders 41 42 56 8 18 21 Warren 16 10 13 17 9 13

Sample size was 1,636 in Iowa, 2,774 in Nevada and 2,932 in New Hampshire

Source: Edison Research

If you start breaking down that under-45 group, there is some variation in how well Biden does, but not a ton. His numbers are especially bad among the youngest cohort of voters, 17 or 18- to 29-year-olds,1 but he generally does only slightly better in the 30-to-44 bracket. And we don’t have a lot of data breaking down the views of voters under 45 by race, but national polling and a recent survey in South Carolina suggests Biden is at least in double digits among black Democrats under 45. So the results in Iowa and New Hampshire and in other surveys make me think that Biden is particularly weak with younger white Democrats.

Not surprisingly, Biden’s weakness among these voters has a huge effect on his overall viability. In the first three states, exit and entrance polls suggest between one-third and 45 percent of Democratic primary voters were under 45. In other words, this is a big group.

And it’s not like this weakness for the Biden campaign came out of nowhere. HuffPost did an extensive story on Biden’s struggles with young voters in December. At the time it was written, though, the primaries had not actually started, so Biden’s lack of appeal among younger voters was just theoretical. And back then, it looked as if Biden and Sanders’s support simply mirrored one another: Sanders seemed as weak with older voters as Biden was with younger ones. But so far in the actual voting, these problems have not been equivalent: Biden beat Sanders by 2 percentage points among voters over 45 in Nevada, according to entrance polls, while Sanders beat Biden by 48 points among voters under 45.

The natural question is … why? Why is Biden struggling so much to win the support of younger people — not only trailing Sanders, but Buttigieg and Warren too? Here are the four most obvious explanations:

1. Younger Democrats are more liberal and anti-institutional

In some ways, 2020 is just a repeat of 2016: The party establishment and older Democrats embraced more center-left figures — Hillary Clinton in 2016, and Michael Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Biden in 2020 — while younger voters got behind the more liberal Sanders. Clinton lost to Sanders among younger voters by around 50 points in New Hampshire in 2016 — an even larger margin than Biden’s deficit this year.

Indeed, the Democratic Party appears to be in the midst of a generational fight that started in 2016 and is continuing now. For example, the left-leaning but gray-haired commentators on MSNBC have been deeply frustrated by the rise of Sanders. Conversely, it’s hard to find much Biden support on Twitter, which tends to be used by younger people and more liberal Democrats. Buttigieg and Warren, while not as liberal or as anti-establishment as Sanders, are also to the left of Biden, which in part explains why the ex-vice president isn’t the clear second-favorite of younger Democrats either.

The big difference between 2016 and 2020 is that Clinton was dominant among voters over 45 in many states, so she could overcome being the establishment candidate who young people weren’t excited about. In contrast, Biden has not consolidated that older bloc.

2. The electability argument doesn’t land

Polling suggests that the majority of Democrats this year are prioritizing a candidate who can defeat President Trump (a mantel Biden has claimed) over a candidate who they agree with on major issues. But that varies by age — older Democrats are more likely to say they prioritize “electability,” while those under 45 are much more split on this question.

This data may be a bit circular — perhaps the younger voters who support Warren or Sanders tell pollsters that they don’t prioritize electability because that is not a big part of either senator’s message, and maybe older people who are inclined to support Biden and Buttigieg point to electability because it’s been core to both candidates’ messages. But I think it’s also possible that many voters who are more liberal and interested in seeing systemic change genuinely don’t find Biden’s electability message that compelling. In this sense, I wonder if Biden’s struggles with young voters were almost inevitable — presenting himself as the party’s best hope for the general election may have required Biden to keep the Democrats’ younger, more liberal cohort somewhat unsatisfied during the primary.

3. Biden isn’t wooing younger voters well

In 2019, the former vice president and his team seemed to deeply internalize the conventional wisdom among many establishment and center-left figures: that “Twitter is not real life” and that Democrats should not be too “woke.” Biden has seemed very frustrated at times with young liberal activists who have confronted him at rallies and argued that he was too conservative on some issues. He was fairly dismissive of criticisms of his handling of the Clarence Thomas hearings and his touching of women in ways that some of them considered inappropriate. He suggested the views of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t represent those of many other Democrats. His campaign aides downplayed the power of “Pod Save America” and did little to court the “black left.”

This all looked fairly savvy (or at least somewhat harmless) … until voting started. And you wonder now whether the Biden campaign could have at least competed for young voters by taking a different approach.

4. Younger Democrats don’t want to repeat the Obama presidency

This overlaps a bit with No. 1, but it’s worth mentioning because carrying on Barack Obama’s legacy has been such a central part of Biden’s message. (The former president is immensely popular among Democrats.) But a HuffPost/YouGov survey conducted in April 2019 found that 42 percent of Democrats ages 18-29 want the next Democratic nominee to be more liberal than Obama, while only about a quarter of Democrats 30 and over had that view. So Biden’s strategy of positioning himself as Obama’s heir, while probably not costing him voters, may not help him court younger Democrats.

It’s still possible that Biden wins the nomination without carrying young Democrats. If older voters really mobilize behind him, he could defeat Sanders the way Clinton did in 2016. Perhaps more voters, old and young, will come to the vice president as the field narrows.

But it’s hard to see Biden securing the nomination without improving his appeal among voters under 45. If I were Biden, I might lean into strategies to excite younger people. At this point, I think it’s unlikely that younger elected officials in the Democratic Party are going to endorse Biden in meaningful numbers. But there’s nothing stopping Biden from effectively endorsing them. He could, for example, strongly imply that he would tap Stacey Abrams for vice president if he wins the nomination. (At 46, Abrams is not that young herself, but her campaign events during the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race were, I noticed throughout the course of my reporting, often packed with young Democrats.) Or perhaps Biden could shift his message a bit.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Perry Bacon Jr.

9 notes · View notes

iustusetpeccator · 6 years ago

Text

Viktor Krum meta: language use & accent

Before I even start in earnest, I just wanna say this is particular to my interpretation of Viktor and comes with all my hangups as a Bulgarian person living in Brexit Britain; also it got pretty long. But if you like some light sociocultural analysis along with your meta, by all means read on.

So we all know how Rowling chose to represent Viktor—quiet, grumpy, slightly bumbling, and when he does speak, not particularly articulate. He does have a decent vocabulary range, but his accent is harsh and noticeable. He is also shown to speak in present continuous tense, as seen here:

‘Vell, ve have a castle also, not as big as this, nor as comfortable, I am thinking,’ he was telling Hermione. ‘Ve have just four floors, and the fires are lit only for magical purposes. But ve have grounds larger even than these – though in vinter, ve have very little daylight, so ve are not enjoying them. But in summer ve are flying every day, over the lakes and the mountains –’

Here’s an example from DH, where you can see he still has the accent, but also the (not bad) range of vocabulary he’s given, as well as his correct use of prepositions:

‘He retired several years ago. I vos one of the last to purchase a Gregorovitch vand. They are the best – although I know, of course, that you Britons set much store by Ollivander.’

I'm here to explain why I do it (a little) differently.

