#people DIED to make sure you and I could cast that ballot
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
I've been thinking a lot about the election (duh) and how voting is such a radical and revolutionary act. especially having lived outside the US in a constitutional monarchy, it's wild to really wrestle with the idea that the divine right of kings only expired like 150 years ago, really. for thousands of years, so many people lived their whole lives without having any say in how they were governed, how they were taxed, if they went to war, and millions of other tiny policy decisions that impacted their daily lives.
and even more recently, women within my mother's lived experience were prevented from opening their own lines of credit or bank accounts. women's suffrage started 100 years ago (and was completed in the 1960s with the voting rights act). there are people voting today who were subjected to grandfather clauses and poll taxes to keep them from voting.
the American system is so far from perfect. but holy shit is it a radical and revolutionary and awesome thing that we determine who makes our laws. how rare in the entirety of the human experience is that!? people fought and bled and died for this right to include everyone - and we're not all the way there yet, but look at how far we've come!
don't let anyone discourage you from participating in our democracy! bc holy shit how much power we hold at the ballot box - and how amazing that we have it! what else can we achieve by wielding this tool?!
#I have cried about this all week actually#I get really emotional when I think about democracy and voting#like I've seen where the suffragettes were organising and agitating and getting their skulls bashed in for daring to demand a voice in govt#I've stood at the Lincoln memorial where MLK spoke#I've seen the power of the voting rights act#and I've seen what happens when voting rights are limited#I have so little patience for people who don't vote or don't believe it matters#people DIED to make sure you and I could cast that ballot#anyway Livia gets emotional about voting - fork found in kitchen#political things
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
A Dramatic Retelling of L’Manberg’s History
Once upon a time there was a wonderful place called L’Manberg.
What would one day be nothing but a smoking crater waiting to be rebuilt into something else, something new… started out as a humble van on the outskirts of the Dream SMP’s occupied lands.
The Camarvan, the hto dog van, whatever you want to call it, stood proud on a sliver of land, amongst the grass and sand, with a crafting table sitting in front of it, and a land marked forever by a man of the name Wilbur.
What started out as a simple quest to confiscate brewing stands and any potions drugs in order to create rising demand to reap the rewards, became something so much more. Perhaps even unbelievable to all those involved at the time.
It occurred shortly after the Disc War, this. And when a man of the law, Sapnap, realised that Wilbur and his accomplice, a child, Tommy, were actually making drugs in the Camarvan, Sapnap cracked down on them. Killing Tommy on the spot.
Henceforth, a dream was formed. Of a place where men could go and emancipate the tyranny of their rulers. A place where they could make drugs in their Camarvan in peace. With tilled ground that was sacred, with walls being built to protect them, their values bold and strong. Even nature was to protected on their land.
Tubbo, Tommy’s best friend, joined their cause. Eret too, a man who would later take their great walls and build them even taller, even better. And finally, Fundy, Wilbur’s son, the person who was to be kept safe within their walls.
A place called L’Manberg, with a Camarvan in the middle, and Blackstone walls with yellow and black concrete protecting them.
But their peace did not last long, as in the very moment Wilbur wrote their Declaration of Independance, a book was delivered by Dream, the leader of the Dream SMP. The Declaration of War.
From that point onwards, L’Manberg would never be the same.
After hours of planning, of farming resources, the day of the war came. TNT cannons had been set around L’Manberg. Tommy was shot dead on the doorstep of the Camarvan. And the old Wilbur Soot was finally given armour to protect him.
You see, L’Manberg had another value. They did not fight wars with weapons or armour, they fought them with their words. Words that would never be valued by tyrants, and so the five of them had no choice but to fight.
Wilbur put Tommy in charge of their small army, and they went forth from tower to tower, arrows fired from both sides. Until… Dream’s people retreated, their arrows unable to go high enough to reach those who were firing upon them.
Eret… had a backup plan. To go home, and to go to his secret room, filled with weapons and armour, to at least give them all another chance. They went underground, sneaking along the floors to avoid detection.
All was well.
Until they made it to the room. All the chests were labelled, all were empty. A button lay in the middle of the room, and as Eret pressed it, the walls opened up and every single one of them was slain.
‘Down with the revolution, boys!’
Eret had betrayed.
With Tommy left angry, Wilbur left shocked, and Tubbo and Fundy unable to provide any supplies nor words, it was all coming to a close very quickly.
With one final stand at the entrance of L’Manberg, a single TNT block was placed. ‘Independence or death’. And in that moment, the TNT was lit, and with arrogance, Wilbur told his people to stand back, to avoid it hurting them. Little did they know that L’Manberg had been rigged, and now… the Camarvan and part of their land had been left in ruins.
Wilbur grabbed the Declaration of Independance, and Tommy led them down into a secret hole he had made in the event of an escape. Right to a room of obsidian, to keep them safe. ‘Any last words?’.
Tommy shouted at Dream, screamed, asking for a battle. A 1v1, half a heart, bow and arrows. And so they went to the path down by a river, and made their stand. Wilbur counted down. ‘Ten paces, fire!’. And Tommy died once again, felled by an arrow.
The deal? If Tommy lost, L’Manberg’s independence was over. If Dream lost, L’Manberg would have its independence.
Hopeless… broken… exhausted… The people of L’Manberg returned home, but Tommy did not go with them, not yet at least.
And then… he returned, with their independence. Confused and lost, his fellows asked what had happened. How could this be? But Tommy had given Dream something that he dearly wanted, from a past war won. His discs.
He gave it all up for everything he believed in.
A new era was born, with the people of L’Manberg free. Eret was now the King of the Dream SMP, having betrayed his fellows for the promise of the title, land, and power. Wilbur refused to call him King.
In time, more joined them, and they lived well… for a while. Their flag was built, and houses were constructed outside the walls. All… was fine, great even.
Until the elections.
Wilbur sort more power, he wanted to create a one party system, assigning Tommy as his Vice President. With no one else on the ballot, they would surely win, and gain more power in their lands. But through arrogance, they spoke of their plans to Quackity, and quickly, he disagreed, putting himself down on the ballot.
After all, Wilbur was a threat to their democracy. ‘A single party? Are you kidding me?’.
With Quackity on the ballot and GeorgeNotFound as his Vice President, the die was cast. Wilbur and Tommy as POG2020, Quackity and George as SWAG2020. Two parties. But that didn’t last for long.
Fundy kept flipping between sides, hurting his father greatly, thus beginning a long conflict between Wilbur and his son. Eventually, Fundy formed COCONUT2020, and another name was forced by the people onto the ballot.
But that was not the end, as Wilbur’s endorsement, Jschlatt, did what could not be predicted. He ran for president too. And after a long night of death, after Schlatt got his hands on an axe and a gun, Schlatt too was put on the ballot and it was sent out to the people.
A day and two hundred thousand votes later, the results were announced. Fundy had committed voter fraud, and thus only got a small percentage of the vote, 9%, rather than the thousands he had hacked. Schlatt got 16%, SWAG2020 got 30%, and POG2020 got 45%. By all means, Wilbur and Tommy had won, they had retained control of their country but… it was not so simple.
As, on the night of the election, Quackity made a deal with Schlatt to pool their votes, no matter what. With that combined, they had 46% of the vote. They… had won.
Schlatt proceeded to make a speech. His first decree, ‘as the president of L’Manberg, the emperor!’, was to revoke Wilbur’s and Tommy’s citizenship. They were exiled from the very country they had created with their blood, sweat, and tears.
They ran through the forest, even further into lands unexplored and untamed by the Dream SMP. They dug into the land, blocking up the door with dirt. And… they mined into the rock, finding not one but two ravines! This… would be their new home.
Pogtopia.
Soon, Technoblade joined, a warring man, and a retired potato farmer. He was happy to join Pogtopia, because it was them against the world, against a tyrannical government! ‘Did someone say rebellion?’.
Tubbo, Secretary of State, was kept by Schlatt, but he was no loyal subject. He was a spy for Pogtopia. Fundy, who tore down the walls in front of his father, ‘the walls I built to keep him safe’, who burnt down the flag, ‘Fundy, you bastard!’, was not on Schlatt’s side either, but was instead keeping a detailed diary of his condition to one day show to his fellows, to show to his father in Pogtopia.
A festival… The Red Festival, if you will. A celebration of democracy. Only a couple of weeks after the election.
Tubbo built all the decorations. He wrote a speech, there were plans. So… so many plans.
Wilbur… only a week before, when the festival was announced… had realised something. He was the villain. He was trying to fight for something back that wasn’t his, not anymore, he had lost the election. His nation was far behind him.
‘Dream, I want to be your vessel’. There was one thing he could do. Killing Schlatt wouldn’t solve anything, he would just be replaced by Quackity, which could have been worse, and George was in line after that. Nothing would change. And if they took it back by force, they lost too. There was no way of winning–
Except… to blow it all up. Destroying it was a win in Wilbur’s eyes, because ‘I say, if we can’t have Manberg, no one! No one can have Manberg’.
The plan was set. Dream gave Wilbur the TNT and soon, the festival arrived. While Wilbur and Tommy hadn’t been invited, Techno was, and he was prepared with a crossbow and fireworks.
The festival was going well, until Tubbo’s speech. ‘Tubbo, I know what you’ve been up to’. The jig was up, Schlatt knew Tubbo was a spy for Pogtopia. Everything made sense! The tunnels that had been dug, him walking off during great events!
Techno was brought up to the stage, asked to take Tubbo out. Cracking due to mild peer pressure and the threat of twenty people slaying him if he disobeyed… ‘Tubbo, I’m sorry’. And with two firework rocket blasts, Tubbo, Quackity, and Schlatt lay dead.
Wilbur ran off to his room, to his button, to his TNT. Tommy threw a pearl, tried to attack Techno, failed, and stood where Tubbo had died, yelling his name. Techno, crazed with his power, turned on the audience and fired upon them, killing many. Voices in his head screaming, ‘Blood for the Blood God!’.
Unable to find the button, Wilbur ran home. L’Manberg got to live another day. Everyone returned to Pogtopia, a shaken Tubbo, an angered Tommy, a peer pressured Techno, and a blindsided Wilbur. Niki came to join them too, shaken up by the festival and by the revelation of TNT under Manberg.
Crazed by the idea to make Tommy and Techno fight – for his own entertainment – Wilbur created a pit. ‘It stays in the pit’. Techno won the fist fight against Tommy, repeating that their differences, that the anger stayed in the pit, not to be spoken about outside it.
‘The only universal language is violence’.
The TNT was an ever living threat, brought up by Wilbur at any given opportunity. He was going to blow it up. He was! The day after the festival, he took Quackity and Tommy to his room, L’Manberg’s anthem scribbled on the walls, alongside a button that was right in the middle.
He did not set it off that day. Quackity and Tommy pleaded, and it was agreed that Plan A would come first.
A meeting would be set up with Schlatt and they would end it there. If it went wrong, Plan B, Plan Bomb, would come into effect.
And soon, the meeting occurred. Quackity had written a building permit to trick Schlatt into signing Manberg over to him. It was all going so well, until Schlatt revealed that he knew the truth. That Manberg had been rigged with TNT. He claimed to have taken it, claimed to have put it under Pogtopia, but that was neither here nor there, as Wilbur went to the room while Tommy and Quackity were trying to trap Schlatt in the woods.
Suddenly scared to where exactly Wilbur was, they shouted and screamed, yelling out, trying to find where Wilbur had gone.
And Wilbur… pressed the button. Yet no hiss followed, the TNT was indeed gone. Panicked, he told Tommy and Quackity not to touch any buttons in Pogtopia, which had been filled with the things as a prank by Fundy.
When Wilbur returned home, he realised someone running through their tunnels, ‘It could be my traitor son!’. Fundy finally revealed what he had been doing this whole time, showing Wilbur his diary. Finally, they had their people back from Schlatt.
But the worst was yet to come. Dream joined, telling them that Schlatt had given him something, that he would be on his side henceforth, and finally, that there was a traitor within their ranks. Everyone pleaded their innocence, and trust was broken, but not enough to stop the incoming war.
