#i believe in joe supremacy

[exclusively0ccupied]

[milesworld96]

back on my shit yalls, these are so fun to make

[joesbandmerch]

Panic! at the Disco

genre: pop punk, baroque pop

listen on spotify, apple music

not an example of pete and joe clothes sharing, but instead them matching, as you can see them both wearing it in the first picture! panic accompanied fall out boy on the nintendo fusion tour 2005 and since these photos come from ~2006 it was probably merch originating from that tour :)

no active listings, but here's a link to a sold listing

[cmgirlie]

remember the multiple times everyone was sure mjf was gonna drop the title and he didn't? imma need joe to have that same energy today

[pinene]

yes joe biden is like genuinely a zionist and is acting in line with what he truly morally believes in.. but also there is absolutely no way he and the DNC don't understand that this WILL cost them the election, right? and presidents have to go against their morals literally all the time to do things that will keep them elected/get them re-elected! so I feel like the only real conclusion i can come to here is that israel's existence is SO beneficial to the united states' interests that democrats will happily, openly hand over the presidency before speaking out against it

which in a way threatens to reveal the farce of our blue/red politics--is the function of them just to hot-potato american power and supremacy from one team to the other so that us citizens are more caught up in who's winning than what's being done in our name?

[doinadigitaldnazing]

I am a firm believer in the gradient joe sexy man supremacy... but im startin to see the appeal-

[palomahasenteredthechat]

https://www.tumblr.com/palomahasenteredthechat/760304167679098880/what-do-you-think-paloma-you-think-hes-a-bad?source=share

for the sake of discussion, I wanted to throw my take in the ring because i lean more towards bad person. first, i don't think this can be compared to relationships among us normies. DC's past is public and pretty egregious, most of us do not have that level of notoriety that is easily accessible. Most of us also do not have a PR team on payroll that can vet the affects of our decisions. This leads me into the my next point - intentionality. I have a very hard time believing Joe did not know about these things prior to agreeing to a pap walk/PR launch. At the very least, he agreed to be photographed with her and to be romantically linked to her. This is one of the most intentional actions he's taken in the public eye. To me, that speaks volumes above anything we may have assumed about him in the past no matter how much he may have implicitly contributed to it. Lastly, the subject matter is particularly troublesome. Many of Joe's fans are in demos that disproportionately experience sexual assault (female-identifying, LGBTQ). Unfortunately, many of us have experiences where we speak out against SA and are threatened into silence. DC has done this publicly and within the last year or two as a celebrity. Also any dalliance into white supremacy is troublesome and she has multiple - neo-nazi shirt, incel forums, and public raceplay. Like the fact that i have to type any of this in a discussion about Joseph Quinn is an issue.

thank you Paloma for always providing a safe place for discussion, even when it came at a personal cost.

Thank you Nonny for capturing how so many feel.

I didn't know anything about her except her songs. After Joe was seen with her, I googled her and read a couple of articles and her Wikipedia, and even by that cursory knowledge I was really taken aback.

Look, man wants to hit it. But to make it public? On purpose? When it's clear he can be invisible when he chooses? You are correct - it was markedly intentional, especially since he's been so private about everything else, even the most innocuous things.

I think he hooked up with her and it became more than casual, and people around them both decided to make it public because might as well monetize the relationship, right? Use the notoriety. Get your name out there.

His team might have not been as down, but he either insisted and they agreed, or they insisted, and he said okay, and none of them thought for a second about any potential consequences.

Or perhaps they did and shrugged their shoulders. 'He'll finally be rid of them.' Them. You know, us weirdos. We all know the stereotype of a typical Joe fan, and all the hurtful terms that are hurled in our direction. I don't have to write them, because they are already in your mind.

When people are othered and then there is jostling for improved status, significance and approval (I'm not like them, I'm a cool fan, because x y and z) well gosh, doesn't it remind you of other internalized thought patterns related to oppressive systems?

Then when people express their valid feelings like dismay or shock, they are name called, told they need to 'get over it', they are parasocial, weirdos, etc. etc.