First of all, let me lay some groundwork. He was born in the mid-seventies in Bulgaria, which at the time was part of the Eastern Bloc. I'm going to refrain from talking about the ramifications of that on our culture, but keep in mind we were very much in bed with the Soviet Union during his formative years. Furthermore, he went to Durmstrang—a school known for accepting pupils from a very wide geographical range, seeing as it's located somewhere ‘in the far north of Europe’ and yet accepted Viktor, from way down in southeastern Europe. Either he was exceptional, or it's a pretty multicultural school.

So what does that tell us? Well, to begin with, the boy is more than likely to have been fluent in at least, AT LEAST, three languages: Bulgarian, which was his native language, of course; Russian, which was a mandatory subject from an early age in school (even if he didn’t go to muggle school, he would’ve had to speak it to avoid rousing suspicion), and which is relatively easy for a fellow Slavic language speaker to learn and retain; and either German or one of the Scandinavian languages, which he would've been taught in while at Durmstrang. At minimum.

At the same time, the Triwizard Tournament would've presented Viktor's first serious brush with the English-speaking world. English was not taught in school at the time (see also: Cold War); if you picked up a second foreign language (on top of Russian, which basically didn't count), it would be either German or French, due to long-standing sociocultural ties (i.e. our intelligentsia were largely educated in France, and we sided with Germany in both world wars; don't ask). So unless his family went out of their way to teach him English, which they would've had no reason to as it wasn't seen as useful, he wouldn't have learned it formally at any stage.

How do I know all this? Well, I��m Bulgarian for one, and also my parents are only 5-10 years older than Viktor would be. They speak, or at some point have spoken, 4-5 languages between them, of which English isn’t one. In order to study it back in the 70s and 80s, you’d have had to go to a special school that was difficult to get into, and not hugely popular either.

So yes, his spoken English was clumsy in GoF when he was 18, and he probably never lost the accent, but 1) his written English was likely much better (see also: exchanging letters with Hermione for years), and 2) his mastery of the language will have improved pretty rapidly once he made friends who spoke it. The level you see in GoF, animated discussions with Hermione and all, is his default level without having studied English in any capacity, so to think it would stay that way into his adult years is not doing the man justice.

Also him using present continuous at any stage instead of simple present tense makes no sense, considering it’s 1) more complex, and 2) does not exist in Bulgarian, his native language. So I’m not even engaging with that.

Anyway, how has all this informed the way I write him? For one, I mostly focus on the post-SWW period, when he’s:

travelled quite widely in connection with his international career, making a lot of friends from different countries;

been pen-pals with Hermione and kept in touch with Fleur for a number of years;

chosen to settle in the UK in the aftermath of the war.

What all this means is that he’s had a lot more practice reading, writing, and speaking in English, and his words are likely to flow a lot more smoothly, as well as picking up some colloquialisms from his teammates. As for his accent, not doing the whole ‘vos’ thing is a very conscious choice. I don’t shy from a phonetic accent (see also: Alastor), but on the one hand, that’s not what my accent sounds like so I find it hard to reproduce, and two, I think it’s borderline comical, tbh. Also it makes him sound like Otto von Chriek, but that’s neither here nor there.

What I do instead is, I try and limit his vocabulary and the length of his sentences. I’m aware my command of English is above and beyond what he’s likely to attain, so I don’t make him sound like me. I mess up the odd tense and preposition, throw in the odd expression that doesn’t exist in English, make him pause and think a lot about what he says, etc. And that’s it, folks. That’s how actual Bulgarian people speak English. Compared to the other languages he’s fluent in, it’s really not a difficult one to pick up.

What I’m trying to put across here is that the whole stereotype of Eastern Europeans being stupid and bad at English in itself is really harmful. For my American friends who may not be aware of European power dynamics, we are some of the latest additions to the EU and have received tons of backlash from western Europe. Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants have been racialised by the media, particularly in the UK, and written off as cheap labour/benefit fraudsters. Hell, a lot of people who campaigned and voted for Brexit directly blame us for a lot of the UK’s issues, like the state of the National Health Service (actually due to Conservative party cuts under the guise of austerity) and a poor job market (driven by a shitty fucking economy, and not at all helped by the nearly inevitable Brexit-related recession that’s on its way).

If you want to know more about why that's a massive issue, just hmu, I can go on for days, but in terms of Viktor, I refuse to perpetuate JKR’s subconscious biases against Eastern Europeans by making him sound like some sort of illiterate idiot in my own writing. He was Durmstrang's champion, and as such we have to assume he was reasonably intelligent. Quiet, reserved, lacking confidence in his language skills, nervous around Hermione—definitely. Stupid and bumbling, not so much.

#this got waaaaaaay long #but honestly someone had to say it #i'm so done with everyone shitting on eastern europeans whether consciously or not #he's SMART #and post-GoF he has LOTS of friends he speaks to in english #so give him some fucking credit #char: viktor krum #muse: viktor #headcanon: viktor #meta: viktor #mine: meta

13 notes · View notes

kuronekonerochan · 5 years ago

Text

Summary of PT legislative elections

Political Context:

On 2015 there was an unprecedented circumstance on our democracy where the party (or coalition) with the bigger percentage of voters, a centrist-right democrat wing - PSD+CDS, wasn’t appointed into office because the centrist-left and left socialist wing parties -PS+BE+CDU made an agreement to join together and form a government, since between the 3 parties they had more representatives in parliament than the centrist right coalition. This went ahead and the understandably sour leader of CDS derogatorily called the 3 party alliance Geringonça (loosely translates to thingamabob: a contraption hastily put together that might fall apart at any moment). The name stuck. Our prime minister loves it and refers to his own alliance as Geringonça. So does the media. (The former CDS leader is probably even madder his insult backfired and was even named word of the year by Portuguese media since it was the most searched and used around term online of 2016).

This is a simplified version of where the parties stand on the political spectrum in an international scenario (the specific ideology of each is obviously more complex to approach and I do know them, but it would be too confusing to get into it, for example CDU is a communist party but has a much different connotation here than on a former eastern bloc country and CDS used to be the party with parliament representation that was on the furthest right wing but compared to american politics you could compare them with a more conservative wing of the democrats).

This was controversial at the time and even citizens were divided between those who believed that the single alliance with the most votes should take government and the ones that believed technically a larger part of the population had voted on the other 3, when put together.

However, everyone was pretty much happy that although the rest of the world was either seeing an exponential growth or even election of far right movements, here things were still pretty much chill with smaller left parties growing and even a newly formed, single agenda ecological pro animals rights party managing to get one representative in parliament.

This last legislation was different from the ones before because the debating and negotiation over taxes, returning labor rights, etc started happening even before they were proposed to be voted in parliament between the 3 parties, what you might call internal opposition... and that meant that the ruling party PS (the other 2 were smaller leftist parties that didn’t take any seats in government - just PS) needed to compromise, which resulted in some changes for the better.

Of course things are not great, money is short and people debate whether things are better or the same after 4 years and if it they could have improved further. But most agree at least we’re not worse than before, which is in itself a nice change from the past.

2019 Legislative Elections:

On October 6th, there were new elections.

There were many changes from the last ones. For starters, PSD and CDS ran separately. In fact, there were no coalitions except the ones that are so old we just think of them as one in our collective minds. Also, there was a huge surge of new independent initiatives running, both left and right wing. Reminder that on the previous election we wereone of the last countries in Europe that did NOT have far right representation in parliament.