The 16th of November. A month to the day after the festival.
For the next 10 days, people farmed on both sides. Netherite was acquired, enchantments were gotten, weapons were crafted, and Wilbur mined a double chest worth of sand.
The TNT plot was still in effect, except now, he needed more. Dream would get him the gunpowder, the TNT was assured.
Then… the day came.
It was just like the first war, with double the people. Except there was one notable difference… this was no freedom fighting revolution, this was a coup. Schlatt was a democratically elected leader, not individuals fighting for their independence.
Pogtopia and its allies went running in, firing upon Schlatt and his people. Mainly his people, as Schlatt went missing. They fought and fought, until Dream spoke up, asking to talk to Wilbur. Echoes to the past once again. Wilbur shouted out to his people, asking them to put their weapons down. Yet, he claimed he had no power over them. Still, they did so, and Dream led them into the ruins of the Camarvan (never rebuilt to its former glory after it had been blown up).
Schlatt was in the centre… dying. But not without arguing with Quackity and Fundy before his… time. At one point, it seemed as if Wilbur was going to stab him, or that Tommy was going to shoot him dead, but no… he simply died of a presumed heart attack or a stroke.
With their enemy gone, and Dream surrendering because Schlatt was an idiot, the war was won! The rebellion won! It had worked! Even though the odds were against them at first, they managed to come out on top.
Wilbur called on Tommy to be President, but instead, as he gave a speech, he rejected it. He was not done, not until he had his discs. So he called on Wilbur, and while he mentioned that the new obsidian flag had to be brought down, he declared that Techno had taught him something, that government was not the way to go, so Wilbur… called on Tubbo.
Tubbo would be the new President of L’Manberg. He gave a great speech, everything was going so well. They had won, it was over, it was finally over.
But Wilbur pulled away, claiming that he’d be right back. He climbed out of L’Manberg’s borders and went over the hill, into his room. The button room, with the anthem on the walls. ‘That there was a special place. There was’.
He was finally there. It was his moment… to finally press the button.
Then Philza walked into the room. ‘What are you doing?’. But while Phil, Wilbur’s dad, had a conversation with him, Phil’s mere presence alerted Techno to his side of the plan. He was the traitor, along with Wilbur. He killed Tubbo with his fireworks once again, and went off to kill Tommy too, alongside Dream.
Meanwhile, in the button room, Phil pleaded with Wilbur. But… his son was too far gone. It was time, he had been here too many times before, he had to do it now. He talked about what Eret had once said, a long time ago… ‘It was never meant to be’. And the button was finally pressed.
The hiss came.
Then the explosions followed.
Phil stared out in horror at the crater before them, the button room now an open window into the chaos caused by the TNT. Crystals were placed by Dream to cause more damage, and Techno went off to complete his part of the plan, trying his best to get his speech out with no interruption.
Wilbur triumphant, threw his sword over to Phil, asking him, begging him to kill him. But this was no sad set of words, it was just a man who wanted to be killed because the people wanted him to die. So the crowd watched. ‘You’re my son!’. Phil turned and killed him, and Wilbur began his long walk back to L’Manberg, warning Phil of the withers that were about to be spawned.
Techno finished his speech, and two withers were spawned, destroying much more of the land. More TNT was set off, and L’Manberg was left in even more of a state.
‘I’ve won! We’ve won! Me and Technoblade’.
Wilbur left. The withers were killed. Tubbo proclaimed he would rebuild. And new members joined the lands of the Dream SMP.
L’Manberg wasn’t ended by the TNT, but the TNT did end another era of its life.
Who knows if it will retain that name. Who knows if it will ever truly be rebuilt into anything at all.
But what is known is that Schlatt’s Manberg died. Wilbur’s L’Manberg is long gone. And Tubbo’s L’Manberg is just the beginning.
It’s just the beginning.
#dream smp#dream smp spoilers#what a history huh#like there is so much#this was only supposed to be a few paragraphs long#but it was 2am when i wrote this#so i went all out#i cant wait for what comes next#this is 3k words btw#and i wrote it in an hour XD#to my followers#i apologise for this
18 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Chronicles of the Dark One: Breaking the Curse
Chapter 18: Dramatic Theatrics
Everything had gone exactly as planned and maybe even better if the visit from Emma Swan suggested anything. And then, day by day, it wasn't at all like he'd planned. There was one week between the fire at town hall, the day Emma and Sidney both announced their plans to run, and the day of the debate, the same day that Storybrooke would be asked to cast their ballots. One week was a lot of time to think, a lot of time to panic. It was a lot of time for the signs that Mary Margaret was making, the same signs that depicted Emma to be a hero because she'd pulled the Mayor from the fire, to get on the Savior's nerves. It was a lot of time for her to come clean to the town, to tell them that she wasn't the hero they thought, that the fire was staged by none other than the notoriously hated Mr. Gold. It was time for her to step down because she wanted to fight fair and time for the town to rally around her and tell her that they wanted her. It was time enough for everything to work out just like he'd planned.
And yet, it didn't happen.
Each night this week, he'd gone to Granny's, but it wasn't because he actually liked her burgers, or maybe that he enjoyed being charged extra for the pickles. The truth was that sometimes alone in his shop, he felt isolated and cut off from the rest of the town. But Granny's diner…that was the heart of Storybrooke. It was the place one went to get news before it was fit to print and the place to overhear all the town gossip. Night after night, he walked into Granny's this week to order a burger, not because he wanted one for dinner, but just because he was waiting to receive the stares from angry citizens. He was hoping for confirmation that Emma had finally told the tale of what really happened that night of the fire, or at least her version of it.
Night after night, he was sorely disappointed.
He was getting nervous. He didn't have a backup plan. He didn't have anything to force the girl to tell the world. And without her to stand up to him…there would just be her; Emma Swan. Yes, she was the woman who had saved the mayor from a fire and held the job of deputy for weeks now, but thanks to him, she was now also the teenage, jailbird mother. He had done her character a favor at the same time he had simultaneously done it a disservice. To be fair, he never would have done that if he thought there was a chance that she wouldn't act appropriately and not tell the world what he'd done. He'd have thought of another way to get her to that hall to save Regina if that were the case. But now...
Was the good enough to outweigh the bad? He didn't know. All he knew on the day of the debate was that there was still time. Not a lot of it, admittedly, but he'd learned in his time that the last minute of deals could always garner great results. Timing could be key, but it wasn't always everything. So, as long as the people of Storybrooke hadn't voted yet, as long as there was still a public forum that they could gather together to hear Emma speak, potentially even confess, there was still time.
That was the main reason he'd come. Of course, as a knowledgeable man in Storybrooke, he'd planned to vote, but if things had happened differently, he probably would have skipped the pomp and circumstances. For his own purposes, hopefully, he arrived at the last possible "acceptable" second. He wasn't surprised to see that it was busy. With Emma's reputation, he could have guessed that people would come out to ogle her either for the good reasons or for the bad ones. He did have a flare of hope when he looked around the room, a brief flash of movement by the stage. It was the curtain. Open now, someone in the wings had pulled it back to look out at the crowd; someone with blonde hair. Emma Swan.
He could feel her eyes on him. Though it wasn't the best way to do it, he kept his eyes on her. He made it a warning gaze on purpose, something threatening and terrifying. Though it was his deepest desire for her to come clean and endear herself to the people of Storybrooke, he wasn't going to let her know that yet. In his experience, some people, when stressed, could do the wrong thing. But this child, the Savior, the one who had darkness eliminated from her before birth, she would do the right thing under stress. She hadn't turned him in yet, but as he stared back at her, it occurred to him just how perfect it would be for her to do it here, in front of everyone, with him watching. So he gave her a threatening look, one that he hoped conveyed to her that she was forbidden to tell what she knew, one he hoped that she'd take as a challenge. Archie would probably use the term "reverse psychology," he liked to call it manipulation at its best.
As Emma disappeared behind the curtain again he took a deep breath. He hoped he hadn't judged the Savior wrong. If he had, he was going to have to think up a new plan. He took an empty seat near the back, right along the aisle. It wasn't there for everyone to see, but it was easy for Emma to see, and at the moment, that was all he cared about. Right on time, Archie and the candidates walked onto the stage and took their seats to the applause and whooping of the crowd. He remained calm as he continued to stare at Emma Swan. Whether or not she'd been looking forward to the debate or felt prepared for it, she at least looked professional. She'd dressed up today. It was the only time he'd ever seen her in a skirt. But her posture was wrong; sad and defeated. Not good for someone wanting to show the town they were confident.
All applause died down as the grasshopper moved to the podium. "People of Storybrooke, I am Doctor Archibald Hopper. I've been asked to moderate this debate by Mayor Mills as a neutral party. Of course, I've been asked to remind you that following this debate, there will be an election, a period for you to cast your votes for the candidate that you believe will best serve you, the citizens of Storybrooke. Now…I just want to begin by saying that tragedy has brought us here, but we are faced with this decision. And now, we ask only that you listen with an open mind and to please vote your conscience. So, without further ado, I'd like to introduce you to the candidates: Sidney Glass and Emma Swan. Glass…Swan…sounds like something that a decorator would make you buy…"
The bug chuckled at his sorry excuse for a joke, and for the first time, he stopped looking at Emma and felt his gaze automatically draw to Archie. He'd never known the cricket to be nervous before or make bad jokes, but suddenly he'd never missed the chirping so much.
"Wow, crickets. Okay, uh…uh, Mr. Glass, your opening statement."
There was an appropriate amount of applause as Archie yielded the microphone to the former genie, and he gave a smile worthy of any politician. "I just want to say that if elected, I want to serve as a reflection of the best qualities of Storybrooke-honesty, neighborliness, and strength. Thank you," he muttered before returning to his seat.
Short, sweet, the bit about being a reflection was a bit ironic but otherwise well worded…if he weren't actively rooting for the other side, Mr. Gold would have been appreciative.
"And Emma Swan," Archie introduced.
He shifted in his seat a bit as the Savior took her place, just enough to make sure she hadn't forgotten where he sat. Then he stilled and continued his stare. On the outside, he hoped he was projecting venom. He hoped she'd take it as a warning. But inside, he felt like his heart might burst right out of his chest. Time was running out. This was her last chance. He needed her to do this. He needed her to challenge him. People with a common goal could accomplish a lot. People with a common enemy could accomplish more. It could get an outsider, a criminal, and a teenage mother elected Sheriff. She just had to do what she knew was right!
"You guys all know I have what they call a, uh…troubled past. But, you've been able to overlook it because of the, um…'hero thing.' But here's the thing…the fire was a setup."
Yes.
A buzz of energy went through the crowd as she said her words, something that reminded him of the feeling of magic. His heart drummed against his chest while he continued to watch. Emma's eyes found him for the slightest of moments and then-
"Mr. Gold agreed to support me in this race, but I didn't know that that meant he was going to set a fire. I don't have definitive evidence, but I'm sure. And the worst part of all this was-the worst part of all this is, I let you all think it was real. And I can't win that way. I'm sorry."
He could have laughed. He wanted to laugh with joy! Oh, he'd imagined something like this happening all week, but he could never have dreamed it would be so perfectly timed, so public as it was! This…this was perfection! This was so much better than he'd imagined. It just needed one final touch.
With a heavy sigh, he pushed himself to his feet. He cast his eyes down to the ground mocking something like what he imagined embarrassment would look and feel like. And then he left.
Outside he finally let his demeanor drop. The corners of his mouth curled up. He didn't burst out laughing as he had wanted to, but he did walk away smiling with confidence. That had gone beautifully.
#Rumbelle#Rumple#Rumpelstiltskin#Dark One#Mr. Gold#Regina Mills#Evil Queen#Emma Swan#Archie Hopper#jiminy cricket#Sidney Glass#Magic Mirror#ouat#ouat fanfiction#fanfic
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
So... what comes next?
Regardless of your political allegiances or personal feelings about Donald Trump, it is a national security concern when the president is ill. To make matters worse, the White House isn’t exactly being transparent. At times they seem more concerned with projecting a certain image than providing a timely, precise assessment of the situation. It is also a significant national security threat when a huge chunk of the senior Executive Branch, unknown numbers of White House staff, and a growing cluster of US Congressman are under quarantine or sick. It’s never good to have a government in quarantine.