Look. Don't follow him down the street and film him from behind. Don't hang around his hotel. Don't post on his family or friends' social media pages, or god forbid, his hookup's. Don't make up shit about him and spread it as gospel. Please for the love of God.

Take your frustration and anger out on your own pages or spaces where it's okay to share your thoughts.

But you absolutely have the right to think them, and to have those thoughts color your perception of who you thought he was.

I go back to the original question. Is he a bad person? No, I still don't think so, but I believe he has behaved like a thoughtless and entitled one.

[anarchywoofwoof]

tell me you don't talk to conservatives or anyone in the real world who isn't keyed into election coverage 24/7/365 during an election year or who isn't making anonymous hate-posts on twitter from Bulgaria, duping Americans into thinking they're arguing with a conservative without telling me. people barely know who they're voting for in the United States.

all Trump voters remember is that the fucking idiot repeatedly sent them money during a hard time, that they weren't paying double for groceries, their housing wasn't 50 to 75% more expensive than it is now, etc.

is it beyond critical levels of copium and disillusionment to believe that he is going to "fix" the economy, especially by deporting people? absolutely, yes. it's barbaric, stupid and makes almost no sense to anyone who has more than a surface level knowledge of economics. it's very obviously a cover for white supremacy.

but it is also equally stupid to suggest that people didn't think the economy would be better under Trump when Kamala Harris was basically saying "hi, my name is Joe Biden" and people think Joe Biden's economy is responsible for everything they're suffering through right now. she did almost nothing to separate herself from a historically unpopular president and she lost because of that.

once more with feeling: racism and misogyny were absolutely a part of the reason that Democrats lost this election. however, the much larger, pervasive reason is that they offered minimal solutions to a problem that, when Trump was president, people did not perceive existed to the extent that it does now.

and finally, i ask everyone yet again: if the answer is that these people are just inherently and irredeemably racist, misogynist, hateful, queerphobic, etc. and cannot be saved, what is the solution to the problem? are we seceding from the union?

propose a reasonable alternative that doesn't involve accelerating toward mass violence and total societal unrest and i'll listen. but if you join DSA thinking they're going to be advocating for an armed rebellion against Republicans, i have bad news for you: they're going to be suggesting that we bring people into the coalition by solving their material problems. does that sound familiar?

[mariacallous]

Around a dozen masked individuals marched in downtown Columbus, Ohio, on Saturday carrying Nazi flags and hurling antisemitic and racist rhetoric, earning condemnation from a broad range of officials including the White House and the state’s Republican governor.

The display came only a week after another neo-Nazi gathering in Michigan outside a community theater production of “The Diary of Anne Frank.” 

The marches exacerbated fears among Jewish groups and others that the reelection of President Donald Trump may trigger an increase in white supremacist activity.

“I’m sorry the President-elect has emboldened these creeps,” tweeted Columbus City Council President Shannon Hardin, a Democrat. “This community rejects their pathetic efforts to promote fear and hate.”

A White House spokesperson condemned the march Monday morning as a “sickening display” and said President Joe Biden “abhors the hateful poison of Nazism, antisemitism, and racism.”

“We will not tolerate hate in Ohio,” the state’s governor, Mike DeWine, said in a statement published on social media. “Neo-Nazis — their faces hidden behind red masks — roamed streets in Columbus today, carrying Nazi flags and spewing vile and racist speech against people of color and Jews.”

Referring to what he said were reports that the group was “also espousing white power sentiments,” DeWine continued, “There is no place in this State for hate, bigotry, antisemitism, or violence, and we must denounce it wherever we see it.”

Some members of the group were armed, and at least one member sprayed pepper spray at spectators, according to the Columbus Dispatch. Police detained several people on the scene in response to reports of a physical altercation but later told reporters they “determined that an assault did not take place and all of the individuals were released.” Police had separately told the Columbus Jewish News that physical altercations “broke out, stopped and then broke out again.”

National Jewish groups including the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee condemned the march, with AJC regional director Lee Shapiro calling it “another sad example of the bigotry that we have witnessed across the country.” The Columbus Jewish federation and Jewish Community Relations Council also condemned the march, telling the Jewish News they were “disgusted by the reprehensible display of hate.”