The polls had some curious data. According to them, most people wanted PS to win with a minority, and wanted them to govern with the support of the other left parties. Even among the people who were voting in PS, most preferred a minority with support from the left. Plus the polls predicted a rise from PAN, the ecological-animal right party from 1 representative to at least 3. And they also predicted that newcomers would elect one representative, a first in the history of our democracy.

Well, PS (centrist left socialist party) won without majority, PAN got 4 representatives and newcomer leftist Livre (aka Free) got 1 representative. A liberal party (Iniciativa Liberal) also got 1 representative. Since Portugal is constitutionally a Social State, liberal ideology didn’t fit the political panorama but it’s considered right.

Onto the bad news now: For the first time in the history of our democracy, a Far Right Party has elected a representative in parliament. This might seem insignificant compared to the rest of the world, but unfortunately it means that for the first time ever there will be a regular media coverage of the speeches of a far right politician in official parliament sessions that will be spread to the population. And that is worrisome...

#politics #portugal #pt #legislativas 2019

5 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 4 years ago

Text

How Are Democrats And Republicans Alike

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-are-democrats-and-republicans-alike/

How Are Democrats And Republicans Alike

How Did This Switch Happen

American people believe ‘something fishy’ occurred at election

Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government’s role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power traditionally, a Republican stance.;

But Republicans didn’t immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government.;

Related: 7 great congressional dramas

“Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice,” Rauchway wrote in an archived 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party’s small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal.

But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government?;

According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.

Related: Busted: 6 Civil War myths

Additional resources:

What Is The Democratic Party

Democratic Party is a big party in the USA. The Democratic-Republican Party processes this party. It is one of the two major political parties. It was most noteworthy in 1828 by Andrew Jackson, who was the first president of this party. Washington DC headquarters of this party. Its symbol is the donkey, and the color is blue. For instance:-

Read more: Management vs. Administration.

Red States And Blue States List

Due to the TV coverage during some of the presidential elections in the past, the color Red has become associated with the Republicans and Blue is associated with the Democrats.

The Democratic Party, once dominant in the Southeastern United States, is now strongest in the Northeast , Great Lakes Region, as well as along the Pacific Coast , including Hawaii. The Democrats are also strongest in major cities. Recently, Democratic candidates have been faring better in some southern states, such as Virginia, Arkansas, and Florida, and in the Rocky Mountain states, especially Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico.

Since 1980, geographically the Republican “base” is strongest in the South and West, and weakest in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. The Republican Party’s strongest focus of political influence lies in the Great Plains states, particularly Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska, and in the western states of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.

Also Check: Did Trump Call Republicans Stupid In 1998

Difference Between Democratic And Republican Party :

It is so tough to find out the difference between the republic and the democratic party. Here, there are some crucial differences between the democratic and republican parties to clear the audience and concerned people. We can point out ten dissimilarities in some categories. Such as:

1. Woman Abortion:

The first difference between the democratic and republican parties is womens abortion. Democrats believe at a sweet woman will have the right to do abortion in reproductive health care service. Whereas Republicans want to ban it from the constitution. Republicans stand against the killing of a fetus.

Read More: Major Symptoms of Democratic Backsliding

2. Same-Sex Marriage Rights:

Secondly, same-sex marriage legalizes the Democrats party. On the other hand, the Republican Party is against it. It is another difference between the democratic party and the republic party.

3. Climate Change:

Thirdly, Democrats believe that Climate change pretenses an urgent. It is a real threat to our national security, our economy, and our childrens health and futures. While Republicans doubt whether the climate is changing, rejecting the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution with intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy.

4. Israel Issue:

Read more: Private Administration vs. Public Administration

5. Voting Rights:

6. Money in Politics:

7. Iran Issue:

Increased Media Consumption And The Perception Gap

But not every media outlet is the same. We identified how specific news sources are associated with varying levels of distorted understanding in their audiences. Some news sources are associated with larger Perception Gaps, in particular Breitbart, Drudge Report and popular talk radio programs such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. But large Perception Gaps are also associated with liberal sources such as Huffington Post and the Daily Kos. Only one media source is associated with better understanding other Americans views: the traditional television networks of ABC, NBC and CBS. Overall, these findings suggest that media is adding to a polarization ecosystem that is driving Americans apart.

Recommended Reading: Compromise Of 1877 Effects

Republicans And Democrats Have Similar Goals They Will Make Different Arguments

By Cecilia Kang

If there is one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on, its that the internet giants have become too powerful and need to be restrained. Many lawmakers also agree that the companies should be stripped of a law that shields websites from liability for content created by their users.

But members of the Senate commerce committee will almost certainly make wildly different arguments to drive home their points on Wednesday.

Republicans regularly accuse Facebook, Google and Twitter of censoring conservative viewpoints by labeling, taking down and minimizing the reach of posts by Republican politicians and right-leaning media personalities. They have the support of President Trump, who issued an executive order this summer aimed at stripping the technology companies of their safe harbor under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Three Republican senators Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee will almost certainly accuse the Silicon Valley giants of censorship. The senators have been among the most vocal about a perceived liberal bias inside the tech companies. Some of the hardest questions and finger pointing could be directed at Jack Dorsey, the chief executive of Twitter, for recent decisions to take down and label posts from Mr. Trump.

Difference Between Democratic And Republican Party With Similarities

Democrats and Republicans are the two main political parties in the USA. Both parties hold the most of the seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives. They also obtain the maximum number of Governors. Although both parties mean well for US citizens, they have distinct differences. These difference between democratic and republican party are mainly in political, ideological, economic, and social pathways. However, we will try to cover the topic in this article.

Differences and Similarities between democratic and republican party are the main topics. We will know about the Republican Party and Democratic Party at first. Therefore, here is the basic concept of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

1.2 Similarities of Democrats with Republicans:

You May Like: Who Said We Are All Republicans We Are All Federalists

Making The Audience Laugh And Cry

It has become a cliché to declare that Republicans and Democrats live in two different worlds these days, but it turns out there is some truth to the observation.

New research on political behavior finds that most Democratic and Republican voters live in partisan bubbles, with little daily exposure to those who belong to the other party. For instance the typical Democrat has almost zero interactions with Republicans in their neighborhood, according to an article by Harvard doctoral student Jacob R. Brown and government Professor Ryan D. Enos published March 8 in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.

Theres a lot of evidence that any separation between groups has a lot of negative consequences. We see this in race; we see this in religion; we see this in all kinds of things, said Enos. And increasingly, we see this in partisanship in the United States.

Using geolocation data and the exact addresses of all 180 million registered voters in the U.S. as of June 2018, the two were able to precisely map, for the first time, where Democrats and Republicans live in relation to each other in every town, city, and state in the U.S. Then, rather than rely on the usual precinct or data aggregations, they used weighted measures and recorded the distance between voters to show how people are divided by geography and partisanship across the country.