So on that note, I’ve seen a lot of discussion on what happens in the event that a President or presidential candidate is incapacitated from COVID or dies during an election. I love a good thought experiment so let’s break this down. This is all based on my best understanding of current rules/regulations/precedence/ect. I try my best to be accurate but I’m only human and not a lawyer. Opinions and speculations are strictly my own.
Scenario 1: President is alive but incapacitated or unable to continue serving as President until he recovers.
So the basic idea of having a VP as a spare in case the president dies is pretty simple. In practice however, the transfer of power in the original constitution is pretty vague outside of the president suddenly dropping dead in the middle of a term. The 25th amendment was adopted a few years after the Kennedy assassination to address some of these grey areas. Fun fact, the 25th amendment contains the only means of forcefully removing a president from office other than impeachment (section 4 of the 25th amendment).
Ok, so back to our scenario. If Trump is incapacitated (say, on a ventilator) or is too unwell to continue serving, the 25th amendment can be invoked to temporarily transfer power to Vice President Pence. This can be done 2 ways. First, Trump can declare in writing that he is unable to discharge his duties (section 3, 25th amendment) and transfer power temporarily to Pence. Presidents actually invoke section 3 pretty routinely if they know they will be unavailable for a time such as undergoing a medical procedure. Trump remains in office as president but Pence becomes ‘acting president’ for the time being. Second, the Cabinet can strip Trump of his power if they believe he is unfit but he refuses to turn over power to Pence (section 4, 25th amendment). Section 4 has never before been invoked but it exists as an option.
In terms of the election, the ticket would be unchanged. A vote for Trump-Pence is still a vote for Trump-Pence. Trump is still president and Pence is only a temporary ‘acting president’. The assumption is that Trump would eventually resume his duties and his place at the top of the Republican ticket.
Scenario 2: A president running for re-election dies before the election
So if Trump dies before the election, Pence would immediately be sworn in as President. Since that would then make him the sitting president during an election year, precedence says he is automatically the GOP nominee. This close to the election, it is too late to officially withdraw a candidate and re-submit another one. Even if you could still replace a candidate, there isn’t time to re-print ballots. But since he was part of the original ticket on the ballot, I don’t see this being an issue or a source of confusion. I imagine votes already cast for Trump-Pence will simply count towards Pence alone. It is unclear how this will impact the electoral college. Likely, the votes will be allocated as normal to the Trump-Pence ticket, with Pence officially becoming President elect instead of Vice President elect once the vote is certified. The Speaker of the House is next in line should something happen to him while he does not have a VP. Assuming he wins, I speculate he would vet and select a VP for his administration before inauguration. But until there is a VP to serve under him, Speaker of the House remains next in line. A presidential candidate has never died so close to an election.
Scenario 3: A presidential candidate dies before the election
If a candidate dies after the primary, I believe RNC and DNC rules state that the leadership meets to vote on a replacement. However, this close to an election, it is past the deadline to officially withdraw a candidate from the ballot and re-submit another candidate. Even if that were not the case, it is too late to-reprint ballots. My best guess is that the VP pick would become the top of the ticket, similar to scenario 2. This seems like the easiest thing to do. It does not require withdrawing the ticket and it minimizes confusion at the polls. It is unclear if this would create headaches for the electoral collage. I imagine electoral college votes would likely go to a Biden-Harris ticket as normal with Harris officially becoming President elect instead of Vice President elect once the vote is certified. In Congress there is also the practice of ‘widow’s succession’ where a spouse steps up to fill the void left by a Congressman’s death until the next election or until a special election can be held. This practice was actually pretty common in the early 20th century. Senators can be replaced by a Governor’s appointment, a president can be replaced by a VP. But Congressmen, who serve short 2 year terms, have no replacement strategy so widows succession made some amount of sense to prevent political infighting and ensure a smooth transition after a death. I highly doubt widow’s succession will ever be invoked or even suggested if something happens to Biden, especially with such a capable VP pick ready and able to step up on the ticket.
Scenario 4: A candidate dies after the election but before electoral college meets and the vote is certified
This scenario creates the most headaches. The rules are most murky during this scenario and things will likely get very, very messy. Elections are run by individual states and states have different rules impacting how electoral college votes must be allocated. At present, some states require that electors vote for the candidate that won the popular vote in that state. Some states don’t explicitly bind electors to the winner of the state popular vote but impose penalties on so called ‘faithless electors’. Some states have no laws on the books and voting for the winner of the state popular vote is merely precedence. In general faithless electors are not very common. There actually HAS been a candidate death between Election Day and the electoral college. In 1872, Democrat Horace Greeley (ran against President Grant) died before the electoral college met. 63 of his 66 electors voted for other people. Unfortunately, things are not as simple in 2020 as they were in 1872. There is a question about whether or not certain electors will be unbound if the candidates to which they are pledged dies before the collage meets. The courts will almost certainly have to get involved and possibly the House of Representatives. The 20th amendment of the Constitution mandates that a president MUST begin their term on January 20 and if the electoral collage remains inconclusive, the Constitution (via the 12th amendment I believe) leaves it up to the House of Representative to hold a contingent election and vote on a winner (I think the Senate votes on a VP). The House HAS previously decided an election. In 1824, neither John Quincy Adams nor Andrew Jackson secured a majority of the electoral college (there were 4 candidates that year). The matter went to the House which voted for Adams to become President. Should the election end up in the House of Representatives, the Democrats have the majority. Since someone MUST be seated as President on inauguration day (Jan 20), I am not 100% sure what happens if the election remains a total mess and the House is hopelessly deadlocked. I think under the 20th amendment, the Vice President elect becomes acting President until the matter is resolved. If there is no Vice President elect, then the Presidential Succession Act states the Speaker of the House becomes acting president.
Scenario 5: President-elect dies before inauguration but after the election is certified.
This one is actually pretty easy. In this scenario, the Vice President elect becomes the president elect and is sworn in on inauguration day. This is covered by the 20th amendment.
Whew! Well, that was quite a thought experiment. If I write any more it will be the beginnings of a book. That ends my civics discussion for the day.
#civics#civics lesson#democracy#us constitution#25th amendment#2020 election#presidency#trump news#trump has covid#trump has coronavirus#2020 presidential race#2020 presidential campaign#2020 presidential voting#bidenharris2020#joe biden#kamala harris#bidenforpresident#us politics#covid#covid 19#coronavirus
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
Barack Obama’s DNC Speech
“Good evening, everybody. As you've seen by now, this isn't a normal convention. It's not a normal time. So tonight, I want to talk as plainly as I can about the stakes in this election. Because what we do these next 76 days will echo through generations to come.
I'm in Philadelphia, where our Constitution was drafted and signed. It wasn't a perfect document. It allowed for the inhumanity of slavery and failed to guarantee women -- and even men who didn't own property -- the right to participate in the political process. But embedded in this document was a North Star that would guide future generations; a system of representative government -- a democracy -- through which we could better realize our highest ideals. Through civil war and bitter struggles, we improved this Constitution to include the voices of those who'd once been left out. And gradually, we made this country more just, more equal, and more free.
The one Constitutional office elected by all of the people is the presidency. So at minimum, we should expect a president to feel a sense of responsibility for the safety and welfare of all 330 million of us -- regardless of what we look like, how we worship, who we love, how much money we have -- or who we voted for.
But we should also expect a president to be the custodian of this democracy. We should expect that regardless of ego, ambition, or political beliefs, the president will preserve, protect, and defend the freedoms and ideals that so many Americans marched for and went to jail for; fought for and died for.
I have sat in the Oval Office with both of the men who are running for president. I never expected that my successor would embrace my vision or continue my policies. I did hope, for the sake of our country, that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care.
But he never did. For close to four years now, he's shown no interest in putting in the work; no interest in finding common ground; no interest in using the awesome power of his office to help anyone but himself and his friends; no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves.
Donald Trump hasn't grown into the job because he can't. And the consequences of that failure are severe. 170,000 Americans dead. Millions of jobs gone while those at the top take in more than ever. Our worst impulses unleashed, our proud reputation around the world badly diminished, and our democratic institutions threatened like never before.
Now, I know that in times as polarized as these, most of you have already made up your mind. But maybe you're still not sure which candidate you'll vote for -- or whether you'll vote at all. Maybe you're tired of the direction we're headed, but you can't see a better path yet, or you just don't know enough about the person who wants to lead us there.
So let me tell you about my friend Joe Biden.
Twelve years ago, when I began my search for a vice president, I didn't know I'd end up finding a brother. Joe and I came from different places and different generations. But what I quickly came to admire about him is his resilience, born of too much struggle; his empathy, born of too much grief. Joe's a man who learned -- early on -- to treat every person he meets with respect and dignity, living by the words his parents taught him: "No one's better than you, Joe, but you're better than nobody."
That empathy, that decency, the belief that everybody counts -- that's who Joe is.
When he talks with someone who's lost her job, Joe remembers the night his father sat him down to say that he'd lost his.
When Joe listens to a parent who's trying to hold it all together right now, he does it as the single dad who took the train back to Wilmington each and every night so he could tuck his kids into bed.
When he meets with military families who've lost their hero, he does it as a kindred spirit; the parent of an American soldier; somebody whose faith has endured the hardest loss there is.
For eight years, Joe was the last one in the room whenever I faced a big decision. He made me a better president -- and he's got the character and the experience to make us a better country.
And in my friend Kamala Harris, he's chosen an ideal partner who's more than prepared for the job; someone who knows what it's like to overcome barriers and who's made a career fighting to help others live out their own American dream.
Along with the experience needed to get things done, Joe and Kamala have concrete policies that will turn their vision of a better, fairer, stronger country into reality.
They'll get this pandemic under control, like Joe did when he helped me manage H1N1 and prevent an Ebola outbreak from reaching our shores.
They'll expand health care to more Americans, like Joe and I did ten years ago when he helped craft the Affordable Care Act and nail down the votes to make it the law.
They'll rescue the economy, like Joe helped me do after the Great Recession. I asked him to manage the Recovery Act, which jumpstarted the longest stretch of job growth in history. And he sees this moment now not as a chance to get back to where we were, but to make long-overdue changes so that our economy actually makes life a little easier for everybody -- whether it's the waitress trying to raise a kid on her own, or the shift worker always on the edge of getting laid off, or the student figuring out how to pay for next semester's classes.
Joe and Kamala will restore our standing in the world -- and as we've learned from this pandemic, that matters. Joe knows the world, and the world knows him. He knows that our true strength comes from setting an example the world wants to follow. A nation that stands with democracy, not dictators. A nation that can inspire and mobilize others to overcome threats like climate change, terrorism, poverty, and disease.
But more than anything, what I know about Joe and Kamala is that they actually care about every American. And they care deeply about this democracy.
They believe that in a democracy, the right to vote is sacred, and we should be making it easier for people to cast their ballot, not harder.
They believe that no one -- including the president -- is above the law, and that no public official -- including the president -- should use their office to enrich themselves or their supporters.
They understand that in this democracy, the Commander-in-Chief doesn't use the men and women of our military, who are willing to risk everything to protect our nation, as political props to deploy against peaceful protesters on our own soil. They understand that political opponents aren't "un-American" just because they disagree with you; that a free press isn't the "enemy" but the way we hold officials accountable; that our ability to work together to solve big problems like a pandemic depends on a fidelity to facts and science and logic and not just making stuff up.
None of this should be controversial. These shouldn't be Republican principles or Democratic principles. They're American principles. But at this moment, this president and those who enable him, have shown they don't believe in these things.
Tonight, I am asking you to believe in Joe and Kamala's ability to lead this country out of these dark times and build it back better. But here's the thing: no single American can fix this country alone. Not even a president. Democracy was never meant to be transactional -- you give me your vote; I make everything better. It requires an active and informed citizenry. So I am also asking you to believe in your own ability -- to embrace your own responsibility as citizens -- to make sure that the basic tenets of our democracy endure.