The rally was also condemned by the city’s Democratic mayor and by its Democratic city attorney, Zach Klein.

“Columbus embraces diversity of opinions, religions, backgrounds and everything that makes us special, but we will never embrace hate. Take your flags and the masks you hide behind and  go home and never come back. Your hate isn’t welcome in our city,” Klein said in a statement. “I stand with our Jewish friends and all those who continue to be targeted by bias and hate. I’ll always have your back.”

Also over the weekend, hundreds of people in a Philadelphia suburb turned up outside a public library to protest a Nazi flag that had been flown briefly outside a private residence in Whitpain Township. Following media attention, the homeowners replaced the swastika flag with an American flag, according to CBS News. 

A similar, though much smaller, rally had taken place in the state capital of Harrisburg, in August, following a neo-Nazi demonstration there.

“The thing that scared me about this is that someone was willing, in their neighborhood, to put out a Nazi flag because that says something about them,” Lynne Krause, president of the newly formed non-denominational synagogue Darchei Noam in nearby Ambler, told CBS about the Whitpain Nazi flag. “They felt so at comfort to let people know, ‘This is what I believe.’ … White supremacy, Nazi stuff, it’s on the rise, and I think it’s unfortunate.” 

[sarasa-cat]

But by 2020, Swift was far less reluctant. Her lyrics were more overtly left-leaning: pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ, anti-racism and anti-sexism. She endorsed Joe Biden and Harris’ election bid in a Vogue interview. She also accused Trump of “stoking the fires of white supremacy and racism your entire presidency” in a tweet that was described as “The Tweet That Could Help Take Down A President”. Trump was out six months later.

Her endorsement of Biden annoyed Trump no end. “Why would she endorse this dope?” Trump reportedly said just this year. He recently complained online that Swift had chosen “the worst and most corrupt President in the History of our Country” (creative decisions about capitals all his).

There is a beautiful symmetry to Swift and Trump’s relationship: her naked dislike of him, and his desperation for her approval. In August, Trump shared a fake news article that falsely claimed her fans were “turning to Trump” after the foiled terror plot targeting her concerts in Vienna. While Swift’s politics undeniably overlap with Harris – on Tuesday, she praised Harris’ record “fight[ing] for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them” – it was Trump who chipped away at her inscrutable veneer.

The funniest thing in all of this is that Trump clearly likes Swift. She is everything he admires: rich, beautiful, famous and very good at doing business. She has her roots in country music, historically the preserve of conservatives. (Most of Trump’s celebrity endorsements have been male country singers: Jason Aldean, Kid Rock, Lee Greenwood.) When asked by journalist Ramin Setoodeh if he liked her music, Trump said: “Don’t know it well, but she is liberal, or is that just an act?” When told it wasn’t an act, Trump said: “It surprises me, you know. It surprises me. It surprises me that a country star can be successful being liberal.”

Setoodeh later described Trump as being “absolutely fixated” on her, saying that Trump thinks Swift “secretly likes him because I think it’s too hard for Donald Trump to accept the fact that someone who is so famous and has such a huge platform would not support his candidacy … even Donald Trump knows the value of an endorsement from Taylor Swift.”

And now, her endorsement has gone to his opponent.

[beardedmrbean]

The constitutional standoff between Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the Biden administration over the Texas-Mexico border will "very likely" be decided by the Supreme Court, according to prominent legal experts, with one predicting it could "side with the state in its quest to usurp the federal government's authority."

On January 22 the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 verdict to overturn an injunction from the Fifth Circuit court that blocked the Biden administration from ordering federal agents to remove razor wire from the Texas-Mexico border, which was placed there to discourage migrants from crossing on the orders of Governor Abbott.

At Abbott's instruction the Texas National Guard also took control of Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, a frequently used migrant arrival point, and refused to allow federal Customs Border and Protection officials access to the site.

Abbott reacted with fury to the Supreme Court judgment, saying he was invoking "Texas's constitutional authority to defend and protect itself." He argued that, under the Constitution, this is "the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary." He received a joint statement from 25 other Republican governors offering "solidarity."

