#donald has a lot of issues

[drag0nagedatingsim]

I love how people's response to critiques about the companions not noticing or being supportive of Rook's mental health is "you're too stupid" and "you don't understand the game like I do" and "here's my headcanon why you're wrong."

Why are y'all doing all the heavy lifting for the writing and then giving all the credits to the writing.

"Emmrich is taking you to the graveyard to help with Varric's death."

WHERE IN THE TEXT DOES IT SAY THAT. Does Emmrich even know how close Rook was to Varric? That's a nice headcanon to infer, and it would make a LOT of sense. But this is literally the "tell don't show" game, where they tell you everything three times, unless it has to do with Rook's mental health, and then it's suddenly secretly an understated genius story that I just don't understand because I'm too stupid? Okay?

No, it's once again the framework of something great that is ultimately unfinished and underutilized and a lot of people are doing the heavy-lifting for the plot and seeing their heavy-lifted headcanons propelled across the fandom, and then thinking that's just what the text says. When it does not.

I do think this is also a result of the later half of the 2nd act and all of the 3rd act being really good. Like, the later parts of this game are so good that it has me doubting my sanity about the first parts, but then I replay it and go "lol no it was bad."

[tabl3]

me when the donald and douglas dynamic is paralleled in the show between adam and chase, but it's become the dynamic between bree and chase in my series

[the-gadabout-gander]

Personally love the idea that gladstone is interested in the occult and paranormal in a more academic sense, but also is into new-age views on gemstones and crystals in a semi-ironic way partly bc his Luck then gets him gemstones without much expense, but mostly bc its funny watching Ludwig and Gyro get huffy abt it

[the-cimmerians]

On Thursday, Governor Tim Walz sat down for an interview with author Glennon Doyle, her partner Abby Wambach, and her sister Amanda Doyle during a taping of the We Can Do Hard Things podcast. The conversation touched on key election issues such as abortion and gun violence. However, midway through the podcast, the discussion shifted to queer youth, specifically transgender kids. Rather than shying away from the topic, Walz delivered a passionate, several-minute-long defense of LGBTQ+ rights, including transgender healthcare. He outlined his vision for the administration’s role in protecting these rights.

The question came from Abby Wambach, who turned to the topic after discussing Walz’ founding of a Gay-Straight Alliance at his high school in the mid-90s. Wambach asked, “Well, thank you Governor Walz so much for protecting even in the late ’90s queer kids. And so I have to ask, what will a Harris-Walz administration do to protect our queer kids today?”

Walz discussed positive legislative actions, such as codifying hate crime laws and increasing education, while emphasizing the importance of using his platform to advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. He then addressed the role of judges in safeguarding medical care for queer youth: “I also think what Abby, your point is on this, and I was just mentioning, we need to appoint judges who uphold the right to marriage, uphold the right to be who you are, making sure that’s the case, uphold the right to get the medical care that you need. We should not be naive. Those appointments are really, really important. I think that’s what the vice president is committed to.”

He didn’t stop there. Instead, he directly pivoted to calling out national anti-transgender attack ads which have flooded the airwaves across the United States, often airing besides NFL football games and other major sporting events. The Trump administration has spent upwards of $20 million on such ads, with outside organizations spending $80 million on various races.

“We see it now; the hate has shifted to the trans community. They see that as an opportunity. If you’re watching any sporting events right now, you see that Donald Trump’s closing arguments are to demonize a group of people for being who they are,” Walz said. He continued, “We’re out there trying to make the case that access to healthcare, a clean environment, manufacturing jobs, and keeping your local hospital open are what people are really concerned about. They’re running millions of dollars of ads demonizing folks who are just trying to live their lives.”

He emphasized the importance of representation and the impact of coming out, particularly for parents who may not have been exposed to LGBTQ+ identities and therefore might lack understanding. Walz pointed out, “Look, you’re reaching a lot of folks in hearing this, and for some people it’s not even out of malice and it’s not a pejorative, it’s out of ignorance. They maybe have not been around people. You’ve all seen this, however it takes you to get there, but I know it’s a little frustrating when you see folks have an epiphany when their child comes out to them.”

The strong defense of queer and trans youth came just one day after Kamala Harris participated in a Fox News interview with Brett Baier. Baier, who maintained a hostile tone throughout, pressed Harris on transgender issues with his second question. Rather than adopting the Republican framing, as some Democrats have done recently, Harris emphasized that the law requires medically necessary care for transgender inmates and criticized Trump for spending $20 million on ads focused on an issue far removed from the priorities of most Americans. Her response prompted Baier to quickly shift to another topic.

In back-to-back days, the Harris-Walz ticket has made it clear they will not back down on queer and trans rights, despite the barrage of anti-trans attack ads. This stance is likely reinforced by the repeated failure of similar ads in recent races, including Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election, legislative races in Pennsylvania and Virginia, Georgia’s Herschel Walker vs. Raphael Warnock election, Andy Beshear’s reelection in Kentucky, and the 2023 losses of 70% of Moms for Liberty and Project 1776 school board candidates across the United States. For transgender people, these interviews are likely a welcome relief after some wavering responses from other Democratic candidates in swing states.

[mariacallous]

The first thing to say about the hate and scorn currently directed at the mainstream US media is that they worked hard to earn it. They’ve done so by failing, repeatedly, determinedly, spectacularly to do their job, which is to maintain their independence, inform the electorate, and speak truth to power. While the left has long had reasons to dismiss centrist media, and the right has loathed it most when it did do its job well, the moderates who are furious at it now seem to be something new – and a host of former editors, media experts and independent journalists have been going after them hard this summer.