Because that's what at stake right now. Our democracy.
Look, I understand why many Americans are down on government. The way the rules have been set up and abused in Congress make it easy for special interests to stop progress. Believe me, I know. I understand why a white factory worker who's seen his wages cut or his job shipped overseas might feel like the government no longer looks out for him, and why a Black mother might feel like it never looked out for her at all. I understand why a new immigrant might look around this country and wonder whether there's still a place for him here; why a young person might look at politics right now, the circus of it all, the meanness and the lies and crazy conspiracy theories and think, what's the point?
Well, here's the point: this president and those in power -- those who benefit from keeping things the way they are -- they are counting on your cynicism. They know they can't win you over with their policies. So they're hoping to make it as hard as possible for you to vote, and to convince you that your vote doesn't matter. That's how they win. That's how they get to keep making decisions that affect your life, and the lives of the people you love. That's how the economy will keep getting skewed to the wealthy and well-connected, how our health systems will let more people fall through the cracks. That's how a democracy withers, until it's no democracy at all.
We can't let that happen. Do not let them take away your power. Don't let them take away your democracy. Make a plan right now for how you're going to get involved and vote. Do it as early as you can and tell your family and friends how they can vote too. Do what Americans have done for over two centuries when faced with even tougher times than this -- all those quiet heroes who found the courage to keep marching, keep pushing in the face of hardship and injustice.
Last month, we lost a giant of American democracy in John Lewis. Some years ago, I sat down with John and the few remaining leaders of the early Civil Rights Movement. One of them told me he never imagined he'd walk into the White House and see a president who looked like his grandson. Then he told me that he'd looked it up, and it turned out that on the very day that I was born, he was marching into a jail cell, trying to end Jim Crow segregation in the South.
What we do echoes through the generations.
Whatever our backgrounds, we're all the children of Americans who fought the good fight. Great grandparents working in firetraps and sweatshops without rights or representation. Farmers losing their dreams to dust. Irish and Italians and Asians and Latinos told to go back where they came from. Jews and Catholics, Muslims and Sikhs, made to feel suspect for the way they worshipped. Black Americans chained and whipped and hanged. Spit on for trying to sit at lunch counters. Beaten for trying to vote.
If anyone had a right to believe that this democracy did not work, and could not work, it was those Americans. Our ancestors. They were on the receiving end of a democracy that had fallen short all their lives. They knew how far the daily reality of America strayed from the myth. And yet, instead of giving up, they joined together and said somehow, some way, we are going to make this work. We are going to bring those words, in our founding documents, to life.
I've seen that same spirit rising these past few years. Folks of every age and background who packed city centers and airports and rural roads so that families wouldn't be separated. So that another classroom wouldn't get shot up. So that our kids won't grow up on an uninhabitable planet. Americans of all races joining together to declare, in the face of injustice and brutality at the hands of the state, that Black Lives Matter, no more, but no less, so that no child in this country feels the continuing sting of racism.
To the young people who led us this summer, telling us we need to be better -- in so many ways, you are this country's dreams fulfilled. Earlier generations had to be persuaded that everyone has equal worth. For you, it's a given -- a conviction. And what I want you to know is that for all its messiness and frustrations, your system of self-government can be harnessed to help you realize those convictions.
You can give our democracy new meaning. You can take it to a better place. You're the missing ingredient -- the ones who will decide whether or not America becomes the country that fully lives up to its creed.
That work will continue long after this election. But any chance of success depends entirely on the outcome of this election. This administration has shown it will tear our democracy down if that's what it takes to win. So we have to get busy building it up -- by pouring all our effort into these 76 days, and by voting like never before -- for Joe and Kamala, and candidates up and down the ticket, so that we leave no doubt about what this country we love stands for -- today and for all our days to come.
Stay safe. God bless.”
- Former President Barack Obama
To the decided:
To the undecided:
To the opposed:
#politics#usa politics#democratic national convention#dnc#dnc 2020#dnc speech#barack obama#president barack obama#forever my president#john mulaney#kid gorgeous#ariel#the little mermaid#nicki minaj#stupid hoes#vote#vote 2020#cnn
15 notes
·
View notes
Text
Joseph R. Biden was just inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States yesterday. I have nothing further to say about this historical event attended primarily by 26,000 National Guard Troops, FBI, NSA, CIA Operatives.
What Have We Done? By E.P. Unum January 21, 2021
Joseph R. Biden was just inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States yesterday. I have nothing further to say about this historical event attended primarily by 26,000 National Guard Troops, FBI, NSA, CIA Operatives. That fact alone is a very telling story. Apparently, additional security was deemed necessary for a President-Elect who received allegedly 80 million votes, more than any other person in the history of our country. All of the “peaceful riots” throughout the summer and Fall, where stores and businesses were looted and destroyed, monuments toppled and police and citizens were killed, did not require the assistance of armed troops to quell these “activities”. I also will not comment on the 17 Executive Actions signed by our new President on his first afternoon in office. None of these offer any hope or unity nor are they of any benefit to the American people or to America. Indeed, they will drive us further downward. But here are some lessons we can learn from the new change in leadership to the America we know: Perhaps now you understand why there was never any action against the Clintons or Obama, how they destroyed emails and evidence and phones and servers, how they spied and wiretapped, how they lied to the FISA Court, had conversations on the tarmac, sent emails to cover their rears after key meetings, how Comey and Brennan and Clapper never were brought to any justice, how the FBI and CIA lied, how the Steele Dossier, paid for by Hillary Clinton, was passed along, how phones got factory reset, how leak after leak to an accomplice corrupt media went unchecked, why George Soros is always in the shadows, why Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and George Bush and John McCain were all involved, why they screamed Russia and pushed a sham impeachment, why no one ever goes to jail, why no one is ever charged, why nothing ever happens.
Perhaps now you know why there was no wrongdoing in the falsification of the FISA Warrants, why the Durham Report was delayed, why Hunter Biden has not been charged, why the FBI sat on his laptop for almost a year while Trump was being impeached on fictitious charges, why the Bidens' connection to China was overlooked as was unleashed the perfect weapon, a virus that was weaponized politically to bring down the greatest ever economy known to man and at the same time usher in an unverifiable and unnecessary system of mail-in voting that corrupted the very foundation of our democracy. Maybe now you can understand why the media is 24/7 propaganda and lies, why up is down and down is up, right is wrong and wrong is right, why social media can now silence the First Amendment and speak over the President of the United States. This has been the plan by the Deep State all along. They didn’t expect Trump to win in 2016. He messed up their plans, and delayed them a little….four years to be exact. They weren’t about to let it happen again. Covid was like manna from heaven for democrats and the socialist left, it was a tool to inject fear into all Americans and it was weaponized Governors who shut down their states and crumbled their economies out of fear. The media, never to let a good crisis go to waste, helped shame and kill the economy, and the super lucky unverifiable mail-in ballots were just the trick to make sure the 47-year career politician, allegedly with hands in Chinese payrolls, the man that couldn’t finish a sentence or collect a crowd, miraculously became the most popular vote recipient of all time. You have just witnessed a silent, bloodless coup, the overthrow of the US free election system, the end of our Constitutional Republic, and the beginning of the downward slide of capitalism and the free enterprise system into the abyss of socialism and communism. What a remarkable achievement! We have sacrificed the greatest engine of freedom, growth, and prosperity known to man on the altar of ignorance and totalitarianism. What will happen next? Well, here's a brief list: · Expect the borders to open up. Increased immigration. · Expect agencies like CBP and INS and Homeland Security to be muzzled or even deleted. · Law enforcement will see continued defunding. · Elimination of the electoral college will be attempted. · History as we know it will be erased. Our children will no longer study the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War I, II, Korea or Vietnam. These will be replaced with classes on “white priviledge”, “how American racism stole lands from native Indians” and the “need for racial equity” because America is a terrible nation. · The Supreme Court will be packed with liberal judges. · Your 2nd Amendment will be attacked and there may be a gun confiscation or gun buyback programs enacted and you will find it difficult to own a weapon…and ammunition of any kind. · If you have a manufacturing job or oil industry job, get ready to be unemployed. · If you own and run a business, brace for the impact of higher taxes and more governmental regulations. · Maybe you’ll be on the hook for slavery reparations, or have your suburbs turned into Section 8 housing. · Your taxes are going to increase dramatically and businesses will pay more. · We will be paying more for gasoline at the pump and we will soon find ourselves once again dependent on foreign oil.
President Trump made us energy independent. For the first time in our history, the USA became an oil-exporting nation. Biden’s illogical and corrupt dismantling of the Keystone Pipeline not only displaced 42,000 high-paying union jobs but now Canada will sell the oil in Alberta BC to China while we search for new supplies at higher prices. Well done Joe! In a couple of years, we will see the onslaught of inflation, high unemployment, less productivity as more and more people become dependent on the government for subsistence, all of which is the natural course of socialist economies The dollar will no longer be the world’s reserve currency and America will no longer be the bastion of freedom it once was. America will be overtaken by China as the largest economy in the world and, because we have become so complacent, we will find ourselves in the middle of great turmoil and upheaval with lots of civil strife that will make 2020 look like a walk in the park. I could go on and on. There is no real recovery from this. The national elections from here on will be decided by New York City, Chicago, and California. The Constitutional Republic we created will be dead. Mob rule and appeasement will run rampant. The candidate who offers the most from the Treasury will get the most votes. But the votes cast won’t matter, just the ones received and counted. That precedent has been set. Benjamin Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when someone shouted out, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?’” Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Ladies and gentlemen, we have now lost the Republic our forefathers bequeathed to us, the Republic we fought and bled for these past two hundred and forty-five years. Some of you are wondering how this came to pass. The answers are indeed quite simple. We did it to ourselves: · We turned from God. We erased God from our halls of Justice and the Town Square. · We turned from family. · We turned from our country, our Flag, our Monuments to our leaders who paved the way. We denigrated all of these with revisionist history and the tearing down of monuments to our civilization and way of life. · We replaced achievement and recognition by embracing “participation trophies” so that our children can all feel a sense of accomplishment even when there was none. · We embraced degeneracy culture, inviting pornography into our laptops and living rooms. · We became some infatuated with technology that we lost the human touch…we found it easier to send emails or Facebook or twitter posts to a friend or co-worker ten feet away from us rather than walking over to chat with them. We have, in essence, become too high tech and low touch. It sort of begs the question…what does it matter if we wire the entire world if we lose our immortal souls? · We celebrated and looked to fools as our heroes, comedians whose idea of a joke is holding up a bloody head of our President. That’s not funny. It’s sad. · We worshipped ourselves selfishly and took for granted what brave men and women fought and died to give us. Their sacrifices are no longer valued, replaced instead with scorn because they may have committed “transgressions measured by today’s standards, not theirs”.
We disregarded history and all it teaches. On our watch, America just died a little. It’s likely she’ll never be the same again. Not until the 74 million Americans who voted for President Trump stand up and shout “we will no longer tolerate this and we want our country back” and do something about it
For starters, get off Twitter and Facebook and refuse to be a part of their efforts to disrespect the First Amendment. I did. And I don’t miss it at all. If companies want to insult all the people who supported President Trump by denying them jobs, fight back. Don’t buy their products. Shun them. Until we take those steps, they will continue to wield their power, but the ultimate power is in your hands…the power of the consumer. We did this to ourselves. We made our bed, now we have to sleep in it….until we get off our asses and remake it. Some of you have no idea what you’ve done. You know now. It is time to do something about it. Sadly, some of you do know what you have done. To them, I say…if you kick a dog long enough, pretty soon he’s gonna bite. I am tired of being kicked and insulted and disregarded as if I don’t matter. We do matter. We are Americans
1 note
·
View note
Text
Selma marcher sees history repeat with new challenges to voting
New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/selma-marcher-sees-history-repeat-with-new-challenges-to-voting/
Selma marcher sees history repeat with new challenges to voting
“It was horrible,” Bland recalls now. “There was this one lady, I don’t know if the horse ran over her or if she fell, but all these years later, I can still hear the sound of her head hitting that pavement.”