In an article published by politics site Public Notice, which describes its purpose as "explaining what's happening on the American right for a largely progressive audience," attorney Lisa Needham said it is "almost inevitable" that the dispute will come back to the Supreme Court where based on the January 22 ruling "at least four justices already agree with Texas."

Despite the January 22 ruling going against Abbott, she suggested if the Supreme Court decides to examine the case in full it could allow the governor's border controls to remain, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett likely to be the key swing voters.

Needham wrote: "The Supreme Court has already weighed in, but that was only on Texas's request that the federal government be enjoined, on an emergency basis, from cutting the razor wire. No court has yet ruled on the substance of the matter, meaning there has been no complete review of all the facts and law in the case.

"The full case still needs to make its way through the lower courts, and it is almost inevitable that it will then be back up at the Supreme Court again, where it seems that at least four justices already agree with Texas."

She added: "Simply because the Supreme Court vote to vacate the injunction was a 5-4 split in favor of the federal government doesn't mean an ultimate ruling on the case would come out the same.

"Roberts and Barrett may have only believed that Texas was wrong to ask for an emergency injunction, but they could eventually side with the state in its quest to usurp the federal government's authority."

Speaking to Newsweek Neama Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, agreed the issue will "very likely end up before the Supreme Court" as it is "exactly the type of case the justices are meant to resolve."

He argued the justices could end up supporting Texas, despite the Constitution's supremacy clause that gives primacy to federal over state laws, saying: "The previous ruling was limited to whether Texas can prevent Border Patrol agents from removing or cutting the barbed wire. There are potentially bigger issues at play here though, and the conservative justices haven't been shy to craft broad rulings to reverse years of precedent.

"Immigration has historically been exclusively a federal issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court finds a creative way to allow for state action to enforce our nation's immigration laws notwithstanding the supremacy clause and pre-emption doctrine. Justices Roberts or Barrett are far from locks to support the Biden administration, so all eyes will be on them."

V. James DeSimone, a Los Angeles-based civil rights attorney, accused Texan authorities of "causing death and injury to vulnerable families in the name of protecting property rights" in an interview with Newsweek, adding: "If this isn't a case for the United States Supreme Court to resolve then nothing is."

If this does happen DeSimone said the Biden administration has a "solid legal basis for its position" due to the supremacy clause, adding: "A justice who would change his or her vote to side with Texas in this dispute would be on shaky ground."

If the case reaches the Supreme Court, DeSimone said judges "should side with the Biden administration in this dispute, even if it's a narrow majority of justices." He added: "The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave short shrift to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution when it sided with Texas. Instead, the appeals court said the principle of sovereign immunity provided no justification for the Border Patrol to cut down razor wire that had been installed by the Texas National Guard."

DeSimone argued Supreme Court justices likely considered the supremacy clause in their judgment of January 22, suggesting it would be a big call for them to reverse course if they end up ruling on the case again.

Needham concluded her article by arguing the dispute is now a win-win for Abbott, commenting: "Either way, Abbott gets what he wants.

"He now has the full-throated support of conservative elected officials who don't believe the federal government should have any authority if Democrats are in power, and he has private citizens willing to show the same eager violence as those who supported Trump's insurrection. There's just no way in which this ends well."

Newsweek contacted Abbott's office by telephone, voicemail and online contact form at 5:50 a.m. ET on Wednesday. This article will be updated if they wish to provide a comment.