Longtime journalist James Fallows declares that three institutions – the Republican party, the supreme court, and the mainstream political press – “have catastrophically failed to ‘meet the moment’ under pressure of [the] Trump era”. Centrist political reformer and columnist Norm Ornstein states that these news institutions “have had no reflection, no willingness to think through how irresponsible and reckless so much of our mainstream press and so many of our journalists have been and continue to be”.

Most voters, he says, “have no clue what a second Trump term would actually be like. Instead, we get the same insipid focus on the horse race and the polls, while normalizing abnormal behavior and treating this like a typical presidential election, not one that is an existential threat to democracy.”

Lamenting the state of the media recently on X, Jeff Jarvis, another former editor and newspaper columnist, said: “What ‘press’? The broken and vindictive Times? The newly Murdochian Post? Hedge-fund newspaper husks? Rudderless CNN or NPR? Murdoch’s fascist media?”

These critics are responding to how the behemoths of the industry seem intent on bending the facts to fit their frameworks and agendas. In pursuit of clickbait content centered on conflicts and personalities, they follow each other into informational stampedes and confirmation bubbles.

They pursue the appearance of fairness and balance by treating the true and the false, the normal and the outrageous, as equally valid and by normalizing Republicans, especially Donald Trump, whose gibberish gets translated into English and whose past crimes and present-day lies and threats get glossed over. They neglect, again and again, important stories with real consequences. This is not entirely new – in a scathing analysis of 2016 election coverage, the Columbia Journalism Review noted that “in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election” – but it’s gotten worse, and a lot of insiders have gotten sick of it.

In July, ordinary people on social media decided to share information about the rightwing Project 2025 and did a superb job of raising public awareness about it, while the press obsessed about Joe Biden’s age and health. NBC did report on this grassroots education effort, but did so using the “both sides are equally valid” framework often deployed by mainstream media, saying the agenda is “championed by some creators as a guide to less government oversight and slammed by others as a road map to an authoritarian takeover of America”. There is no valid case it brings less government oversight.

In an even more outrageous case, the New York Times ran a story comparing the Democratic and Republican plans to increase the housing supply – which treated Trump’s plans for mass deportation of undocumented immigrants as just another housing-supply strategy that might work or might not. (That it would create massive human rights violations and likely lead to huge civil disturbances was one overlooked factor, though the fact that some of these immigrants are key to the building trades was mentioned.)

Other stories of pressing concern are either picked up and dropped or just neglected overall, as with Trump’s threats to dismantle a huge portion of the climate legislation that is both the Biden administration’s signal achievement and crucial for the fate of the planet. The Washington Post editorial board did offer this risibly feeble critique on 17 August: “It would no doubt be better for the climate if the US president acknowledged the reality of global warming – rather than calling it a scam, as Mr Trump has.”

While the press blamed Biden for failing to communicate his achievements, which is part of his job, it’s their whole job to do so. The Climate Jobs National Resource Center reports that the Inflation Reduction Act has created “a combined potential of over $2tn in investment, 1,091,966 megawatts of clean power, and approximately 3,947,670 jobs”, but few Americans have any sense of what the bill has achieved or even that the economy is by many measures strong.

Last winter, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has a Nobel prize in economics, told Greg Sargent on the latter’s Daily Blast podcast that when he writes positive pieces about the Biden economy, his editor asks “don’t you want to qualify” it; “aren’t people upset by X, Y and Z and shouldn’t you be acknowledging that?”

Meanwhile in an accusatory piece about Kamala Harris headlined When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?, a Washington Post columnist declares in another case of bothsiderism: “Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.” The evidence that corporations have jacked up prices and are reaping huge profits is easy to find, but facts don’t matter much in this kind of opining.

It’s hard to gloat over the decline of these dinosaurs of American media, when a free press and a well-informed electorate are both crucial to democracy. The alternatives to the major news outlets simply don’t reach enough readers and listeners, though the non-profit investigative outfit ProPublica and progressive magazines such as the New Republic and Mother Jones, are doing a lot of the best reporting and commentary.

Earlier this year, when Alabama senator Katie Britt gave her loopy rebuttal to Biden’s State of the Union address, it was an independent journalist, Jonathan Katz, who broke the story on TikTok that her claims about a victim of sex trafficking contained significant falsehoods. The big news outlets picked up the scoop from him, making me wonder what their staffs of hundreds were doing that night.

A host of brilliant journalists young and old, have started independent newsletters, covering tech, the state of the media, politics, climate, reproductive rights and virtually everything else, but their reach is too modest to make them a replacement for the big newspapers and networks. The great exception might be historian Heather Cox Richardson, whose newsletter and Facebook followers give her a readership not much smaller than that of the Washington Post. The tremendous success of her sober, historically grounded (and footnoted!) news summaries and reflections bespeaks a hunger for real news.

[random-knowone]

Kamala Harris is NOT pro-Israel (part 1)

Edit: since so many people on this site love to piss on the poor, I should state very clearly that I'm not claiming "Harris has never said anything positive about Israel" I mean that she's not against Palestine as trolls are claiming, she is fighting for a two-state solution, as you would know if you watched her acceptance speech or you actually bothered to read this post before hurling insults at me.

I'm sure a lot of this is just alt-right trolls trying to stop leftists from voting for her, but to all the genuinely well-intentioned people out there, please read this post (and the others too, preferably)

1: In her acceptance speech on Thursday, Kamala made it clear that she wants an immediate ceasefire with a peaceful, two-state solution, and for all hostages to be freed.

2: "But Biden is pro-Israel!" She is not Joe Biden. She is Kamala Harris. She still works for him, and can't speak out against his handling of the war publicly. Similarly, she was NOT in charge of his policies.