The march — known as Bloody Sunday — so shocked the nation that it helped mobilize Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act. That landmark legislation finally dismantled the Jim Crow-era laws that relied on obscure civics tests, discriminatory poll taxes and violence to deny full citizenship to all Americans.
But today, 55 years later, Bland feels as though she’s re-living parts of the past as she surveys a country riven by racial tension, where Black men and women die too often at the hands of police, and in which states press ahead with purging voters from their rolls and enforcing strict voter identification laws — even as a once-in-a-century pandemic stalks their citizens.
“Sometimes I wake up and I think we are paralleling the 60s all over again,” Bland said in an interview from her home in Selma, where she leads tours of the city’s civil rights landmarks. “The laws that they passed to prevent African Americans from voting were insurmountable, and states could make up their own rules. That’s pretty much where this is going now.”
History repeated
Once again, Alabama is among the states at the forefront of the battles over voting.
A cluster of voting-rights groups has sued the Secretary of State John Merrill and other election officials over requirements that voters casting ballots by mail must make a copy of their photo identification and sign their ballots in front of two witnesses or a notary public. The groups also want the state to allow curbside voting.
Forcing voters to meet those requirements and have contact with other people in the middle of a pandemic, puts Alabamians who potentially face serious health consequences from the coronavirus at greater risk, said Caren Short, a senior staff attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the groups suing over the restrictions.
Although African Americans make up only about 27% of Alabama’s population, they have accounted for nearly 40% of confirmed Covid-19 deaths in the state, according to the state’s Department of Public Health.
Short credits Alabama officials with moving to expand voting by mail because of the pandemic, but she said that’s not good enough.
“Alabama is the birthplace of the civil rights movement, and it’s the birthplace of the voting rights movement,” she said. “It really should be the state where officials are making it as simple and as easy a process as possible for citizens to vote.”
Merrill told Appradab the voter ID and witness requirements are enshrined in state law and can’t be suspended. “We don’t have the ability to set aside state law because we’re not interested in it or because we don’t think it’s appropriate at this time,” he said.
He said his overarching goal as secretary of state is to “make it easy to vote and hard to cheat.”
A supreme fight
The skirmish is just the latest legal battle in Alabama over voting rules.
The most consequential for the state and the nation came in 2013 when the Supreme Court sided with Shelby County, Alabama, in a challenge to federal oversight in places with a history of discrimination.
The Shelby ruling defanged the Voting Rights Act by tossing out the portion of the law that determined which states needed approval from the US Department of Justice or a federal court before they could make changes to their voting procedures and laws.
Before the ruling, those blanket rules meant states needed prior permission to make changes, big and small, to their voting practices — ranging from moving a polling place to redrawing electoral districts or changing the date of an election.
The case centered on a local redistricting plan from Shelby County, but the 5-4 decision reverberated across the nation, especially in the nine states and parts of six others that required so-called pre-clearance of voting changes.
Within hours of the high court’s decision, Texas — one of the states subject to pre-clearance — announced voter identification rules would take effect in the state. Alabama and other states, including Mississippi, began to enforce strict voter ID laws. Other states have enacted new restrictions, such as signature match laws that require a voter’s signature on an absentee ballot to match their signature on voting rolls.
Post-Shelby, it’s now up to the Justice Department, individuals and groups to pursue court challenges of voting laws they view as discriminatory. Rick Hasen, an expert on election law at the University of California, Irvine, and a Appradab contributor, said the Obama administration filed “litigation where they could.”
But the Trump administration’s record protecting voting rights has been “abysmal,” he said. “I can’t think of a single thing that the Trump administration has done, coming out of the Justice Department, to help minority voters.”
In Alabama, Merrill, who helped write his state’s voter ID law while serving in the state legislature, disputes that Alabama laws have made it harder for any Black voters to cast their ballots in the state.
Voter registration has soared during his tenure, he said, with 96% of eligible African American residents registered to vote, compared to 91% of White Alabamians. He said the state works to make sure every qualified voter has photo identification.
In Georgia, a potential presidential battleground state this year, battles have raged over the state’s aggressive removal of voters from registration rolls. Voting rights groups have accused the state of improperly purging legitimate voters; state officials say they are engaged in routine list maintenance.
Bland, now 67, has followed the raft of new laws from Selma — a city she returned to in 1989 after stints in the US Army and time living in Florida and New York.
“Purging the rolls, closing down polls in rural communities, requiring an exact signature,” she said ticking off the changes she’s seen across the country. “But we’re not going to let them discourage us. We’ll follow their rules until we can change them.”
Young freedom fighter
Bland was exposed to voting rights fights at a young age.
Her mother died in childbirth when Bland was just three, and her grandmother, Sylvia Johnson, moved back to her native Alabama from Detroit to help care for the family, Bland said.
Bland said her grandmother was shocked by how little had changed. Barriers to voting still included poll taxes and literacy tests, that among other things, required would-be voters to read aloud parts of the Alabama state Constitution, know the exact size of Washington, DC, as spelled out in the US Constitution (10 square miles) and which of the original 13 states had the largest representation in the first Congress (Virginia).
The answers were “impossible to know unless you were a civics genius,” changed frequently and varied by county — all in “in a concerted effort to make it as difficult as possible for individuals to pass,” said John Giggie, who directs of the Frances J. Summersell Center for the Study of the South at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.
Local officials had discretion over who got the hardest questions and what it took to pass the tests.
In 1965, before the passage of the Voting Rights Act, only about 2.1% of voting-age Black residents of Dallas County, where Selma is located, were registered.
Johnson, with all four of her grandchildren in tow, began to attend mass meetings of the Dallas County Voters League, led by Amelia Boynton, one of Selma’s civil-rights pioneers. While the adults talked strategy, Bland said she was focused on more prosaic issues: chiefly, how to gain access to the lunch counter at Carter’s Drug Store in downtown Selma.
“I wanted to sit there like those white kids and spin around on those stools and eat ice cream,” she recalled. “Grandmother said, ‘Colored children can’t sit at the counter, but when we get our freedom, you can do that.’ “
“I became a freedom fighter the day she told me that,” she said, attending her first meeting of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) at age 8.
As a child, she thought the marches themselves were fun. “The spirit of the movement is what we liked the most,” Bland said.
She said she and her friends thought little of joining the throng headed to the bridge on that Sunday in March for what supposed to be the first leg of a 54-mile trek to the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery to demand voting rights.
“I didn’t know there was the possibility of any violence,” she said. “Then, I crested the bridge and saw the police across all four lanes.”
Pandemonium ensued as the troopers pushed into the crowd. Images from that day show one swinging his baton at Lewis, as the then-25-year-old SNCC chairman raises his right hand, trying to shield his head from the blows. Boynton was beaten unconscious.
“They were running the horses into the crowd,” Bland recalled. “People were being trampled.”
Choking on tear gas, the young Bland fainted in terror. Someone picked her up and took her safety. She awoke in a car, her head in her sister’s lap.
But two days later, she and her sisters were on the bridge again, now joined by 2,000 others and led by The Rev. Martin Luther Jr., for what became known as “Turnaround Tuesday.” She still was scared and wanted to turn back, Bland said, but her sisters grasped her hands tightly to keep her in place, telling her: ” ‘They won’t beat Dr. King.’ “
King and march leaders, obeying a federal court injunction, prayed and sang when they encountered the police blockade that day and turned the protesters around. The march to Montgomery would proceed later that month with Alabama National Guard troops, now under federal command, protecting the protesters.
A lifetime’s work
For Bland, what followed was a life dedicated to social justice that included helping to found a museum of voting rights in Selma to help residents tell their own stories of the struggle.
And she sees parallels between her past and the protesters today who have taken to the streets to demand change, following the deaths of George Floyd and others at the hands of police. Police brutality “hasn’t stopped one day since I’ve been on this Earth,” she said. “But now you can see it in real time.”
In the run-up to November’s election, she’s spending her days pushing everyone she sees to register, get their absentee ballots and use them. On Election Day, she’ll be where she usually is: At the polls. For some 30 years, she worked there in some capacity — early on as a Democratic poll watcher, this year as an official poll inspector.
Lewis’ death in July at 80 has renewed calls by some national activists to rename the bridge in his honor. Pettus, its namesake, was a Confederate general, US Senator and Ku Klux Klan leader in Alabama.
But Bland would rather see it left as it was the day she crossed it as a young girl.
“What happened on that bridge in ’65 gave that bridge a new meaning,” she argued. “It’s now synonymous with freedom all over the world.”
The best way to honor, Lewis, she said: “Get out and vote.”
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Battle over mail-in voting could leave both parties with doubts about results in November | WPMI
WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group) — President Donald Trump again accused Democrats of trying to “steal” the November election Monday as Democrats continued to question his willingness to abide by the results, and new polls suggest the public is growing increasingly concerned about the security of the process and the credibility of the outcome as Election Day draws nearer.
“In an illegal late night coup, Nevada’s clubhouse Governor made it impossible for Republicans to win the state,” Trump tweeted Monday morning. “Post Office could never handle the Traffic of Mail-In Votes without preparation. Using Covid to steal the state.”
A bill approved in a special legislative session over the weekend would empower Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak to direct the secretary of state to send mail-in ballots to all active voters. Seven other states are already planning to do the same, despite objections by the president and some Republicans.
President Trump’s latest complaint about states shifting toward voting by mail due to the spread of the coronavirus came days after he floated the possibility of delaying November’s election entirely. He backed off that suggestion after bipartisan backlash, but he continues to predict it will be “the greatest election disaster in history.”
The pandemic has already presented unprecedented challenges in the primaries, bringing a massive surge in demand for absentee ballots, a shortage of volunteers willing to work at polling sites, and long delays in tabulating results. Voters in Georgia waited in lines for hours to cast votes in person, more than 20,000 ballots submitted by mail were rejected in Wisconsin, and New York election officials have taken over a month to determine who won some races.
“It is irresponsible for political officials to suggest that the United States cannot conduct a valid and legitimate election during a pandemic,” said Elizabeth Bennion, founding director of the American Democracy Project at Indiana University South Bend. “At the same time, it would be irresponsible to assume that it should be business as usual.”
In three months, state election systems will be tested again, with many more ballots and much higher stakes. Election officials are racing to rectify errors, establish safeguards, and prepare for an expected onslaught of early voting and absentee ballots as Americans aim to avoid gathering at crowded polling locations on Election Day, and some say the president’s rhetoric is not helping.
"I think it really shatters peoples' confidence in the process," Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman, a Republican, said in an interview with NPR Saturday. "We need to make sure we're inspiring confidence in the public that this is a fair election. And the way you do that is balancing access and security."
While some election integrity experts appear confident states will be able to resolve the problems that emerged in the primaries and hold safe and secure elections in November, voters do not share that faith in the process. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released Friday found a majority of Americans are afraid the 2020 election will not be fair.
About half of respondents, including 80% of Republicans, echoed the president’s complaints that increased use of absentee ballots would result in widespread fraud. In addition, about three-quarters of registered voters expressed concerns about voter suppression and “organized voter fraud by political actors.”
Still, 67% of voters said they expected their ballot would be counted accurately if they voted by mail, including six out of 10 Republicans. GOP voters were twice as likely as Democrats to worry ineligible people would cast ballots, but even 40% of Democrats believe voter fraud is a widespread problem.
A Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll released last week showed 70% of voters support having a mail-in ballot option, but 78% are concerned about vote tampering. About 80% of respondents opposed the practice of ballot harvesting, in which partisan groups can collect mail-in ballots door-to-door and submit them in bulk in some states, and 60% worried ballots would erroneously be sent to people who have died or moved away.
“The new normal of questioning legitimacy for the candidates has now been extended to the process of selecting a winner,” said Michael Cohen, CEO of the Cohen Research Group. “This is far worse. It solidifies political polarization and gives reason to those who opt-out of democracy that it’s all rigged, anyway.”
Republicans and Democrats are locked in litigation in 18 states over attempts to expand access to absentee ballots in light of the pandemic. Democrats maintain anyone who wants to vote by mail to protect their health should be allowed to do so, but the Trump campaign and its allies insist blindly sending ballots to all registered voters will result in rampant fraud.