[bilbobagginsomebabez]

@paindragon re: free speech & these tags on this post because god do I know how to talk--

I'm going to use Naziism as an evocative example of obvious hate speech throughout and because the ACLU's dedicated attention towards protecting nazis has built a significant portion of american case law surrounding free speech as a whole. the nazis also built their eugenics laws based on US eugenics laws and movements and while Germany literally outlawed it, the united states had to develop critical race theory to suggest that we start removing the eugenics shit from our social and legal systems and fox news told americans that it existed to teach their children to "hate america," which they did absolutely believe and agree with which launched the current book banning spree. (weird how free speech laws aren't protecting any of those books, huh. what are they for again?)

it's possible for a government to neither outlaw nor protect something. it can be left to informal or nonlegal systems. you do not actually have to give nazis or the cultural fascist equivalent legal protections for societies to work. societies do not need to go out of their way to keep fascists legally safe from social or financial retaliation to keep functioning or to be healthy. this is just one obvious option between protecting nazis and making any speech actively illegal. there's a whole world of options between those two points.

part of the reason we TELL OURSELVES we do is because our society is extremely fascist and we don't want to address it. or have never been not-fascist-enough to address it. american and american-centric political scientists struggle to define fascism as a political phenomenon and practice not because it's that confusing but because any clear definition obviously indicts settler-colonialism, slavery, and segregation. which have to be different in some way because the US is incredibly powerful and has some of the most brutally violent history in the world with all three that it has never remotely addressed and does not want to.

the idea that by legally protecting nazis because they're the most bad, everyone else is automatically included and protected under that umbrella is just. not real. it's not real in practice--see jewish people arrested for 'antisemitism' while participating in unfree-speech protests against US support of the palestinian genocide & aforementioned cop city RICO charges, which use unfree-speech of the term mutualism to indict participants of unfree-speech protests against our government. protecting actual literal anti-semites did not protect use of "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". and it's not real in theory for the same reason that tolerance is not a paradox but a peace treaty. "I won't punch you if you don't punch me." =/= "everybody does whatever they want and we just kind of have to accept it, punches included."

tolerance feels like a paradox to a fascist in a fascist society, for whom it is real that equal rights are a threat to 'their way of life'. allowing advocacy against racism in a racist society feels like a threat to them personally because their way of life is racist and challenging racism does actually threaten it. a slave-owner actually for real believes their rights are being taken when the enslaved are freed. segregation was fundamentally fascist, and despite that obvious and clear evaluation, I doubt Joe Biden or most other americans consider him/self in any way fascist despite strongly advocating for segregation for like the first 10 years of his career. christians (everyone from the Mormons to the Catholics) consider it an insult against their entire religion and a violation of their religious rights to demand that they cease exploitative conversion practices internationally and evaluate the ethics of "missions" which offer aid to the vulnerable and displaced in exchange for attending religious services.

when bigotry and white supremacy are the widespread norm, it feels like protecting bigots the same as radicals is creating equal protections for "violent" words. but is it? it should not be surprising to anyone when i say white supremacist christofascism is alive and well in the United States and remains its dominant political ideology. is protecting nazi-ism, homophobia, xenohobia, bigotry actually creating equal protections for the residents of a country or is it emboldening and protecting the most violent members of its most powerful class?

the idea that actively creating legal protections for bigotry somehow protects the marginalized from civil infringement because both things use similar verbiage sometimes is a weird fairytale/bedtime story that americans tell themselves in order to cater to their worst instincts and avoid addressing a deep and disgusting reality about our supposedly freedom and equality loving culture. it lets white americans rest easy by saying the most violent white supremacists aren't something to be fought anymore, they're actually legally necessary to protect the marginalized from... white supremacy.

does that actually make any sense? or maybe is this all some bullshit mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that identifying and counteracting social violence of this nature would indict most powerful people as well as most systems of power in this country. acknowledging the reality of fascism would immediately require acknowledging how pervasive it is in our society and how deeply it's sunk into the walls. so instead we protect its worst excesses and pretend that somehow does anything other than perpetuate it

the idea that protecting the violent speech of the nazis protects the marginalized or government critics or political radicals or leftism is also more about settler colonialist self-projection than any real or common similarities. the idea that landback means indigenous americans will kick everyone out or that Black people will massacre white people during the "great replacement" is projection because WE DID THAT. we literally got here and just started killing everyone and taking their shit. so we iMAGINE that eventually they're gonna want to 'get even' and it will look something like our worst violences (nazi-ism). but it doesn't, does it? it turns out the leftists who are challenging systems of white supremacy don't sound like white supremacists and aren't protected by case law built around protecting white supremacists. "mutualism" isn't protected free speech, but "kill all jews" is. "social solidarity" isn't protected free speech, but (real trump quote) "No, they're not humans, they're not humans, they're animals" is."