3: "But why isn't she doing more?" She, along with others in the administration, have been working on negotiating for a while now. There are rumors that Trump told Israel not to accept so she would look worse, but these are not proven

4: "But the DNC didn't have a Palestinian speaker!" Kamala Harris is not in control of the DNC. She does not control who speaks there. The DNC likely did this because the war is an incredibly divisive issue and they didn't want to alienate the many politicians who are staunchly pro-Israel. it sucks, but it is not because of Kamala.

Even if you don't believe me for whatever reason, what harm would come from voting for Harris? What good would come of not voting for her? It's either her or Trump, it's not like if you don't vote no one will be elected. This is what all this anti-Harris propaganda never mentions, as they lie to you about her stance.

Voting is not about endorsing someone who is perfect. No one is perfect and no politician will 100% line up with your beliefs. Politics is about deciding which candidate you would rather have in office, and right now your options are Kamala Harris, or Donald Trump. Who would you rather have running the country?

[genderqueerpositivity]

I absolutely cannot wait for this election cycle to be over because genuinely what the fuck. I keep drawing parallels to the 2016 election because there are just so many similarities, but what I haven't said much about yet are the ways in which things are worse.

Having the majority of people I know or randomly encounter be Trump supporting Republicans is absolutely wild now, because sometimes they will just drop the most unhinged comments you could possibly imagine into casual conversation as if they're simply commenting that the grass is green or the weather is nice today, and every time it gives me this bizarre sensation like I am somehow the one living in a different plane of reality.

The Democrats are intentionally bringing undocumented people into the country and giving them drivers licenses so they can vote in the upcoming November election, and unless Donald Trump wins and is allowed to carry out his mass deportation plan the United States will never again have a Republican Christian president.

Joe Biden has been using the US military to release chemicals into the atmosphere for the past four years which have the ability to affect the weather in order to trick the American public into believing that climate change is real.

The attack on Donald Trump at his rally was rally a plot enacted by The Deep State, a secret group of powerful liberals who are running the country behind the scenes, and they don't want Trump to win in November because he is too powerful for them to control.

Joe Biden was replaced by a secret identical body double when he allegedly had Covid several weeks ago, and the double is the one who really dropped out of the election, gives all of his speeches, and does all of his interviews now for him.

Those are just the ones I heard last week.

And the reactions I get when contradicting these wild takes range from rage to mocking to a bizarre persecution complex. In 2016 and even in 2020 I was able to have a lot of productive conversations with many people who disagreed with me greatly on major issues, and that is largely not happening this time. If I dare to disagree, they turn to anger, attack me personally, or cry immediately that I'm denying their right to free speech. When bringing up my actual lived experiences with certain issues, I've been dismissed immediately as emotional and brainwashed. There is no room for discourse or discussion anymore, it has broken down.

I know that we've been going out of our way to call them weird, but we're not really talking about fringe weirdo conspiracy theorists anymore, we're talking about your neighbors and my coworkers and your aunt and the guy behind me in line at Aldi. These people are everywhere, they're 100% serious about believing in this shit, and they're voting Republican in November come hell or high water, truth be goddamed.

You know, the lives of millions and millions of women, LGBTQ+ people, undocumented people, and other marginalized peoples are at stake in this election but it feels increasingly like reality is at stake too.

"Alternative facts" sounded outrageous seven years ago...now they've made it a way of life. Unless we can correct course, and rapidly, it isn't going to get better.

[notwiselybuttoowell]

Let’s start with Oregon – what does this mean for unhoused people in Grants Pass?

It means that Grants Pass can enforce its 24/7 citywide ban on public homelessness. The question was whether cities should be able to jail or fine someone who has no other alternative but to live in public space – the unhoused folks who are considered “involuntarily homeless”. The city was already allowed to arrest people who had declined offers of shelter. Now, Grants Pass will likely be fining people who have no shelter options.

When you fine someone who can’t pay, the fine can eventually turn into a misdemeanor. Studies have shown that it doesn’t help an already poor person to be driven into debt. Fining someone makes them less likely to emerge from homelessness, including by ruining their credit score and making them unable to afford basic needs like food.

Beyond fines, the city of Grants Pass is going to eventually jail more people. This is punishing people who have done nothing more than exist in public space. This case was about whether you can punish people for the unavoidable consequences of being human. The supreme court said yes.

How do you expect the decision will impact other jurisdictions across the west?

This is quite possibly the most consequential decision in history up until this point relating to homeless rights. It’s hard to overstate how important it is.

I think more cities will attempt 24/7 citywide bans on homelessness. I think it will encourage cities to shift away from investments in evidence-based approaches like adequately investing in affordable housing, permanent supportive housing and diversion and shift toward more law-and-order, enforcement-led efforts to essentially jail and banish already marginalized people from public view.

Grants Pass argued it wasn’t criminalizing the status of homelessness, but criminalizing the act of camping in public. The supreme court majority in its ruling on Friday concurred, and said that criminalizing an act does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Presumably cities could in the future go even further than Grants Pass has, as long as they frame their laws as prohibiting public camping, instead of prohibiting homelessness, although I don’t think that issue has been fully resolved by today’s decision.

Donald Trump and others have used increasingly dark rhetoric, threatening to force people into “tent cities”. Will the ruling embolden those kinds of efforts?

I think we could see the forced displacement of unhoused folks into what I would call internment camps out in the middle of nowhere – a mass migration of unhoused people from one place where their existence is banned to other places where the laws don’t ban their existence. Many cities already have authorized camps in far-out locations that are completely invisible to the general public. I learned about one that was bordered by a dump, a recycling center and railroad tracks – the quintessentially least desirable place.

The idea of rounding up unhoused folks and forcing them into camps or out of the jurisdiction entirely is obviously very concerning. And it should be of grave concern, because once something is invisible, you don’t know what’s happening to the already really vulnerable people living there. Trump has publicly contemplated using his federal authority to move people into the middle of the desert where they won’t bother anyone by existing. It’s a very dystopian vision of internment camps and the likely abuses and neglect that would come from that. It’s terrifying.