Roads Will Stay Deadly

Democrats and Republicans stunned by Trump’s defence of Russia

Senator John Boozman of Arkansas praised how this bill will improve roadway safety, specifically highlighting the restoration of flexibility for Highway Safety Improvement Program funds to better protect motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. Oh my.;

Both parties seem to think that states need flexibility to improve safety. But do they really need flexibility to set targets and organize funding around having more people die on our roadways next year than died in the previous year? Thats our current approach and what STRA maintains.;

A more charitable take would be that states need the flexibility to be passive to safety problems because it is beyond their control, said our director Beth Osborne. But they will still ask the taxpayer to give them more money to fix it, using roadway designs that are proven to be dangerous, like slip lanes and wide roads with high speeds near lots of points of conflict and children walking to school.;;

Don’t Miss: What Is The Lapel Pin The Republicans Are Wearing

Famous Republican Vs Democratic Presidents

Republicans have controlled the White House for 28 of the last 43 years since Richard Nixon became president. Famous Democrat Presidents have been Franklin Roosevelt, who pioneered the New Deal in America and stood for 4 terms, John F. Kennedy, who presided over the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis, and was assassinated in Office; Bill Clinton, who was impeached by the House of Representatives; and Nobel Peace Prize winners Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter.

Famous Republican Presidents include Abraham Lincoln, who abolished slavery; Teddy Roosevelt, known for the Panama Canal; Ronald Reagan, credited for ending the Cold War with Gorbachev; and the two Bush family Presidents of recent times. Republican President Richard Nixon was forced to resign over the Watergate scandal.

To compare the two parties’ presidential candidates in the 2020 elections, see Donald Trump vs Joe Biden.

What People Are Reading

“This action is having results. In fact, just this week, Kevin Brady said in the U.S. that he did not see how the U.S. could ratify NAFTA while these tariffs were still in place.”

Brady said the process of “counting the noses” determining which members of Congress support the agreement, which don’t, and why or why not is underway in order to produce an inventory of issues to be addressed by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer in order to secure congressional support for the deal.

Democrats say it lacks effective enforcement tools for its labour and environmental provisions. Republicans, Brady said, are concerned about the erosion of investor-state safeguards and the uncertainty posed by a clause that the deal be open to review every six years, a caveat Canada initially opposed.

“Every trade agreement is a mixed issue, and I know Democrats are voicing the need for strong enforcement on the labour provisions,” Brady said.

“For Republicans, it’s more the architecture; the investor-state protections are not as broad and as strong as they need to be in our members’ views, we still are trying to figure out how the sunset mechanism works for or against certainty for trade long term.”

Getting out ahead of the U.S. could pay dividends, said Miriam Sapiro, a Democrat who served as deputy and later acting U.S. trade representative under President Barack Obama.

“I don’t see it as NAFTA 2.0, I see it more as NAFTA 0.8,” Beatty said.

Read Also: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

And They Are Holding Tightly To Their Party Identities

Americans political behavior and beliefs have grown ever more partisan over the past 40 years. Democrats and Republicans alike have become more likely to support their own partys candidates, to adopt their own partys issue positions, and even to distort their perceptions of objective facts to fit their own partys preferred version of reality. While political scientists have spent two decades documenting these trends, Donald Trumps presidency has broadened and accelerated this process.

Republicans and Democrats attitudes toward politicians and political organizations are getting farther apart

To understand these changes, I compared the results of surveys conducted by the Internet survey firm YouGov in November 2017 and January 2020. The data were matched and weighted to be demographically representative of the adult U.S. population. The 2017 survey included 736 Republicans and 930 Democrats; the 2020 survey included 1,098 Republicans and 1,386 Democrats.

In 2017, Republicans and Democrats differed in their average ratings of President Trump by 5.8 points on a 10-point scale. By this January, the difference had grown significantly, to 6.7 points. The endpoints of the scale were labeled extremely unfavorable feelings and extremely favorable feelings. The share of Democrats who gave Trump a zero increased from 71 percent to 81 percent, while the share of Republicans who gave him a 10 increased from 28 percent to 48 percent.

Pfizer And Biontech Say Vaccine Prevents Covid

Tony Fauci, the countrys chief infectious diseases researcher, has argued that there isnt solid evidence to back a delayed-dose strategy. Even if an initial first dose gives good protection against Covid-19, he said at a recent White House briefing, its unclear how long that protection would last.

Beyond posing an unnecessary risk to individuals immunity, Fauci has also warned that pivoting midway through the vaccine rollout could send the message that theres no need to return for a second shot, whether its three or 12 weeks after their first.

Fauci has also warned that delaying second doses could help foster the growth of escape variants, or strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that are more likely to evade existing vaccines protectiveness.

Read Also: Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

Democrats And Republicans Dislike Each Other Far Less Than Most Believe

A new study indicates that some of our political polarization is based on unfounded beliefs.

Democrats and Republicans dislike and dehumanize one another roughly equally.

At least 70% of both Republicans and Democrats overestimated how much the other group disliked and dehumanized their group.

Political polarization is a well-documented issue in the United States, and the schism between left and right can sometimes feel impossible to overcome. But a new study from the Peace and Conflict Neuroscience Lab at the Annenberg School for Communication and;Beyond Conflict;may offer some hope for the future.

Often, peoples actions towards a group they are not part of are motivated not only by their perceptions of that group, but also by how they think that group perceives them. In the case of American politics, this means that the way Democrats act toward Republicans isnt just a result of what they think of Republicans but also of what they think Republicans think of Democrats, and vice versa.

The study,;, found that Democrats do not dislike or dehumanize Republicans as much as Republicans think they do, and Republicans do not dislike or dehumanize Democrats as much as Democrats think they do. This finding could indicate that some of our political polarization is based on unfounded beliefs.

Why Did The Democratic And Republican Parties Switch Platforms

02 November 2020

Around 100 years ago, Democrats and Republicans switched their political stances.

The Republican and Democratic parties of the United States didn’t always stand for what they do today.;

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed those measures.;

After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for Black Americans and advanced social justice. And again, Democrats largely opposed these apparent expansions of federal power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936.;

Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, the founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the party of small government became the party of big government, and the party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.;

You May Like: Democrats Voting For Trump

The Social Media Effect

Social media platforms provide us a personalized way to receive news and commentary from anyone and everyone with whom we are connected. In theory, this could mean that users see a cross section of their community’s political views, representing the full range of perspectives within their network. Unfortunately, our study’s findings paint a less encouraging picture. First, only 26% of American report sharing social media posts about politics. Second, these Americans have higher Perception Gaps than the national average. While those who do not post on social media have an average Perception Gap of 18, those who do post on social media have an average Perception Gap of 29. The political content we see on social media is therefore disproportionately from people with a more distorted understanding of the other side, further adding to the problem.

Republicans And Democrats Have Different Views About Compromising With The Other Party

Democrats, Republicans alike take swipes at the health bill

Overall, Republicans are divided over whether Donald Trump should focus on finding common ground with Democrats, even if that means giving up some things Republicans want, or pushing hard for GOP policies, even if it means less gets done. While 53% of Republicans say Trump should push hard for the partys policies, 45% say its more important for the president to find common ground with Democrats.

However, politically attentive Republicans broadly oppose Trump seeking compromise with Democrats even if it means giving up some things Republicans want. Just 39% of Republicans who follow government and public affairs most of the time say it is more important for Trump to find common ground with Democrats; 61% say he should push hard for GOP policies. Opinion is more evenly divided among less politically attentive Republicans.