it also propagates the myth that all violence is the same because america has solved for equality and the impartial government just needs to mediate. there's no difference between nazis and militant civil rights leaders because we got rid of all of ours and cleaned it up, so they're baaasically as marginalized 'as an ideology' as Black, Indigenous, queer people with radically leftist politics fighting for equality. like i think people forget that most americans literally believe racism was solved during the civil rights movement, a confidence which was temporarily shaken during BLM and the George Floyd protests but has settled back in nicely after biden promised more money to cops but only for increased diversity trainings (and also because everybody started shoplifting for no reason?!?!? so we really need them to reinforce Law and Order right).

[imissthembutitwasntadisaster]

I believe in Rhianna Dorris playing a character whose name starts with "ka" in a work directed by Joe Cornish supremacy

[luigra]

On behalf of the Quackblr council, I deeply and formally apologize for our wrongful transgressions. In truth, although I stand by my duck man, I am not aligned with the Pearlescent voters and have been voting for Cleo all the way through. We know we cannot beat Cleo, and I believe that is why numerous of my allies have made the mistake of believing that should Cleo be eliminated, that Quackity would survive for it. Do not pay them mind, instead side with those of us quackers that accept the fate that is Joe Hills and Cleo supremacy, but still wish to see our duck man go far and surpass a common enemy: Wilbur Soot. Please, do not let the Absolutely Not Tumblr Sexyman Grian win,, if he succeeds alongside Scar, the Desert Duoers will thrive and further combine their troops, seeking to recreate their cactus ring. A vote for Quackity is a vote for sweeping sand out the doorway. I believe in Scar, yes, but I cannot betray the integrity of tumblr sexymen by allowing Grian to beat Quackity. I hope you consider my points and claims here today, for I am not bribing you, I am offering my honesty in this trial. /silly

This touched me emotionally...... I am touched...... my heart weeps.....

In truth I hate to see Grian winning as well and the betrayal hurt me more BECAUSE i would want to vote for Quackity anyway there.......

I'm glad you have seen your way. Spread Cleo propaganda. War and love on planet earth I'm actually almost home I'll be voting Quackity swiftly. #CleoSweep

[ausetkmt]

Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said Wednesday he was in favor of paying slavery reparations to African Americans and Native Americans if studies found direct cash payments to be a viable option.

Critics have questioned Biden on his refusal to commit to paying reparations, which proponents say would serve as monetary compensation for the actions of white slave owners. Monies paid would also help to bridge the wealth gap between African Americans and white people. While some have suggested paying cash directly to the descendants of African slaves, Biden said he would need to look at studies concerning the idea first.

"If, in fact, there are ways to get direct payments for reparations, I want to see it," Biden said Thursday during a virtual town hall meeting hosted on social media by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). "But why are we waiting around for the study? We can deal with this stuff."

After acknowledging that his plans for educational and housing reform were not "mutually exclusive" to the concept of paying slavery reparations, Biden said "I can't believe that, whatever it is, the African American community would not support what I'm talking about in addition to fair reparations."

Biden demurred on specifically stating he was in support of reparations, saying the answer "would depend on what it was and will it include Native Americans as well."

Newsweek reached out to the National Urban League for comment. This story will be updated with any response.

Paying reparations has been a controversial topic in Washington. In 2019, a hearing on the topic was held by the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Although a bill was proposed to form a commission to study the feasibility of reparations, no action has been taken on the bill since 2019.

Co-sponsor of the bill New Jersey Senator Cory Booker said in a 2019 statement that addressing the "institutional racism and white supremacy" against African-Americans could not happen "without first fully documenting the extent of the harms of slavery and its painful legacy.'

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell disagreed with the idea, saying in 2019 that "it'd be pretty hard to figure out who to compensate."

"I don't think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago for whom none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea," McConnell told reporters.

[eemoo1o]

I believe in Supportive Dad Joe supremacy.