Prior to this ruling, cities already had quite a lot of latitude to restrict camping, correct?

Yes, cities could already sweep encampments as much as they like. In many cities, they’ve been sweeping tents at record rates. They could also already enforce anti-camping laws if there was something that could be shown to be an urgent public health or safety issue with respect to a particular encampment – for example, if an encampment was blocking a whole sidewalk. Cities could sweep without even giving notice in those circumstances. Under the previous standard, cities weren’t even required to provide adequate shelter. It just said if the city lacks shelter, it can’t jail or fine someone, which to me should be so straightforward, and yet somehow here we are.

How do you expect legal advocates for unhoused people will respond to this ruling?

The dehumanizing message of today’s decision is going to galvanize civil rights attorneys. It has to. Anytime somebody’s basic right to exist is threatened, civil rights activists have to regroup. And cities should not approach this too cavalierly. There will be legal consequences for cities that pursue 24/7 citywide bans on homelessness. All this decision does is remove the protections for unhoused folks under the eighth amendment of the US constitution. States across the country have analogs to the eighth amendment in their state constitutions. States can and often do interpret their state constitutional provisions to be more protective than the federal constitution. The eighth amendment at its core is really about how much we value the humanity of vulnerable people. So it’s crippling from a human standpoint to have that protection removed. But there are other avenues that homeless rights advocates and human rights lawyers can still pursue. They can make arguments under other federal constitutional provisions. There are still due process arguments under the 14th amendment. You can still argue there is selective prosecution. There are arguments that could be made under the fourth amendment [which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures]. There’s the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], and most chronically homeless people would likely qualify as someone with a disability who has protections from state-sanctioned abuse.

[hussyknee]

Courtesy @crutchesandspice

Please view the video directly on TikTok to support the creator.

Follow Imani Barbarian on bluesky, twitter, Instagram

Please understand the context behind this request: a Black disabled woman is asking those who have the privilege, access and capacity to speak MAGA people, who they might listen to because they come from similar backgrounds, to try and understand them and talk to them. She's not demanding that a mentally ill queer person try to argue their humanity with family members who think they should burn in hell. She's talking about those liberals (especially white ones) who are tempted to dehumanise and write off anyone that voted for Trump as an act of political tribalism instead of engaging with why fascism takes hold of ordinary people.

Video description and transcript under the cut.

Video description:

A TikTok of a Black woman with locs speaking in front of a screenshot. The screenshot is of a YouTube video by Ben Shapiro titled "The EVIL Revolutionary Left Cheers Murder!"

Transcript:

Something is happening. Something is definitely happening. And I would be remiss if I didn't talk about this particular funnel into the alt-right that is informing how the alt-right is reacting to this moment right now. [Screen changes to a diagram titled "Right Wing Content Funnels", showing four red funnels that all point down to "The Alt Right". The first three are obscured by TikToker's head, but she's pointing to one that has "Health, Fitness Cures Holistic" over the funnel labelled "Eugenics".]

Because despite Ben Shapiro uploading this video, this was their response. And we'll all do image descriptions for this but yeah. Yeah.

So Ben Shapiro uploaded this video that says "The Evil Revolutionary Left Cheers Murder!" in reference to the United Healthcare CEO being gunned down in midtown Manhattan. But then something happened. (And shout out to Wild Greeters on Bluesky for bringing this up.) [Screen changes to show a post by user Wild Greeters showing screenshotted comments.] But these are the responses to Ben Shapiro on his own video:

"I'm as much right wing as they come. I have as much empathy as he had for those who lost their lives due to not recieving healthcare."

"Sorry Ben but nobody on either side feels sympathy for this man."

"As a long time Ben Shapiro fan buddy, your wealth is showing. It's not a right or left thing."

And that's what encapsulates this moment the most. Let's go over some more responses.

"Deny. Depose. Defend. We don't recognise him."

"Benny this is a non-partisan issue. Please stop trying to constantly divide the country."

"I'm proud of this comment section."

"Idk why you're trying to keep pushing this as a left issue. It's clearly across the board."

"While I don't agree with people celebrating this man's death, I don't believe this is a partisan issue like you're making it out to be. It's not right or left, it's people who have health insurance (it goes on to say)"

"Ben can afford any healthcare out of pocket plus his wife is a physician, must be nice."

And a lot of people have otherwise been flummoxed. I've even seen sentiments like this from liberals. I myself have gotten comments like "I can't believe that the alt right wants to celebrate this, the right is so violent, that's why they voted for that man."

No. No. This is one of the very few times when a majority of people are agreeing on the exact same thing. And it's important to understand how people get into alt right to understand why the left and the alt right are reacting to the very same thing in the very same way.

And it's because of this funnel right here: the "Health, Fitness, Cures, Holistic" into "Eugenics" and then into the "Alt Right". A lot of people can easily brush off why people get into the alt-right. The reality is that a lot of them did not start off with racism and sexism as their ideals, and the things that the left and liberals attribute to why people voted for Donald Trump. The reality is that with fear-mongering, which the right is very skilled at, they take advantage of people's fear of the healthcare system, not necessarily poor health in and of itself. This is why you're just as likely to find people in the alt right in groups on diabetes, cerebral palsy, autism—because the system itself is so terrifying that people will find any alternative to it. That's why they get into eugenics and then into the alt right. Not necessarily because it starts off that way a 100% of the cases, it's because they fear the very system that would allow for somebody like Brian Thompson to deny them care over and over and over again.

And in general, and this is probably a very unpopular opinion, I find it very irresponsible for people to consistently just boil things down to, "well, they're part of the alt right, they're just hateful," because a lot of the times, people don't start off that way. A lot of the times, their desire to go into the alt right starts with fear. And fear over being rejected as part of these very systems.