Democrats, who were asked a hypothetical version of the question about the partys 2020 presidential candidates, are more open to potential compromise with Republicans. About six-in-ten Democrats say it is more important for a candidate, if elected, to find common ground with Republicans even if it means giving up things Democrats want.

There are no differences in these views among Democrats based on political attentiveness. But liberal Democrats are less likely than conservative and moderate Democrats to say it is more important for a candidate to seek compromises with Republicans.

You May Like: Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

0 notes

modernsocialist · 7 years ago

Text

Multiculturalism as the Social Hegemony of Liberal Capitalism and How Capitalism Co-opted the Left

The Liberal Left is made up of a diverse range of people united by a simple desire to improve society and make the world a better place for us all to live. Though an easy target for the right-wing press, this is far better than being apathetic, resistant to change, or worse, hating those that are different. A fairly large portion of these people define themselves as being anti-capitalist or socialist. Yet while these people have good intentions, many are unfortunately blind to the trap that capitalism has ensnared them in. Marx understood, and was truly impressed by, the strength of capitalism including its ability to adapt to changes in society.

An example of this adaptability can be found in the period when ex-Soviet Bloc countries, such as Poland and the Czech Republic, started acceding to the European Union. British business interests saw an opportunity to introduce masses of cheap labour and lobbied the Blair government to allow early entry to the British labour market for their citizens. This was simply because business wanted a larger labour force to help depress wages and also because what for us were poorly-paid jobs, to East Europeans were seen as tickets to riches for their families back home. (One pertinent point - the stereotypical ‘Polish plumber’ was a good worker because he appreciated the relatively high wages. This shows that decent wages do pay for themselves through improved productivity.)

So, while individuals, or small groups of the like-minded, may be racist, liberal capitalism as a system is colour-blind. In the free market any route to profit is the right route. Upton Sinclair’s classic novel ‘The Jungle’ depicts a good example of this. The reader follows the story of a Lithuanian immigrant headed for the meat-packing hell of early 20th Century Chicago. Racism rears its ugly head many times throughout but capitalists need labour and there is a steady flow of immigrants to provide it – much of it to replace those who are killed or have had their health ruined by their work. The bosses don’t turn down the potential to extract profit from a person’s labour just because they are from the ‘wrong’ background; particularly not in the raw, unadulterated free-market liberal capitalism that held sway there. The similarities to today’s zero-hour, ‘self-employed’, gig labour market are also evident in the casual, unreliable nature of the work available.

This can now lead us to an understanding of the main reason why liberal capitalism hasn’t just adapted to the demands of I.D. politics and the multiculturalists but has woven them as a major panel into the tapestry of its cultural hegemony, alongside consumerism and its cousin, ‘aspiration’, the Tory codeword for individualist greed. Since the richest nations are those with least internal problems and a society at war with itself is not a stable platform for extracting profit, an ideology has had to be promoted to temper resentment aimed at immigrants. This is much like the American society that had been primed with the myth of the ‘melting pot’ - though the multicultural ideology has been replacing it due to its supposed even broader inclusiveness within consumer capitalism, but also because it sinks even deeper social roots. (The recent right-wing populist reaction to globalisation in the US that lead to Trump’s victory points to a need for new tactics and strategy on the left.)

Another point to keep in mind is that those who identify themselves as socialist or anti-capitalist and sign up to the doctrine of multiculturalism normally state that they do so because they believe in ‘tolerance’, even though it doesn’t actually mean to happily enjoy other experiences. Rather, to be tolerant is to accept the rights of others to live and think differently, even when you find some aspect or other of this to be distasteful - much like the famous dictum of Voltaire’s biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall, that is often misattributed to Voltaire himself, about defending to the death another’s right to say something, even if one utterly disapproves of it.

Of course, oneself has the freedom to disagree openly about aspects of an immigrants’ culture in a free society but such criticism always carries the danger of seeming to carry the whiff, real or perceived, of racism or bigotry. This is where we have to tread extremely lightly and make sure any criticisms we do make are coolly and rationally argued, for progressive reasons, and do not provide any ammunition for racists and the far-right. While this is not the place for discussing forced marriages, parallel legal systems or genital mutilation, one outcome of multiculturalism in Britain is worth noting as a logical outcome of this ideology since it is not something that either Socialists or secularists in the past would have wanted to see happening. (Maybe it was easy to attack Roman Catholic or C of E schools but they now feel uncomfortable in criticising Muslim schools because they fear any accusation of racism or Islamophobia.) As I’ve always argued, multiculturalism is ultimately divisive and the growing number of faith schools is a glaring example of this. This multiculturalism-friendly policy, which is opposed in general by those on the left, is actually being promoted by the Tories, defenders of free-market liberal capitalism. The free-market wing of the Tories support this policy for reasons of social division, as I’ve explained in previous essays, while the conservative wing of the party like the idea of more religious schools teaching traditional moral values. (The two Tory tendencies may fit together well with this policy, yet it also hints at the internal contradictions of capitalism to be more fully revealed in the future, as the social hegemony that helped keep stability for profits creates even deeper divisions in the future that may be a lot harder to overcome.)

If what I posit is true and multiculturalism is a divisive ideology in the long run, those on the left should not support it and instead find another way to unite working people. For Socialists the answer is obvious. They should go out and promote the raising of class-consciousness. Identification along religious or ethnic lines offers little chance of help and much chance of hindrance in organising unified action towards socio-economic ends. Finally, I should note two different strands of considering multiculturalism among progressives that roughly follows the split of liberal left and socialist.

The first group proclaim their love of immigration and the alluring cultural supplements that come with it, but this is served with a dose of self-righteousness and an attitude to immigrants that can sometimes comes across as patronising. This is a group of people who, subconsciously or not, are diminishing the status of immigrants to mere actors who arrive to provide ‘colour’ and a ‘touch of the exotic’ to the lives of the proudly (smugly?) cosmopolitan natives. I do not tell a lie when I say that these have been given to me in all seriousness as among the primary reasons why multiculturalism is a good thing! (Surely I don’t want to deprive these people of access to the latest delicious ethnic cuisines, do I?) Much of this can be put down to a lack of understanding because the ideology of multiculturalism is not just simply another name for diversity or anti-racism. But this vain group has no interest in challenging the economic system and obviously includes people who would vote Tory, at least by the time they get into their thirties.

On the other hand, the instinct to help those who are too weak or otherwise unable to help themselves has always been part of what makes one a progressive. But a large number of anti-capitalists hold the belief that since some injustice has been checked by the spread of multicultural ideas, multiculturalist ideology itself can be used to attack the major problems of inequality in society. The road to the radical reorganisation of society, though, requires a revolutionary shake-up of the economic system, the root of nearly all systemic inequality, which multiculturalism cannot provide as it offers barely any economic analysis of difference of outcome beyond noting a developing lumpenproletarian ‘white working class’ or the difficulties of black youth in the inner cities. The one big problem that could be helped but not put to rest is the misogyny of many men; a fact that we are highly attentive to nowadays. While still an issue of power, it is not, in the main, economic power. This would require more progress in cultural and personal areas that others have far more expertise about so I leave it there, a basic explanation of the corrosive nature of misogyny surely unnecessary for the reader.