Though election security experts say mail-in ballots are somewhat more susceptible to fraud than voting in person, states have protocols in place to mitigate those risks and there is no evidence any kind of voting fraud is common. That is why many have called for the federal government to provide more money to states for election administration to ensure they have the resources to distribute, collect, and count votes accurately.
House Democrats approved billions of dollars to assist states with vote-by-mail in the HEROES Act in May, but a Senate Republican stimulus proposal released last week included no such funding. Election funding is just one of many contentious issues Democratic leaders and the White House are trying to hammer out a compromise on this week, and there is no guarantee additional money is coming for elections.
At least 16 states have made changes to voting procedures because of the pandemic, and 77% of all voters will now have the option of voting by mail without an excuse beyond fear of the coronavirus, according to a Washington Post analysis. Only eight states will require voters to provide a reason besides the pandemic to obtain absentee ballots, and none of those are likely to be decisive states in the presidential election.
Still, election night will likely look a lot different this year than in past cycles because of the reduction in in-person voting, and experts say the media and political leaders should be preparing the public for days or weeks of uncertainty. Barring an overwhelming victory by Trump or Biden, several key states could be too close to call on Nov. 3, with millions of mailed ballots not yet counted or still in transit from voters.
“It seems likely that people who disagree with the outcome of the election will question the integrity of the process, especially if they are primed and prompted to do so by candidates, campaigns, and opinion leaders,” Bennion said. “This is why it is important for politicians and election administrators on both sides of the aisle to promote voter access and ballot security.”
Leaders and pundits have instead, at times, stoked voters’ fears about this scenario. According to The Washington Post, President Trump has attacked the integrity of voting by mail more than 70 times since March, often with little or no evidence to support his claims, and undermining his party’s efforts to encourage supporters to use absentee ballots in the process.
“I want to have the election. But I also don't want to have to wait for three months and then find out that the ballots are all missing and the election doesn't mean anything,” Trump said at a press briefing last week. “That's what's going to happen. That's common sense, and everyone knows it.”
As Trump wavers on whether he would trust the results, top Democrats have voiced concerns he might rig the election or somehow refuse to leave office if Biden won. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., suggested Sunday the president does not support “fair and unfettered elections.”
“I believe that he plans to install himself in some kind of emergency way to continue to hold on to office. And that is why the American people had better wake up,” Clyburn said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Appearing on the same CNN program, former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams—who has often alleged the 2018 election she lost was stolen from her due to Republican voter suppression—warned President Trump is “doing his best to undermine our confidence in the process.” She also accused him of trying to weaken the Postal Service at a time when reliable mail service will be integral to ensuring a fair election.
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., tweeted Monday that Republicans would “lie, cheat and steal to stay in power.” Her comments highlighted reports that new Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s efforts to slow down mail delivery in the name of cost-cutting could prevent voters from receiving and submitting ballots on time.
“Trump put Postmaster DeJoy in charge of the postal service to dismantle the USPS & sabotage vote by mail. New procedures are causing massive delays,” Waters said.
None of this is going to give partisans in either party much reason to believe their candidate truly lost once all the votes are counted. Cohen predicted a disputed election is “a near-certainty” at this point, and he cautioned that chipping away at the foundations of democracy, even if lawmakers see valid cause for concern, could weaken the nation in the long run.
“Leaders should be dialing down the rhetoric for members of their political tribes so there is confidence in the process, and so, if they win, they can be viewed as legitimate,” Cohen said. “Putin and Xi are rooting for Trump and Biden to fail on this.”
Foreign interference is another potential complication. William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, warned in a statement last week that foreign adversaries are “seeking to compromise the private communications of U.S. political campaigns, candidates and other political targets,” as well as attacking state and federal election infrastructure.
Evanina also accused China, Russia, and Iran of using social and traditional media to spread disinformation and undermine confidence in elections.
“As Americans, we are all in this together; our elections should be our own,” he said. “Foreign efforts to influence or interfere with our elections are a direct threat to the fabric of our democracy. Neutralizing these threats requires not just a whole-of-government approach, but a whole-of-nation effort.”
These are not new problems. President Trump has governed for three-and-a-half years under a cloud of liberal suspicion over Russia’s role in the 2016 election, and some Democrats still openly claim his election was illegitimate. Trump was among those suggesting the same about his predecessor based on false allegations that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
Many Democrats still harbor resentment and doubt over the outcome of the 2000 election, in which the Republican majority on the Supreme Court halted a recount of votes in Florida, allowing President George W. Bush to declare victory. President Bill Clinton faced legitimacy questions, as well, after winning the 1992 election with only 43% of the popular vote.
If the 2020 election is close, experts foresee lawsuits, protests, and massive media campaigns waged by both parties intended to convince the American people they won before all the votes are counted and the results are certified. If the litigation reaches the Supreme Court and two Trump-appointed justices—including one who secured his seat only because Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s nominee in 2016—cast deciding votes that afford him another term, the outrage from the left would be deafening.
No matter who wins in November, though, the president who is inaugurated next January will likely find much of the country harboring deep doubts about his legitimacy, and that could make enacting his policy agenda and leading the nation far more difficult.
“Neither president will have a honeymoon, meaning it will be extremely challenging to get big legislative wins in that crucial first year,” Cohen said.
However, the fact that the United States has gone through several disputed and divisive elections in the past provides Bennion with hope that American democracy can weather whatever happens this November without suffering deep institutional damage.
“We have survived terrible crises and periods of great division before, and we will survive it again,” she said. “Public officials can lead the way by showing a shared commitment to free and fair elections.”
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
How much more Billionaires are worth than you.
Okay so I’ve reblogged a few posts that try to explain how much a billion really is, because the exponential growth that happens in a base 10 number system can be a bit confusing with numbers that big. The point of those post though is to basically to convince you to join a socialist/marxist movement and idk if they do a good job of that so here’s a more practical example:
Let’s say you have a rich relative who dies, and leaves you money after taxes that money comes out to 1 million dollars. Let’s also say you’re living a fairly middle class life style and you make 40k a year. You could quit your job and maintain that same lifestyle for 25 years. Off that million dollars alone.
Now let’s say that now dead hypothetical relative of yours was super wealthy and left you 1 billion dollars. You could maintain that lifestyle for 25,000 years.
That’s right being a millionaire is like being 25 average people, being a billionaire is like being 25,000 normal people. You might hypothetically with a lot of education and by working extra long hours be 25x as productive as your average joe. But you can’t even be 25,000x more productive than a toddler.
Of course, when people have a billion dollars, its not their salary. It’s their net worth. The net worth of the average Joe is going to be whatever they have in their bank account + their house +their car(s) + whatever they have saved in a retirement fund.
Okay so the average American saves 2.2% of their salary a year. Let’s say our joe is 40 years old. So 2.2% of 40k is 880. Assuming this average Joe started saving when he was 22. (4 years college) That’s $15,480, I’m not gonna calculate interest so we’ll round to $15,500. (way more probably). Then the average house price is $200,000. Cars loose value so we’ll use the average trade in price assuming one car. I’m using a 2010 Honda Civic 4D Sedan DX, with 200,000 miles on it. That’s $985 average trade in value we’ll round up again to $1,000. The average a 40 year old has saved for retirement is $63,000.
The average net worth of our Joe is worth $279,500.
However, we forgot something. Debt. Our Joe has a house, and he’s only 40 so assuming he didn’t buy a house at ten he’s still paying that off. Maybe he has some medical bills, or student loans as well. We’ll just give him the average debt for 35-49 year olds which is $39,000.
So Joe is actually worth $240,500.
Now we need someone to compare our Joe too. Since Forbes decided to not let me see their list (it wasn’t even a paywall? The search link just went to their homepage it was weird) we’ll be using wikipedia’s numbers. Let’s pick billionaire #8 Michael Bloomberg? Why? Because he’s running for president. Specifically so he can keep being #8 on that list.
Michael Bloomberg is worth 53.4 billion dollars.
That’s 222,037.42 Joes.
That’s a little less than the population of Aberdeen home of the UK’s oil millionaires. The richest city in Scotland (also I’ve been there it’s ugly. All the building’s are this smooth gray stone, more depressing then the weather).
Nothing Michael Bloomberg could ever do would make him worth more than 222,000 Joes. Do you know what he did for that money? He owns the company that invented the software other financial companies use to gamble on the stock market. That’s right Michael Bloomberg made himself worth 222,037.42 Joes by making it easier for other rich people to get richer.
So here’s the long and short of it folks. I can swallow living in a world with millionaires. But billionaires? Absolutely not. So when you cast your ballots in the upcoming months and again in November, Remember you’re only ever going to be Joe, but you’re sure as hell worth more than Bloomberg.
Eat the rich.
#us politics#2020 election#socialism#eat the rich#michael bloomberg#trump2020#bernie 2020#poltics#economics#marxism#democratic socialism#social justice
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Thorny Road to the 19th Amendment
https://sciencespies.com/history/the-thorny-road-to-the-19th-amendment/
The Thorny Road to the 19th Amendment
When the 19th Amendment became law in August 1920, it constituted the largest simultaneous enfranchisement in American history—women nationwide had finally obtained, at least on paper, the right to vote. But it’s the struggle for suffrage, which stretched more than 75 years prior, and not just the movement’s eventual victory that UCLA historian Ellen Carol DuBois recounts in her new book, aptly titled Suffrage: Women’s Long Battle for the Vote.
Suffrage history is thistly and complicated. The movement got its start in abolitionist circles during the mid-19th century when most married women lacked basic property rights. Even among the progressive-minded women and men gathered at Seneca Falls in 1848, the notion that “it is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise” proved radical. “One of my intentions,” DuBois told Smithsonian, “is to integrate the history of the women’s suffrage movement into American history…At every stage, the larger political atmosphere, the reform energies of the 1840s and ’50s, the Civil War and Reconstruction, the period of Jim Crow, the Progressive Era and then World War I, each of those periods creates the environment in which suffragists have to work.” To that end, DuBois traces the ways in which Reconstruction fueled calls for “universal suffrage” as well as a racial schism among suffragists. We learn how the women’s rights advocates became (sometimes uneasy) allies with different political parties, Temperance advocates and the labor movement and how outside political turmoil, like World War I, complicated their quest for the vote. Centuries before social media and the internet, reformers turned to newspapers, speaking tours, and eventually advocacy that ranged from signature-gathering to hunger strikes to convince voters and legislators alike how imperative it was that women gain the franchise.
DuBois’ richly detailed account also doesn’t shy from examining the bitter divides that fissured the suffrage movement over methods, race and class as it struggled to piece together a coalition that would vote to let women vote too. In the 1870s, after a schism between prominent suffrage leaders over supporting the 15th Amendment, the movement split into several camps, one with more moderate tactics and Republican Party allegiance than the other; in the 1910s, a similar split emerged between the more militant NWP and conciliatory NAWSA. And despite the contributions of women of color like Ida B. Wells-Barnett and Mary Church Terrell to their cause, NAWSA adopted an “explicitly racist policy” to appeal to Southern states around the turn of the 20th century, DuBois writes.
Intermixed in all this political history are the miniature profiles of the remarkable, determined women (and choice male allies) who propelled the suffragist movement. Susan B. Anthony ranks among the best known, but DuBois also adds the lesser-known facets like that Anthony was formally tried and found guilty of casting a ballot “without having the lawful right” to do so in New York? DuBois also highlights the stories of suffragists with less name recognition, like the firebrand and Equal Rights party presidential candidate Victoria Woodhull, Woman’s Christian Temperance Union leader Frances Willard and millionaire benefactress Alva Belmont. DuBois spoke by phone with Smithsonian about her book:
This book covers a long history, and I’m curious about the evolution of the movement. What are some of the twists and turns the fight for suffrage took that were not part of the original vision?
First, what really makes the suffrage movement the foremost demand of the women’s rights movement are the consequences of the Civil War. The U.S. Constitution has almost nothing to say about who votes until the 15th Amendment, [which enfranchised African American men]. In the early postwar years, the assumption was that, like economic rights, voting rights would have to be won state by state.