The issue is though, what the alt right does, is it blames the individual and not the systems because they want the systems to remain in place, or for those systems to get worse so that people they don't like die. Which is why our healthcare system is considered a medical apartheid.

This is also the reason why I'm not really impressed when you cut off your MAGA family members a 100% of the time, right. You share this moment. If you are not talking to them now about healthcare—and be mindful, I'm not saying berate them or argue with them— but this is the one thing you all relate on! Talk about it!

But yeah. I don't want to hear you cut off your MAGA family members now, and then hear from you two years from now asking everybody what we're gonna do. Now's the time! Now is it! Go out there! Go talk to people! Because if everybody is reacting to this moment the same way, now. Is. Your. Chance. Do you hear me? Now's your chance!

End transcript.

[bachelorisland]

Mickey’s veeery complicated opinion on Jose Carioca

I talked about this headcanon on twitter but I wanted to talk about it on tumblr too bc u guys are goated 🙏🤣❤️ ANYYWAYYSSS (Sorry I’m very bad at explaining things and my grammar is awful this is more of a ramble, AND IM SORRY IF THIS IS OOC)

I feel like Mickey, despite not wanting to not like him, does NOTTTT LIKE Jose because of how similar they are. I mean when you think about it, Jose is basically everything Mickey is and more ? (Maybe that’s a stretch, I dunno) He’s more humble, probably a lot more charming, and I feel like Mickey would feel threatened by that. Here’s a rlly crappy drawing to visualize 😎

I don’t think Mickey would ever admit to feeling that way about him because he doesn’t WANT to, he feels really really guilty about it, and he thinks it’s silly, but I guess he has some deep rooted issues with being replaced to be reacting in such a way.

AND ALSO because Jose is completely oblivious to how Mickey feels about him and thinks they’re very good friends!! So mickey wouldn’t wanna mess that up either and make himself look bad

A TWITTER USER SAID THIS AND I AGREE WITH IT SO HARD THOUGH!!!

AND DONALD!!! Donald is Mickeys bestest friend!! Iconic Disney Duo!! But I always found it funny that despite Jose and Mickey being similar, to me Donald seems to fuck with Jose a LOT more than Mickey 😭 I think Mickey would be incredibly insecure about that especially, i mean if ur best friend likes this guy more than he likes you he’s definitely better than you!!! I think Mickey would end up believing that because Donald seems calmer and happier around Jose, than that means Donald’s temper wasn’t the problem, Mickey not being a good enough friend for him was. :( LIKE HES A BIRD TOO!! THEYRE BOTH BIRDS AND MICKEYS JUST A STUPIF MOUSE!!!💔💔💔 yeah

(I like to imagine a montage of mickey from the shorts trying to “win back” donald from jose lololol maybe ill make a little comic)

BUT ANYWAYS yeah that’s it . thx for reading. please…lemme know what u think….goofbye

[tomorrowusa]

Historian and writer on democracy Timothy Snyder says that there should be no question as to who is dominant in the Musk-Trump relationship.

Allies and aides to Donald Trump should be increasingly concerned by Elon Musk’s proximity to and influence on the US president-elect, the Yale historian and bestselling author Timothy Snyder said. “Trump is a little guy, and Musk is a big guy when it actually comes to having money,” Snyder said. “And I think if you were a friend of Trump, you would be worried.” [ ... ] Snyder expects that Trump’s soon-to-be home, the White House, will be a stage for uncomfortable and damaging discord between the president-elect and his most powerful ally, the world’s richest man. “I think we overestimate Trump and we underestimate Musk,” Snyder said. “People can’t help but think that Trump has money, but he doesn’t. He’s never really had money. He’s never even really claimed to have money. His whole notion is that you have to believe that he has money. But he’s never been able to pay his own debts. He’s never been able to finance his own campaigns. “Musk, with an amount of money that was meaningless to him, was able to finance Trump’s campaign, essentially.” [ ... ] Since Trump’s victory in November, from Mar-a-Lago in Florida to Notre Dame in Paris, Musk has been constantly at Trump’s side, earning the satirical nickname “first buddy” but also an appointment with the biotech investor Vivek Ramaswamy to jointly head the “department of government efficiency”, or “Doge”, a group tasked with meeting Trump’s wildly ambitious campaign promise of slashing trillions from federal spending. Considering instances of Musk’s apparent influence over Trump as the president-elect has struggled to control congressional Republicans – an unruly party already split on how to continue funding the government they also want to defund – Snyder said: “All the threats that Trump is now going to issue – ‘I’m going to primary people, I’m going to sue people’ – Musk is going to pay for that, not Trump. And when Trump needs money for anything, he’s going to be asking Musk. “Unless Trump breaks it off right now, he’s going to be in this kind of dependent relationship for the rest of the way, because you get used to people giving you money … and I think if you were a friend of Trump, you would be worried.”

Prof. Snyder has invented a name for this peculiar relationship.

“So I thought about this dependency position,” Snyder said. “I was going to call it Muskotrumpovia, because I think Musk is a more important person, but Trumpomuskovia had a nicer ring to it. “And also, I wanted Muskovia because I wanted the idea of Russia to be there in the background, because a lot of smart Russia hands are saying this all the time: this is kind of like the 1990s in Russia. You have the doddering, rich-but-not-very-rich president [Boris Yeltsin], surrounded by more youthful, more active, ambitious oligarchs. That’s the kind of scenario [America is] in.”

Trump thinks he's Vladimir Putin but he's more like Boris Yeltsin – but stupid instead of drunk like ol' Boris.

[tizeline]

Btw, considering my recent reblogs it might not suprise ya'll that I'm currently rewatching Ducktales, and listen, there's something I need to know-

Do you guys? Like? Understand Donald? When he's talking? Like at all?