I have usually argued about why I see multiculturalism as divisive in its own way and also the problems that arise for radical grassroots organisation due to this. What I have tried to show here, though, is that multiculturalism is a cultural ideology picked up and evolved by Liberal Capitalism to keep economies stable and thus more profitable. The belief among those on the left that multiculturalism or ID politics in general can fully and truly reduce inequality is not just wrong-headed – it is actually obscuring the importance of revolutionary economic change and its role in providing true social justice. Of course, for capitalists, the multicultural hegemony behind this social system is working just as it should - for the benefit of the high economy and the tiny oligarchical elite it supports.

3 notes · View notes

orbemnews · 4 years ago

Link

More Businesses Are Standing for Justice What’s good for business Andrew here. Yesterday’s guilty verdict against George Floyd’s murderer, a former Minneapolis police officer, was a symbol of something profound: a demonstrable shift in the way this country, increasingly supported by business, has strived for civil rights. As we ponder the meaning of this decision, it is worth recalling a moment in 1965, in the middle of that era’s civil rights movement. A Wall Street bond firm, C.F. Securities, told Alabama that it would “no longer buy or sell bonds issued by the state or any of its political subdivisions.” Gov. George C. Wallace, who objected to desegregation, had said the state shouldn’t pay for the National Guard to protect Martin Luther King Jr. and protesters in the Selma-to-Montgomery march. The investment firm’s executive vice president, Donald E. Barnes, wrote to the governor that his failure “to protect the citizens of Alabama in their exercise of constitutional rights” amounted to “discouragements to Alabama’s economic future.” He insisted that the move was based on economic risk, but the letter made clear it was about more than that. The rest of corporate America was mostly silent, or opposed: Moody’s said it was “not sympathetic with the civil rights movement” and had no plan to change the state’s credit rating. What C.F. Securities did may have been unique in 1965. But this past year has proved that business is playing a much larger role in social justice, even if progress has been far too slow and much work remains. Companies have given employees paid time off on Juneteenth; the N.B.A. emblazoned the words “Black Lives Matter” on courts; Netflix steered its cash into local banks that serve Black communities; Wall Street banks announced programs worth billions to support Black communities; and just last week, in perhaps the greatest demonstration of the new responsibility business is feeling, 700 companies and executives signed a letter opposing laws that make it harder for people to vote. “The murder of George Floyd last Memorial Day felt like a turning point for our country. The solidarity and stand against racism since then have been unlike anything I’ve experienced,” Brian Cornell, the C.E.O. of Target, wrote in a note to employees of the Minneapolis-based retailer yesterday. “Like outraged people everywhere, I had an overwhelming hope that today’s verdict would provide real accountability. Anything short of that would have shaken my faith that our country had truly turned a corner.” You know what? Justice is good for business. HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING The European Super League has collapsed. Plans to create a closed competition of top soccer clubs fell apart yesterday when six English teams withdrew, bowing to outrage from fans and threats by lawmakers. Shortly after, an official at the Super League said the project had been suspended, ending an effort to upend soccer’s multibillion-dollar economics. Johnson & Johnson resumes the rollout of its vaccine in the E.U. The bloc’s drug regulator said that the shot’s benefits outweigh a small risk of blood clots, but wants a warning added. U.S. regulators will decide whether to end a pause on the vaccine in the coming days. Goldman Sachs releases worker diversity data. The Wall Street bank disclosed for the first time how many of its senior U.S. executives are Black: 49 out of more than 1,500. Banks agreed last year to publish more information about their work forces; Morgan Stanley has an even smaller share of Black executives than Goldman. Apple’s new products raise competition concerns. The tech giant unveiled new iPads and iMacs, and a revamped podcast app. But its new AirTags, which attach to items to help find them, was criticized by the C.E.O. of Tile, which makes a similar product. Apple also said it would roll out new iOS privacy features — criticized by Facebook and other app makers — next week. Understanding the ‘antimonopolist’ Lina Khan Lina Khan’s nomination to the Federal Trade Commission is one of the clearest signs of progressive influence in the Biden administration. A Columbia University scholar who worked on a major congressional report about Big Tech and antitrust last year, Ms. Khan is a star in the constellation of competition law experts known as “antimonopolists.” Her confirmation hearing with the Senate Commerce Committee is today. Ms. Khan “captures the zeitgeist,” Bruce Hoffman, a partner at Cleary Gottlieb and a former director of the F.T.C.’s competition bureau, told DealBook. She helped shape the legal and cultural conversation about the power of internet giants, which could win her some conservative support. Having a “strong” perspective probably isn’t an obstacle to confirmation, Mr. Hoffman said. “Antimonopoly is more than antitrust,” Ms. Khan wrote in 2018. It shifts away from a “consumer” take on mergers managed by antitrust agencies to a broader approach using “policy levers” across the government and keeps workers, voters, the environment and more in mind. Big Tech will be a likely focus at the hearing. But this would be a “disservice” to Ms. Khan, according to Mr. Hoffman. “At the F.T.C., a lot of the agenda is reactive,” he said. Companies file merger paperwork and regulators respond, whatever the industry. Ms. Khan has a broad perspective on competition law, Mr. Hoffman said, and today would be “a fair time” to ask what “objective standards” she’d apply. Updated April 20, 2021, 10:50 p.m. ET “You have to have some morals.” — Ari Emanuel, the outspoken C.E.O. of the entertainment conglomerate Endeavor, speaking in a New Yorker profile about returning an investment from Saudi Arabia after the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Separately, Endeavor disclosed yesterday that it hopes to be valued at more than $10 billion in an I.P.O. These ‘Roaring Twenties’ have railroad battles, too Canadian National Railway yesterday offered to buy Kansas City Southern for $33.7 billion, topping a $29 billion bid last month by its rival Canadian Pacific. They’re jockeying over the chance to create the first railroad connecting major ports from Canada to Mexico. The bidding war reflects bullishness about an industry poised for growth if a post-pandemic boom ushers in this generation’s “Roaring Twenties.” Money or certainty? Canadian National said its bid “clearly provides superior value.” Canadian Pacific, which is smaller and has less overlap with Kansas City Southern’s operations, said antitrust concerns made the counterbid “illusory and inferior.” Kansas City Southern said it would evaluate the new bid in accordance with its agreement with its original suitor. A curveball or a grenade? Canadian National may be bidding in earnest — or just disrupting its competitor’s deal. The new offer could raise anxieties about railroad consolidation, making regulators more cautious. The prospect of a deal has received a mixed reception from freight shippers, who suffered in the last round of consolidation. And we haven’t yet heard from Senator Amy Klobuchar, who heads the antitrust subcommittee and represents key industrial interests in Minnesota. Giving Coinbase a run for its (digital) money The public listing of Coinbase, the largest crypto exchange in the U.S., generated a wave of excitement that competitors aim to ride. Among them is Binance.US, the third-ranked domestic crypto exchange, which yesterday named Brian Brooks — formerly Coinbase’s chief counsel and most recently acting U.S. comptroller of the currency — as C.E.O., beginning in May. “There’s a lot of buzz about my former employer, which is well-deserved,” Mr. Brooks told DealBook about Coinbase. “But it’s in everybody’s best interest if there’s more competition.” Mr. Brooks’ first task is building trust with regulators. He says “managing reputation” is his biggest concern. Binance has shifted its operations throughout Asia since it was founded in 2017, and some say it played fast and loose with rules. The C.F.T.C. was reportedly investigating the company for allowing U.S.-based customers to trade crypto derivatives, which is banned (the agency declined to comment). Mr. Brooks insists he did “a lot” of due diligence on his new employer and dismisses “loose talk” about the exchange flouting regulations. Binance’s group C.E.O., CZ Zhao, says he embraces regulation. Hiring Mr. Brooks is one way the company is trying to make the point. Binance also hired Max Baucus, the former Montana senator and ambassador to China, last month, along with other former regulators. Binance.US sees potential to lead in undeveloped areas of the American crypto landscape, like derivatives and lending. Mr. Brooks said the company can learn from competitors like Coinbase and Kraken — and challenge them. That is, if he can convince regulators to bless its efforts to bring crypto into the financial mainstream, a preoccupation of players across the industry. JPMorgan wants to end banker burnout, for real this time Yesterday, JPMorgan Chase’s co-heads of investment banking, Jim Casey and Viswas Raghavan, announced policies aimed at improving working conditions amid record deal volume and banker burnout. The company has attempted similar things before. DealBook spoke with Mr. Casey about the latest plan — and whether this one will stick. JPMorgan has recently hired 65 analysts and 22 associates, and plans to add another 100 junior bankers and support staff, Mr. Casey said. It’s targeting bankers at rival firms, as well as lawyers and accountants interested in a career switch. The bank will tell associates not to do marketing work on weekends. It will encourage all bankers to go home by 7 p.m. on weekdays and add more flexibility for personal time. It will also force bankers to take at least three weeks’ vacation a year. JPMorgan rolled out similar efforts to protect junior bankers’ hours in 2016, but “it wasn’t stringently enforced,” Mr. Casey said. Why not? “Laziness.” This time, junior bankers’ hours and feedback will figure in senior manager performance evaluation and compensation. “It’s not a money problem,” Mr. Casey said, so there won’t be one-time checks or free Pelotons after a rush. Junior bankers will get their share of the record $3 billion in fees JPMorgan earned in the first quarter. Some things won’t change. Because banking is a client-service job, managers sometimes have limited control over workloads and hours. “You might do 100 deals a year, but that client only does one deal every three years,” Mr. Casey said. How the bank will measure success: “Ask me what our turnover ratio has gone to and I will tell you,” Mr. Casey said. The goal, he said, is “lower.” THE SPEED READ Deals Politics and policy Senator Bernie Sanders is co-sponsoring a bill that would impose a financial transaction tax on Wall Street to drastically expand tuition-free access to community colleges and trade schools. (CNBC) Twelve megadonors accounted for nearly $1 of every $13 raised by federal candidates and political groups since 2009, a new study found. (NYT) Tech Best of the rest The Sacklers, the family that founded the maker of OxyContin, are worth about $11 billion, according to documents released by a Congressional committee. (WSJ) “Behind the Mysterious Demise of a $1.7 Billion Mutual Fund.” (WSJ) Amazon is opening a hair salon in London. It isn’t called Prime Cuts. (WaPo) We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to [email protected]. Source link Orbem News #businesses #Justice #standing