Then with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which virtually rewrite the U.S. Constitution [to abolish slavery and give formerly enslaved people legal and civil rights], the suffrage movement focuses on getting the right for women to vote acknowledged in the Constitution. When efforts to get women included in the 15th Amendment failed, suffragists actually returned to the state level for the next many decades.
The suffragists go back to the states, almost all of them west of the Mississippi, and convince male voters to amend their state constitution to either remove the word “male” or put the right of women to vote in those constitutions. Here is the crucial thing to acknowledge: When that happened, first in Colorado, then in California and ultimately crossing the Mississippi to New York in 1917, those women who were enfranchised by actions of the state constitution had comprehensive voting rights, including for president. So for instance, the women of Colorado gained the right to vote in 1893; they voted for president five times before the 19th Amendment is passed. By the time that the suffrage movement moves into high gear, in the midst of the first World War and then immediately afterwards, four million American women have the right to vote for president.
The way that the right to vote moves back and forth from the state to the federal level is something that could not have been anticipated. Especially since those first suffragists really thought that in the sort of revolutionary change of emancipation and black male enfranchisement, surely women would also be included. The failure of the 15th Amendment to extend the franchise to women so enraged a wing of the women’s suffrage movement that it broke open the alliance between black rights and women’s rights groups with serious and negative consequences for the next half century.
The second thing I’d say is that when women’s suffrage started, the political parties were quite infant. Indeed, the women’s suffrage movement begins before the Republican Party comes into being. I don’t think that suffragist reformers really anticipated how powerful the major political parties would be over American politics. One of the things I discovered in my work was how determined the controlling forces in the major parties, first the Republican and then the Democratic Party, were to keep women from gaining the right to vote.
Why was that?
When the Republican Party enfranchised African-American, formerly enslaved men, almost all of whom lived in the South, they anticipated correctly that those men would vote for their party. The enfranchisement of women was so much greater in magnitude, so there was no way to predict how women would vote. Really up almost till the end of the suffrage movement, American women had a reputation, gained or not, for being above partisan concerns and sort of concerned with the character of the candidate or the nature of the policies, which meant that they could not be corralled into supporting a partisan force. So the only parties that really ever supported women’s suffrage were these sort of insurgent third parties who had nothing to lose and everything to gain by attaching themselves to a new electorate. The most important of these was what was called the People’s, or Populist, Party of the 1890s. Those first victories in the West can be credited to the dramatic rise of the People’s Party.
Suffragists wearing the names of some of the Western states that had already granted women the right to vote process down Fifth Avenue during a 1915 march.
(Bettmann via Getty Images)
How did the women’s suffrage movement move from being very closely tied to abolitionism to largely excluding women of color?
So there were a couple things. First, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of the dominating figures in the first half century of the movement, when she’s really enraged not just that women are excluded from the right to vote but women like herself are excluded from the right to vote, she expresses herself in ways that are…she’s charged with being racist. I think it’s more accurate to say she’s an elitist, because she’s as dismissive of European immigrants as she is of the formerly enslaved.
Stanton made really, really terrible comments about people a generation removed from slavery—she called them the sons and daughters of “bootblacks” or sometimes she called them “Sambo.” Sometimes that charge of racism flows over to her partner Susan B. Anthony. That’s not really fair. Anthony’s abolitionism was much deeper and more consistent. When you follow her career, until the day she died, she was always, wherever she went, she would make sure that she went to black churches, black universities, black societies.
Second, by the turn of century we’re moving into a whole different generation of leaders, none of whom have any roots in the abolition movement, who come of age during the period in which Reconstruction is portrayed as a terrible disaster for the nation and who are part and parcel of the white supremacist atmosphere of the early 20th century.
In those final eight years, 1912 to 1920, when the suffrage movement breaks through for a variety of reasons, to a real chance to win a constitutional amendment, the U.S. government is controlled by the Democratic Party. The president is a Southern Democrat. Washington, D.C., the home of the federal government, is a southern city. So the political atmosphere is radically hostile, at the national level, to anything that will help to return the African American vote.
In all the research you did for this book, was there anything that surprised you?
I was incredibly impressed by the congressional lobbying. I don’t think I appreciated, until I wrote this book, the quiet importance of Frances Willard and the WCTU, which doesn’t really fit into our normal story of suffrage radicalism. This sort of conventional women’s organization was important in bringing mainstream women, and not just the kind of radicals who had fought for the abolition of slavery, to recognize the importance of votes for women to achieve their goals, not just because these were high principles of equal rights, but because they couldn’t get what they wanted done. Whether it was the prohibition on alcohol or the end of child labor, they couldn’t do those things without the vote.
One of the lessons of the book is that the notion that women’s suffrage was a single-issue movement is just wrong. All of them had other goals. Carrie Chapman Catt was interested in world peace. Alice Paul was interested in equal rights for women beyond the right to vote. Anthony was interested in women’s right to earn a living. Stanton was interested in what we would call reproductive rights for women. Each of them had a larger vision of social change in which women’s suffrage was fundamental as a tool.
#History
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
For the Love of Queens
Totally random one-off idea I’ve had floating around for a few months, so bear with me, haha! Only planning for it to be a one-part, but please tell me what y’all thing!
For the Love of Queens
Late August, 2018
After the snap, the last thing Peter wanted to do was to get himself in trouble again. He had had his fun already, been to more planets than 99.9998% of the population— if you rounded to the fourth decimal, he did the math— and had seen more tragedy than anyone should ever have to experience. But he wasn’t willing to hang up the suit. He couldn’t. His city still needed him, his people still needed him, and as much as he sometimes wanted to throw in the towel, he couldn’t. He had an obligation to help wherever and whenever he could, and that commitment was one he didn’t take lightly. If he wasn’t going to protect Delmar’s bodega, and that kid who had his bike stolen, and that nice Dominican lady who bought him a churro, who would? Spider-Man wasn’t gone, but he needed to go back to his roots, back to where he came from. Back to being a friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. Back to Queens.
So, almost like someone had spun a Time-Turner back to 2017, Peter was sitting on the edge of a ten-story building a few blocks from his apartment, a #5 in one hand and his phone in the other. But the difference was, this time, he wasn’t constantly texting Happy, itching for an assignment, for a chance to prove himself. He was scrolling through a Buzzfeed article entitled “46 Memes Guaranteed to Butter Your Eggroll.” He needed new material for the Midtown High Instagram page that he, Ned, and MJ ran. Now that his weekends weren’t packed full of a potentially universe-ending sojourn to Titan, he had a little more spare time to actually, you know, be a kid for once. He bookmarked the page, finished off the churro, and zipped his phone into one of his suit pockets. Telling Tony he wanted to take a step back from the Avengers, having that conversation with him, was one of the hardest things Peter had ever had to do. There was nothing he hated more than disappointing people. Compounding that with the fact that Tony was probably the closest thing he had to a dad since Ben died, and Peter was practically shaking when he told him he wanted to ease up on missions. Tony was strangely understanding about the whole thing, even though Peter wasn’t too sure why he expected otherwise, and pulled him into a hug, telling him to “do what you need to do, kid.” And as soon as Petter reassured him that he did want to keep working with him, just maybe make the “Stark internship” less Avenging and more STEM-y, he nodded, made a thirty-second phone call to Pepper, and told him to show up Monday after school.
So Peter wasn't less busy than normal, not by a long shot. Between school, homework, his actual internship, and the patrols— decathalon season hadn’t started yet, thank God— his schedule was more packed than ever. But he was also happier than he’d ever been, and more fulfilled than he could ever remember.
As Peter swung down from the ledge, dropping down to the street below, he noticed something odd. Not concerning, just out of the norm. Three people, young people, in T-shirts with clipboards, pens, and stacks of what was either flyers or restaurant menus, Peter couldn’t really tell. They weren’t with Greenpeace, or Amnesty, or the ASPCA, judging from the lack of logos on their clothing, so he was more than a little confused. Keeping a curious eye on them from his hiding place behind a lamppost, he waited a few minutes for the group to reach the next block. They had tucked some kind of a pamphlet-postcard-type-thing into the frame of Glen’s Barber Shop, and after a moment to make sure the coast was clear, Peter looked for a moment, grabbed it, and slid it into a pocket.
At about half past eleven, Peter was back on the fire escape outside of his Queens bedroom. After May had discovered his, er, “extracurricular” activities, she left his windows open at night, contingent on his promise that he’d be back by midnight and kept his GPS location on in case anything went amiss. She knew that he was a good kid, that his heart was in the right place, and at his core, he just wanted to help people. And what kind of person would she be if she told Peter, who for all intents and purposes was her kid by this point, that he couldn’t be a good person?
He threw his backpack on the floor, wincing when he heard the telltale “clang” of his water bottle, and unzipped his suit, folding it haphazardly and placing it back into its designated box. The pamphlet fluttered out of his pocket,and Peter leaned down to pick it up, one arm still wrestling to pull his favorite sleep shirt over his head. He originally tried to smooth out the creases, quickly abandoning his efforts, and sat on his bed. Peter knew that there was an election in a few months, he knew he absolutely detested Donald Trump, and he knew that he was mad as hell that he couldn’t vote. But that had caused some amount of complacency with him; if he couldn’t actually cast a ballot for anyone, what use was it knowing who was running or what was on the news if all it seemed was ever on was old people yelling at each other? It wasn’t like Peter didn’t care about the issues; that couldn’t be further from the truth. If he didn’t end up going into crime-fighting full-time after high school, what he really wanted to do was go into environmental engineering and sustainable development. He’d seen all of the heartache and pain that gun violence had brought the city and people he loved, so he knew how important reasonable gun control policy was. And despite all of New York City’s espoused progressive values, Peter’s AP Spanish teacher had come to school with red-rimmed eyes one day, telling the class that him and his husband had just been turned down by another adoption agency for being gay. And college. College was a big one. Tony had repeatedly offered to set him up at MIT— “Think of it like a scholarship,” he had said,— but Peter didn’t want to feel like he was getting anything handed to him that he hadn’t earned. May didn’t make too much either, and while they could certainly live off of her salary from the hospital and Uncle Ben’s life insurance for a while, hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans were a different story.
Peter flipped the pamphlet around, scanning the front cover. Dignified healthcare. He liked that. Tuition-free higher education. He really liked that. Quality employment. A $15 minimum wage in New York City was great, but still didn’t make ends meet for some people. Justice for all. Sounds about right, Peter thought. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat for Congress NY-14. He’d have to look her up.
Half an hour later, Peter yawned as he finally closed his laptop from her campaign website, remarkably tired and also pretty sure he had signed up for a mailing list at some point. It was almost one, and he needed to get to bed. Research could wait until morning.
It was a block day, so after his calculus class had let out, Peter grabbed his lunch from the locker and walked over to the cafeteria, meeting Ned and MJ at their usual table.
“Sup,” Ned said, in between waffle fries.
Peter looked at him quizcally. “Since when do you say ‘sup?’”
He shrugged. “It’s a new thing I’m trying out. Doesn’t work?”
“Not by a long shot.”
MJ snorted. “You guys are a couple of losers, you know that?”
“And you’re not?” Ned asked.
She tilted her head. “The thing is,” she said, pausing, “I already knew that, and I’ve accepted it. It’s only when you really come to terms with yourself and who you are that you’re able to move on and develop. So what if I’m a little bit of loser?”
Peter shook his head, trying to hold back a snort. “Hey guys, want to hear something weird that happened to me yesterday?”
“I’m always up for weird,” Ned responded.
“So, I was on patrol, and these people were walking around. And at first I thought they were like from the ASPCA or something, you know how they’re always around here?” They nodded. “But anyways, they weren’t, and I picked up one of the flyers they left by Glen’s, the barber shop, and I got to reading, and—”
“Oh, God, Peter joined a cult,” Ned said, panicking.
Peter shook his head, reaching down into his backpack to retrieve the pamphlet. “No, no, I promise it’s not a cult. I guess it was people campaigning for the election, what’s it called, canvassing? Well, it’s people canvassing for this woman running for Congress—”
“AOC?” MJ asked, interrupting.