I never have subtitles on when I'm watching cartoons, but I need them specifically for whenever Donald's talking cuz he's literally incomprihensible to me.

I watched a lot of those older Donald Duck cartoons as a kid, and I never understood him then either but that wasn't an issue cuz it was mostly just slapstick and hijinks. Because of that I always assumed you weren't supposed to understand him?

But Ducktales has like, you know, a story! Character development! I need to know what he's saying, and it seems the show just expects me to be able to do that on my own?? But I don't!! So do you guys?? Help??

[contemplatingoutlander]

Given what recently happened with the billionaire owners of The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times preventing their editorial boards from endorsing Harris for president, it seems this excellent column by The Guardian's Rebecca Solnit is quite appropriate. Here are some excerpts:

The first thing to say about the hate and scorn currently directed at the mainstream US media is that they worked hard to earn it. They’ve done so by failing, repeatedly, determinedly, spectacularly to do their job, which is to maintain their independence, inform the electorate, and speak truth to power. While the left has long had reasons to dismiss centrist media, and the right has loathed it most when it did do its job well, the moderates who are furious at it now seem to be something new – and a host of former editors, media experts and independent journalists have been going after them hard this summer. Longtime journalist James Fallows declares that three institutions – the Republican party, the supreme court, and the mainstream political press – “have catastrophically failed to ‘meet the moment’ under pressure of [the] Trump era”. Centrist political reformer and columnist Norm Ornstein states that these news institutions “have had no reflection, no willingness to think through how irresponsible and reckless so much of our mainstream press and so many of our journalists have been and continue to be”. Most voters, he says, “have no clue what a second Trump term would actually be like. Instead, we get the same insipid focus on the horse race and the polls, while normalizing abnormal behavior and treating this like a typical presidential election, not one that is an existential threat to democracy.” Lamenting the state of the media recently on X, Jeff Jarvis, another former editor and newspaper columnist, said: “What ‘press’? The broken and vindictive Times? The newly Murdochian Post? Hedge-fund newspaper husks? Rudderless CNN or NPR? Murdoch’s fascist media?”

[See more excerpts under the cut.]

[...] They pursue the appearance of fairness and balance by treating the true and the false, the normal and the outrageous, as equally valid and by normalizing Republicans, especially Donald Trump, whose gibberish gets translated into English and whose past crimes and present-day lies and threats get glossed over. They neglect, again and again, important stories with real consequences. This is not entirely new – in a scathing analysis of 2016 election coverage, the Columbia Journalism Review noted that “in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election” – but it’s gotten worse, and a lot of insiders have gotten sick of it. In July, ordinary people on social media decided to share information about the rightwing Project 2025 and did a superb job of raising public awareness about it, while the press obsessed about Joe Biden’s age and health. NBC did report on this grassroots education effort, but did so using the “both sides are equally valid” framework often deployed by mainstream media, saying the agenda is “championed by some creators as a guide to less government oversight and slammed by others as a road map to an authoritarian takeover of America”. There is no valid case it brings less government oversight. [...] Last winter, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has a Nobel prize in economics, told Greg Sargent on the latter’s Daily Blast podcast that when he writes positive pieces about the Biden economy, his editor asks “don’t you want to qualify” it; “aren’t people upset by X, Y and Z and shouldn’t you be acknowledging that?” [...] It’s hard to gloat over the decline of these dinosaurs of American media, when a free press and a well-informed electorate are both crucial to democracy. The alternatives to the major news outlets simply don’t reach enough readers and listeners, though the non-profit investigative outfit ProPublica and progressive magazines such as the New Republic and Mother Jones, are doing a lot of the best reporting and commentary. [...] A host of brilliant journalists young and old, have started independent newsletters, covering tech, the state of the media, politics, climate, reproductive rights and virtually everything else, but their reach is too modest to make them a replacement for the big newspapers and networks. The great exception might be historian Heather Cox Richardson, whose newsletter and Facebook followers give her a readership not much smaller than that of the Washington Post. The tremendous success of her sober, historically grounded (and footnoted!) news summaries and reflections bespeaks a hunger for real news.

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

if you ever did an in-depth post about ‘you need to calm down’ i would love to see it because that is my most-hated taylor swift song. like why are you comparing your beef with katy perry to homophobia 😭😭😭

As a lesbian- I have a lot of feelings pent up about "You Need to Calm Down" and all of them are negative.

At the songs core- Swift is showing herself to be horribly ignorant. Are we really all going to accept her propping up the idea that homophobia is the same as having a public disagreement with another celebrity? Not only is she negating the power dynamics that often exist within the propagation of homophobia, by insinuating that homophobia is the same as a disagreement between equals in society, but she is also trivializing it down to a simple disagreement over career related bullshit.

Not to mention that she is NOT an ally- I cannot stand the people who think she is a left-leaning, feminist, LGBT advocate. It's like they have created a fanfiction concept of Taylor Swift in their heads.

She profits off the LGBT community when it is most beneficial- but when legitimate rights are being stripped away, she is silent.

Taylor Swift is really good at commodifying social trends without actually risking anything. She waits until it is safe- then pretends to speak up for people's rights, when, in reality, she is just finally able to turn the social trend into part of her brand. Therefore, she gave a stupid line in the song "Welcome to New York" (2014) about how New York City is somehow a utopia of gay freedom (not true but whatever), and then in "You Need to Calm Down" she was profiting off the excess of emotion and democratic enterprising seeping off the US Election cycle.

Her first use of this profit-first tacit happened in 2014- what happened in 2015? The US supreme court legalized same-sex marriage. Swift simply saw the social trend- and captialized off a topic about which the youth were passionate.