0 notes

scripturehomosexuality · 7 years ago

Text

BRICS And Homosexuality

In the past few months, this blog has shown that within the United States, sexual understandings don’t exist in isolation. Instead, political, social and economic developments exert constant influence on how U.S. society understands sex.

This has been the case since modern sexual philosophy began forming in the 1980s. That was long evident to American philosopher Gore Vidal. In his 1979 essay “Sex Is Politics”, Mr. Vidal bluntly said that “the sexual attitudes of any given society are the result of political decisions.” He stated further, “Any sexual or intellectual or recreational or political activity that might decrease the amount of coal mined, the number of pyramids built, the quantity of junk food confected will be proscribed…”

In other words, if you think sex has nothing to do with other world events, you’re fooling yourself. At present, the best example concerns an increasingly powerful trading bloc - BRICS.

BRICS stands for the coalition of progressively dominant economies in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Their share of global GDP (gross domestic product, the total value of a country’s output) has increased by leaps and bounds. The middle classes of India and China have exploded in size. They have collaborated more on trade and economic projects. In their latest meeting, countries like Mexico, Thailand and Egypt were invited as observers, trying to woo them into joining the bloc.

For many years, stories have circulated that their power threatens to upend U.S. hegemony in world affairs. The frequency of these stories has increased with time. Though recent turmoil in these countries slowed their progress, their momentum is beginning to recover.

Developments within the U.S. are further fanning speculation. All signs point to a country that is becoming unstable and economically dysfunctional. The New York Subway is now among the worst in the world, threatening to strangle the economy of the country’s largest city. National infrastructure is crumbling left and right. Homelessness has increased for the first time since the 2008 economic crisis. Wages are flat as expenses increase, and less people are participating in the labor force. As medical industry dysfunction continues, and in the middle of a raging drug crisis, U.S. life expectancy has declined for a second straight year.

And as if all these headlines weren’t enough, Russia claims that it now outarms the United States. Though U.S. politicians initially called it a bluff, they are now asking President Trump to call for arms talks.

Because of all these, and if current trends continue, the United States may soon lose its international dominance. More experts are speculating about that possibility. It’s something that makes U.S. political and economic authorities very uneasy.

They’re not the only ones concerned. Though they won’t admit it, “gay” leadership and media are likely watching these developments closely. This is because whatever happens concerning BRICS will affect them, and by extension you and your sexuality.

If that seems absurd, you might not realize how much U.S. society affects your view of sex. Simply put, modern sexual philosophy (which includes the “straight”-”gay” dichotomy) is entirely the baby of the United States.

Think about all these factors. The “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy is a hybrid of U.S. capitalism and two-party politics. Many additional rules of modern sexual philosophy benefit U.S. neoliberalism and corporate militarism. Furthermore, LGBT advocacy is centered in the United States, and activists in other lands take their cues from counterparts in the U.S. To gain publicity worldwide, the LGBT conceptualization of same-sex activity depends on media exported from the U.S. To get results in other countries, the LGBT movement entirely depends on support from U.S. diplomacy.

Is a theme becoming evident here? In so many ways, LGBT advocacy depends on U.S. hegemony. The dominance of the United States allows the LGBT version of same-sex activity to spread abroad. Publicity of their conceptualization of sex requires that the U.S. remain king of the world.

Meanwhile, all five countries retain their traditional cultures of same-sex activity, for the most part. These cultures contain same-sex activity that is widespread and frequent in those lands. They pivot on non-penetrative acts, prohibit anal as taboo, and don’t feel the need to categorize themselves. These cultures do not consider themselves “homosexuality”. Instead, the word refers to the LGBT conceptualization of same-sex activity, which is a cross-gender abnormality that hinges on anal play.

In at least one country (Brazil), the “g0y” movement has had extraordinary success. The movement gives a name to the country’s traditional same-sex culture, and is now giving stiff competition to LGBT advocacy in Brazil.

LGBT leadership and media can see the writing on the wall. They know that times are changing. They realize that if U.S. hegemony tanks, worldwide LGBT advocacy will go with it. The LGBT conceptualization of same-sex activity would lose influence outside the United States, and perhaps even within it. Their power and positions on the world stage would disintegrate into dust.