The second time, in "You Need to Calm Down" she published this song in 2019- firmly within her faux activist era, and well-aware that the youth were interested in politics. This was right before the 2020 US election- she once again saw the increase of young people paying attention to the ideological split within the country- bearing in mind her target audience skews young, progressive, and American, she pounced on the opportunity to capitalize off their impulse towards supporting ideological-progressive media. As we all geared up to vote down the conservative-leaning Donald Trump, who aligned himself with right-wing religious ideologies standing to threaten the previous supreme court decision on Same-Sex rights, Swift swoops in with a silly pop-beat and a fake country accent to pretend she is the savior of the young and gay.

If it wasn't so shady- it would be a brillant use of rhetorical analysis to sell product. Capitalism has made a cynic of me- I fear.

Swift saw the fear of young LGBT people- during an election cycle-and decided to profit off that fear not through distancing herself from them, but by pretending to care. Notice, again, how she only mentioned gay rights during these very specific cultural conditions which allow her to somehow make a profit off ideologically aligning herself with one side of an issue or another.

Personally, I find fake care even more heinous than outright hatred.

Once again- in this current year she is using the endorsement of a US presidential candidate to further her own brand and try to re-affirm her place within the general rhetorical circles of "progressive and therefore morally upstanding individual" to the youth.

It's all a calculated move to shake-off whatever negative press she got through her associations with right-wing Footballers and keep her prime audience of young Americans.

I have much more to say on this topic- but for now, this is where I leave you. I have to go eat lunch.

[tealottie]

What are your headcanons about Della?

I have so many, but tbh my favorite headcanons have to do with her having PTSD - so i can't promise this will be a fun post

MASTERLIST OF DELLA HEADCANONS BELOW:

Appearance:

Scars from the Moon

One across her beak on left side

Scars on her arms and legs

Other markings

Stretch marks especially on her tummy and butt

A few stretch marks on her chest and thighs

Freckles on her beak (because she had triplets and ducks IRL sometimes get freckles after pregnancy)

Other

Chubby pear shape

DD cup size

Squishy belly

Big eyes

Fluffy unkempt feathers (she's bad at preening)

Thin hair (also bad at taking care of it)

Short beak

Queer Headcanons:

Homoromantic

Bisexual

Prefers to just call herself a lesbian

Ciswoman (doesn't mind they/them pronouns and probably finds it entertaining if she's referred to as he/him)

Supports all of her queer babies

She also does not actively seek out romance, but she isn't offput by the idea entirely

Mental Health and Neurodiverse Headcanons:

PTSD

Hates being alone at any given moment and had to ask Donald if she could room with him in the houseboat for a few months

Genuinely cannot look at her reflection and will be needing exposure therapy

Does not like the feeling of movement underwater because it reminds her of the moon's gravity

Terrified that she'll never be fully capable of being a mom because of the 10 years she missed

Cringes at any moon or space themed items now - sometimes triggers her on a bad day or if she looks at them for too long

Her hair being too long is a trigger for her, so she always keeps it shoulder length or above

She ALWAYS feels cold even if her body temperature is normal and sometimes it drives her crazy

Lots of nightmares about what-ifs - what if it was my kids instead of me, what if it was my brother instead of me, what if i didnt have oxychew, what if i never met the Moonlanders, etc etc etc

The taste of black licorice will genuinely send her spiraling, and because it lingers - it wrecks her for days (she hates similar flavors such as rootbeer)

Finds a lot of joy in warm places so she now loves to be out in the sun

Had a period of time where she wasn't really talking with Penumbra because of the severity of her triggers/ptsd

Both finds peace in dead silence, but it also brings her back to the moon as well - she has a very complex relationship with isolation

Prefers silver over gold (even though she doesn't wear jewelry, she likes silver on others and silver on things such as zippers and buttons)

Spent quite a few years terrified of flying after the horror of her own trauma set in, but it threw her into a big depression since piloting is her passion

Hates taking care of her stump because she doesn't like taking her prosthetic leg off - she sees it as her own, so she hates taking it off even though she knows she needs to when sleeping or showering

She has a hard time looking at her stump and scars because on one hand; sick as hell battle wounds, but on the other; damn was that the worst time in my entire life

Depression and Anxiety

Even before crashlanding on the moon, she dealt with depression and social anxiety

She has a bit of a hard time keeping her room tidy and taking care of herself, but she's phenomenal at putting other people first

Feels as though she's not attractive enough

Wants to be a ray of sunshine in other peoples' lives

She's very scared that she won't be enough for people and therefore she must put 110% into everything she does for others

ADHD and Autism

Her sensory issues tend to directly conflict with her PTSD issues - like she hates silence because of the moon, but sometimes she gets overstimulated by noise and needs the silence or alone time

She does not sleep until her body physically passes out because the change in activity is hard for her to deal with

Goes insane if she feels understimulated because her brain begins to shut down and she dissociates

Many, many stims (sometimes doubles as grounding with PTSD): bouncing her leg, various hand motions, feeling the fabric of her clothes, physical affection with her loved ones, playing with the tightness of her prosthetic (loosening and then tightening it over and over), shaking her head to feel her hair around her shoulders (and solidifying that what she's feeling is earth gravity)

Really hard time understanding social cues that makes her come across as rather ditzy

Special interest in aircraft technology and was a top student at her flight school

Love/Hate relationship with reading because if she enjoys what she's reading she gets invested, but if she's understimulated, the words jumble together in her mind

Not good at math for a similar reason

Fish are a huge sensory nightmare for her; the scales, the smell, the taste, etc

Is generally pretty sensory-seeking, but has a few Hard Nos on textures (such as slimy scales)

Other:

I headcanon Della having compulsive sexual behavior disorder, and her libido especially spiked after being on the moon for 10 years, and it makes her feel really gross at times

Due to said hypersexuality, she gets intrusive thoughts that piss her off

Because of the moon not really having a clear indicator of night and day, Della lost her circadian rhythm and struggles with a Hell combination of non-24 and ADHD insomnia

The lack of general sleep makes it hard for her to lose weight and so she's insecure about that

Physical Disabilities:

Because she was on the moon for so long, the zero gravity and lack of proper breathable oxygen took a huge toll on her, physically

She developed really bad asthma and will likely be recovering from it for the rest of her life

Her lungs can only intake so much oxygen at a time, so she also struggles with shortness of breath

Upon returning to earth, her body was really broken down from the cold atmosphere - causing her to not be able to regulate her body temperature properly

Her bones were weakened upon arrival, so she has to spend years recovering physically from it

Her stump is irritated a lot because she doesn't like taking care of it properly

She owns crutches for when she needs to take breaks from her prosthetic just because of the discomfort when wearing it

She is not afraid to hit Donald with a crutch BTW

IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER SPECIFIC HEADCANONS THAT YOU ARE CURIOUS ABOUT, SHOOT ME AN ASK! <3

[simply-ivanka]

Trump Gears Up for Change on Wokeness With Education Overhaul

The president-elect has laid out big changes for America’s classrooms, including expanding school choice—and shutting down the Department of Ed

By Matt Barnum and Douglas Belkin -- Wall Street Journal

President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to remake education in the U.S., pledging to exert more control over funding and classroom lessons, to curb what he views as left-leaning tendencies at universities and even to dismantle the Department of Education.

If his White House delivers on those promises, more families could get money to send kids to private school. Schools would face pressure to limit accommodations for transgender students and to end some initiatives aimed at addressing racial disparities.

The goals are at once ambitious and controversial.

“There are a lot of very smart people who are very excited to get into positions where we can actually start making change happen,” said Tiffany Justice, a Trump ally and the co-founder of the conservative parents group Moms for Liberty.

Eliminating the Department of Education

Trump has promised to close the Education Department and has criticized U.S. school spending. 

In his first term, he proposed merging the education and labor departments, but Congress didn’t proceed. It isn’t clear whether lawmakers would go for the idea in a second term, nor how the department’s functions���such as protecting students’ civil rights, providing funding for students with disabilities and distributing student loans—would be handled if it were closed. 

Some Republicans have been reluctant to eliminate the department or cut federal funding that flows to schools in their constituencies. An Associated Press poll last year found that nearly two-thirds of Americans said the federal government spends too little on education.

“I don’t think you’ll see enormous cuts because that’s super unpopular,” said Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative education think tank.

Trump will have to fill the education secretary role for now. Cabinet positions often go to prominent politicians and political allies.

Presidents sometimes look to state education chiefs. High-profile leaders in Republican states include Oklahoma’s Ryan Walters, who has fought culture-war battles in schools; Louisiana’s Cade Brumley, who has supported private-school choice and tougher school disciplinary measures; and Florida’s Manny Diaz Jr., who has overseen many conservative policy changes.

In an interview, Walters said he is focused on implementing Trump’s agenda in Oklahoma. Through a spokesperson, Brumley said “my focus is on continuing the historic educational progress we are making in Louisiana.” Diaz, through a spokesperson, said if asked to serve, “Of course you listen.” Justice of Moms for Liberty said that she would be open to the position, though hasn’t spoken to the Trump team about it.

A Trump transition spokeswoman didn’t comment on specific candidates.

Waging war on ‘woke’

Trump has said he would use the power of the purse to limit left-wing ideology in schools and universities.

Although a president can’t immediately cut off money to any school, he could use various laws to pressure schools to address antisemitism on campus, disband programs that focus on nonwhite student groups or reduce accommodations for transgender students.

Trump has said that he believes that Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education, should prevent transgender girls from playing on female sports teams. This would be a stark reversal from the Biden administration, which has interpreted Title IX to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity.

During the campaign, Trump attacked Kamala Harris for being too supportive of transgender rights, an issue that resonated with some voters.

Trump has also indicated that he would use civil-rights law to challenge critical race theory, a term used by conservatives to describe some efforts to teach about racism and racial disparities. This could include targeting university diversity, equity and inclusion offices, legal analysts have said.

“On issues that I worry about…this is at the top,” said Rachel Perera, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank.

Another tool Trump has at his disposal is the accreditation system, which gives universities access to federal money. He has called it a “secret weapon.”

Colleges and universities need to meet standards set by independent accreditors to be eligible for federal funds.

Trump could weaken the influence of accreditors—which he considers too left-leaning—by reassigning some of their responsibilities to the Education Department, said Judith Eaton, past president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Alternatively, the administration could replace current accreditors with ones more closely aligned with Trump’s vision, she added.

Members of Trump’s inner circle “regard the higher-ed cartel as fundamentally out of order,” said Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.

‘Universal school choice’

Trump wants “universal school choice for every American family,” according to his platform. That likely means providing a public subsidy for private-school tuition or other educational expenses outside the public school system.

Trump has indicated he would support the Educational Choice for Children Act, already proposed in Congress. The law would provide $10 billion in federal tax credits to go toward private-school tuition, home schooling or other educational costs.

Backers say the bill would provide money for up to two million children, and help parents direct and customize their children’s education. School-choice critics say that these programs drain resources from public schools.

Prior efforts by Republican presidents to subsidize private schools—including those supported by Ronald Reagan, and Trump in his first term—have failed to garner congressional support. And while many Republican-controlled state legislatures have adopted such programs in recent years, voters in Colorado, Kentucky and Nebraska rejected school-choice ballot measures on Nov. 5.

Some Republicans “are not fully on board yet,” said Jim Blew, who served as an education official during Trump’s first term. “I think they will be in the new administration.”