Thus, they are intensely interested in supporting LGBT advocacy overseas. For their own sake, their conceptualization of sex must survive outside the United States. Thus, they are focused on ensuring that versions of their conceptualization survive within the BRICS countries. This is probably why in each of the BRICS countries, LGBT advocacy is heating up in intensity.

It’s certainly not out of the goodness of their hearts. Remember that the LGBT-identified community has a hideous legacy of bigotry. American footballer Michael Sam said LGBT-identified racism is worse than African American homophobia. Prejudice is frequent across all kinds of ethnic lines. Given these attitudes, I highly doubt that “gay” leadership and media are genuinely interested in people abroad.

Instead, their logic is simple in its capitalist tenor - if they can expand their product into other markets, the status quo will continue to survive. Their positions of power will remain secure. Their version of same-sex activity will continue growth, no matter how harmful it might be.

In other words, LGBT advocacy in the developing world (including in BRICS) is very self serving. If you’re not convinced of that, notice how the LGBT movement reacted to two stories with the United States - the tale of footballer Aaron Hernandez, and Net Neutrality.

In early 2017, the suicide of Aaron Hernandez captivated the nation. Soon, rumors spread that he was into both genders, which offered a reason for murdering his friend Odin Lloyd. His apparently long history of bisexual behavior showed that there were plenty of sportsmen who weren’t “straight”. At the surface, this would have helped the case of the LGBT movement.

Instead, the LGBT leadership and media loudly yelled at other news outlets to bury the story.

Why did they react this way? Because while Mr. Hernandez was bisexual in his behavior, he felt no need to assume a “gay” identity. He engaged in bisexual behavior without feeling that it needed to be labelled. His example would have shown that same-sex desire is a universal phenomenon, and does not require acquiring an LGBT identity, or ingratiating oneself in “gay” culture.

This is something that LGBT leadership wanted to prevent. After making enough noise about it, the news outlets cooperated with them. Thus, their reaction reveals something that you must understand. The LGBT leadership only supports events and people who reinforce the message of modern sexual philosophy - that same-sex eroticism is abnormal and aberrant, and should be treated that way. If they encounter anything that says otherwise, they want nothing to do with it, and will actually do their utmost to destroy it.

The recent reaction to Net Neutrality revealed more about their attitudes. On December 14th, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to repeal rules enforcing Net Neutrality. Efforts to stop its rollback continue, in the U.S. Congress and beyond. The end of Net Neutrality generated endless articles and commentary in the larger media world, as many writers explained new developments and explored their implications.

Yet, what of the LGBT media? How did they react? There was scarcely a peep from them, at least before the vote. Even though LGBT-identified internet users felt uniquely threatened by the repeal, apparently it didn’t matter to them.

The only output highlighting the situation’s urgency was this video from the Advocate, which was posted on December 13th. The attached video does a good job of explaining the situation, but makes no forceful “call to action”. Instead, it quickly says the URL of a protest website (without even putting the link in text), and calmly asks its readers to make their voices heard, “while you still can”. There was a very limited window to do so, since the video was posted 18 hours before the vote.

When they make voicing opinion so difficult, what do the leadership and media expect their fellow members to do? I suppose they want them to imitate the recommended approach to anal sex - stop crying, bend over, and enjoy it.

To apparently appease their subordinates, most LGBT media coverage happened during the vote and afterward, and even that was relatively miniscule. That included an extremely tepid and feeble reaction from Sarah Kate Ellis, the President and CEO of GLAAD. How wise of them to act after the horses left the stable 15 minutes before.

A “gay” opinion piece from the Federalist might shed light on their reaction. Within the piece, writer Chad Felix Greene argues that “gay” people and issues are too ingrained in society to be censored. Thus, as he writes, Net Neutrality will have relatively little impact on LGBT media.

To be clear, I disagree with a number of his arguments. For example, he disputes that left-wing outlets risk being censored by internet service providers (ISPs). Over the past few months, many alternative left-wing sites have complained about censorship by Google, Facebook and other like websites. It’s not a stretch to imagine ISPs doing the same thing.

Yet, I think his central point has merit. I do think that LGBT media might not be affected much by Net Neutrality repeal. The rollback is a nakedly neoliberalist move, and through their actions, the “gay” leadership evidently support neoliberalism. Thus, it would only make sense that neoliberalism would protect any force that supports it.

Besides, the “gay” media and leadership aren’t shrinking violets. If they think something merits attention, nothing will stop them. If they are so lazy about something so monumental, it obviously doesn’t worry them.

Indeed, if anyone should be concerned, it’s this website, the g0y movement, the Man2Man Alliance, and like minded websites and Tumblr blogs. We are all actively challenging the idea that same-sex activity is weird and abnormal, which modern sexual philosophy hinges on. So many careers depend on people believing that lie, including those of the LGBT leadership. Thus, it wouldn’t be surprising if we end up being censored.

In fact, that censorship might already be happening. While getting links for this new page, a number of the websites I researched loaded very slowly.

The point is this: in these domestic disputes that impacted LGBT-identified people, the leadership and media didn’t act in their interests. Instead, their own welfare triumphed. If they can be so unsympathetic on issues inside the U.S., do you really think their overseas actions are motivated by goodwill?

Instead, it has less to do with kindness and compassion, and more to do with empire building and capitalist expansion.

Now, to be clear, I’m not justifying violence against LGBT-identified people in the BRICS countries. To me, they are the grass trampled underfoot by warring elephants. My point is that the LGBT leadership is not a benevolent force. As such, I think they are part of the problem. For the survival of themselves and their culture, they are focused on supplanting the traditional same-sex cultures in the developing world, especially emerging superpowers. As such, they imperialistically view those traditional cultures as immature and inferior, and their own conceptualization as superior and mature, even if it’s riddled with serious problems.

Why are they targeting the BRICS countries? Because if current trends continue, they will become the economic powerhouses of the world. Thus, if and when the U.S. falls behind, the LGBT conceptualization of same-sex activity will survive. Within those countries, their conceptualization will continue to exercise international dominance, regardless of the medical and psychological issues it contains.

So, the concluding question is, what will you do about it?

Make no mistake - the LGBT leadership and media don’t work for you. They will only do so if your interests line up with their own. Otherwise, you’re on your own.

Thus, I ask you to think long and hard about what you’ve just read. The world the LGBT leadership is trying to create won’t necessarily benefit you.

I also ask you to read further on this site. I urge you to read “The ‘Straight’-’Gay’ Dichotomy: How It Works”, to fully understand how that system functions. I also urge any who read this to go to “For Straight People (though not exclusively)”, which will point to philosophies and forms of same-sex behavior that don’t hinge on demonstratively false concepts. Also read the page “History of the Concept of Homosexuality”, to see how this concept evolved into its modern day meaning. Don’t be afraid of talking about what you learn to others.

The LGBT version of same-sex activity causes turmoil wherever it appears. Other approaches to same-sex activity do exist, but they’ll only make a difference if people know about it. If you can educate yourself on that, you’ll be able to introduce it to others.

#brics #homosexuality #homosexual #lgbt #gay #lgbt christian #lgbt christianity #gay christian #gay christianity

2 notes · View notes