“Huh?”
“AOC. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. That who you’re talking about?”
His eyebrows furrowed. “Yeah, how did you know?”
The side of her mouth twitched. “I’ve been walking for her since the summer. You know how I’ve been busy on my weekends now?” Peter and Ned nodded. “I’m heading up her youth volunteering. Outreach mostly, getting high schoolers to understand that they deserve to have a say in who’s elected to represent us. Getting them to campaign for someone who actually believes that we all deserve a fair chance. To campaign for someone like them. A young person who’s a woman of color, who didn’t come from money, who cares.”
“Geez, MJ, why don’t you run yourself?” Peter asked, only half-joking.
“I mean,” she started, grabbing the spare hairband from her wrist and pulling her hair into a ponytail, “obviously I’m too young, but I’m not even sure if I’d want to be the kind of public face that elected officials are. I’d rather be the one calling the shots from behind the scenes, the guy in the chair, if you will,” MJ added, nodding towards Ned.
“Wait, I’m still confused. So who’s she?” Ned asked, looking in between Peter and MJ.
Peter slid the pamphlet over to his side of the table while MJ grinned. “Now, let me tell you.”
Ten minutes and two online forms later, MJ had signed both Peter and Ned up for canvassing on Saturday. “I know you’ve got your ‘Stark thing,’” she had said, using air quotes, “and your actual Stark thing, so I put you down for the morning. You said you’re free then, right?”
Peter nodded. “I don’t have to be at Tony’s until what, like 2 or something? Plenty of time.”
“Great, and Ned?”
Ned tilted his head, in that low-key, laidback way of his. “Hey, you just tell me what you need and I’m there, MJ. I trust your judgement. You say she’s the real deal?”
MJ nodded. “She is. I’ve met her, and I like to pride myself on having what’s probably the best bullshit detector of anyone I’ve ever met.”
“Then I’m in.”
So Saturday afternoon found Ned, Peter, and MJ crammed into a small and packed but bright office in the north side of Queens, listening to someone who Peter’s pretty sure introduced themself as AOC’s campaign manager. Maybe deputy campaign manager? Peter wasn’t too sure, he didn’t know how these things usually went. But she was standing on a desk, which was cool.
“You need to make sure you’re able to ask for their support, see who they’re supporting, and tell them why you support Alexandria. This campaign is going to be won by people making connections and ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard and everyone feels like they are listened to. Because she’s running to represent the entire New York 14th, not only the ones who will vote for her. And I know it might seem tempting, but please, please make sure that you remain cordial to everyone, even if they say they’re voting for the other guy or they think her policies are crap. Stay calm, thank them for their time, and move on. This campaign is already an uphill battle, and we don’t need anything else stacked against us.” She finished her speech with a slight nod of her head. “Can I have all of our regular volunteers or field staff raise their hands?” About fifteen people in the group of thirty-five or so raised their hands. “Alright, anyone who’s new or more comfortable with someone more experienced, grab a partner or two and get into groups of two or three. Javier over there,” she pointed to a young man by the door, who was precariously holding stacks of folders in one hand, “has the district maps and lists of all the houses everyone will be going to, so go see him for that. One per group.” She was about to step down, but wheeled around and raised her voice again. “Oh, and one more thing—” she added, “Alexandria will be stopping in the office around noonish after a town hall she’s hosting, so be sure to swing back by if you haven’t met her. Fair warning, she’s a hugger.”
MJ nudged Peter with her shoulder. “You ready?”
He grinned. “Oh, hell yeah I am.”
#peter parker#peter parker imagine#marvel#mcu#marvel imagine#marvel writing#peter parker imagines#marvel imagines
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
Looking Back and Ahead
So the much-anticipated midterm election came and went, leaving all Americans, regardless of party affiliation or political orientation, finally united on at least one point: that the Congress, now a bicameral house formally divided against itself, will accomplish nothing at all for the foreseeable future...unless its members can find it in their hearts to compromise with their opponents and to craft legislation so little extreme and so overtly and appealingly reasonable that people on both sides of the aisle will fear angering their constituencies by not supporting it. How likely is that to happen? Not too! Still, that thought—that in the absence of flexibility, tractability, and generosity on the part of all, nothing at all will be accomplished and no one will have a record (other than of obstructionism) to run on in future elections—has a sort of silver lining in the thought that whatever legislation is passed by the new Congress will have to be of the rational variety that Americans of all political and philosophical sorts can support. So there’s at least that!
As my readers all surely know by now, my training—my academic training, I mean, as opposed to my spiritual training in rabbinical school—is in ancient history and the history of ancient religion. And I’ve been reading just lately some interesting analyses of the mother of all democracies, the one set in place to govern the city-state of Athens, and the specific way our American democratic system does and doesn’t preserve its ancient features and norms. Obviously, a long road stretches out between them and us! Even so, however, there are at least some features of Athenian democracy that are definitely worth revisiting.
Some of the specifics will be unexpected to most. Ancient Athens was governed by a council of 500 called the boulé whose members were chosen—not by an informed electorate casting ballots for the candidate of their choice—but by lots so that fifty men chosen at random to represent each of the ten tribes of ancient Athenians were put in place and handed the reins of government. Each served for one year, but no one could serve more than once a decade nor could any citizen serve more than twice ever. The boulé had its own hierarchy, however: its in-house leadership—called the prytany—consisted of fifty men, also chosen by the casting of lots, who served for one single month and were then replaced. The idea was simple—and not entirely unappealing: by choosing both the people’s leaders and those leaders’ leaders at random, it was certain that the power of governance would specifically not rest neither with power-hungry people eager to rule over or to dominate others nor with anyone motivated by the possibility of personal gain through service to the nation. The leaders of Athens were thus disinterested parties, people with no specific yearning to be in charge yet whom fate somehow arbitrarily put into positions of leadership nonetheless. Yes, it was surely true that the inevitable blockhead would occasionally end up chosen to serve, but such a person would be vastly outnumbered by more thoughtful, more reasonable individuals. (The boulé did have five hundred members, after all.) The system has an antique feel to it, the specific point of keeping power out of the hands of people who lust after it and firmly in the hands of people who would be happier doing something else entirely, not so much!
The situation that prevailed in ancient Athens appeals in other ways as well. The boulé, for example, lacked the power to make any final decisions on its own. To do that, all citizens were invited to participate in a forum called the ekklesia that met every ten days for the specific purpose of ratifying any of the boulé’s decisions before they became law. (This body met on the Acropolis as well, in an area called the Pnyx.) All citizens were automatically members of the ekklesia and were welcome to speak up and participate in pre-vote debate and discussion. So the power was thus fully vested in the people—the boulé could pass all the bills it wanted but none of them could become law until the people signed on.
Etymologically, the “demo” in “democracy,” from the Greek demos, references the full citizenry, the people of the nation who self-governed not by electing people to govern them, but by governing the governors and by requiring that the decisions of the boulé be ratified by the public. Is this sounding at all appealing to you? The more I think of it, the more remarkable it sounds to me…and, yes, in some ways intensely appealing. Would this work in a nation of 328 million citizens like our own? Not without some serious adjustment—but the notion that the very last people to whom power should ever be granted are those specific individuals who yearn the most intensely for it, that idea has some serious merit in my mind!
And then there was the concept of “ostracism,” which I think we should definitely consider bringing back. The English word means exclusion from a group, usually because of some perceived scurrilous misbehavior. But the word goes back to Athens, where it denoted something far more specific: the right of the citizenry, the demos, one single time in the course of a year to vote to expel from the city for a period of ten years anyone perceived as having become too powerful—and thus who merely by being present in the city weakened the democratic principle of power being vested fully in the hands of the people. It didn’t happen every year, but once the decision was taken—and if more than six thousand citizens voted to ostracize by writing the name of the individual they wished to see gone on a piece of broken pottery called an ostrakon—then the “ostracized” individual was forced to leave the city and not permitted to return for at least a decade. There was no possibility of appeal. Ostracized individuals were then given ten days to organize their affairs and then to leave and not to return for ten years. There was a certain risky arbitrariness to the whole process—there was no obligation for any citizen to state why he was voting to ostracize whomever it was he was voting to exile and there was no judge or jury—but also something exhilarating about a procedure designed to place the power in the hands of the people to exile anyone at all (including civic leaders, generals, the wealthy, and the city-state’s most influential citizens) for fear that that specific individual was exerting a malign influence on the right of the people to self-govern. And there was at least one profound safeguard against abuse in the fact that the ostracized individual had to be voted off the island by six thousand citizens. Even so, the procedure eventually died out. (The last known ostracism was towards the end of the fifth century BCE.) But it is also thrilling to imagine a democratic city-state in which anyone who yearns for power must temper such yearning with the knowledge that being perceived to be acting other than in the best interests of the people could conceivably lead to being sent away regardless of the immensity of one’s fortune or the breadth of one’s influence.
There were darker sides to Athenian democracy as well. Citizenship was limited to males over the age of eighteen; women were completed excluded both from membership in the boulé and from participation in the ekklesia. Nor did all citizens choose to participate fully in their fully participatory democracy. Indeed, most citizens failed to show up most of the time. To increase attendance, in fact, a decision was made around 400 BCE to pay citizens who showed up for their time, thus making it more reasonable for members of the working class to take the time off to attend. But the fact remains that, just as in our American republic, the power was in the hands of those who chose to exercise their civic right to participate and not in the hands of those who chose to express themselves merely by complaining about the status quo. Is that a flaw in the system? I suppose it would depend on whether you ask the voters or the complainers!
This isn’t ancient Greece. But what we can learn from considering the political heritage bequeathed to us by the Athenians is that democracy is not manna from heaven offered to some few worthy nations and not to others, but an ongoing political theory that needs constantly to be revised and reconsidered as it morphs forward through history. There is no end to the books I could recommend to readers interested in learning more, but I can suggest two titles that I myself have enjoyed and that would be very reasonable places to start reading: A.H.M. Jones’ book, Athenian Democracy, first published back in 1986 by Johns Hopkins University Press and read by myself years ago, and also a newer book, Democracy in Classical Athens by Christopher Carey, published in 2000 by Bristol Classical Press in the U.K.
14 notes
·
View notes
Text
Are Republicans And Democrats The Same
New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/are-republicans-and-democrats-the-same/
Are Republicans And Democrats The Same
Was The Federalist Party Successful
Republicans and Democrats are the same!!! Two opposing programs in the same system!!!!
The accomplishments of the Federalists were great: the party organized the enduring administrative machinery of national government; fixed the practice of a liberal interpretation of the Constitution; established traditions of federal fiscal integrity and credit worthiness; and initiated the important doctrine of
Huge Difference Between Democrats And Republicans In Tabular Form
What is the core difference between democrats and republicans?
Democrats and Republicans are the two main political parties in the United States of America. The parties tend to hold major seats in the seat and house of representatives after every election.
The main difference between republicans and democrats is that republicans are conservatives and right-leaning whereas democrats are liberal and left-leaning.
Education Early Family Life
Jefferson began his education together with the children with tutors in . Thomas’ father, Peter, was self-taught and, regretting not having a formal education, he entered Thomas into an English school early, at age five. In 1752, at age nine, he began attending a local school run by a Scottish Presbyterian minister and also began studying the natural world, which he grew to love. At this time he began studying Latin, Greek, and French, while also learning to ride horses. Thomas also read books from his father’s modest library. He was taught from 1758 to 1760 by the Reverend near , where he studied history, science, and the classics while boarding with Maury’s family. During this period Jefferson came to know and befriended various American Indians, including the famous Cherokee chief who often stopped at Shadwell to visit, on their way to Williamsburg to trade. During the two years Jefferson was with the Maury family, he traveled to Williamsburg and was a guest of , father of . In Williamsburg the young Jefferson met and came to admire , eight years his senior, sharing a common interest in violin playing.
Read Also: Who Were The Leaders Of The Radical Republicans?
What Was John Quincy Adamss Occupation
John Quincy Adams was a diplomat in the administrations of George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison. He served in the Massachusetts Senate and the United States Senate, and he taught at Harvard. He was secretary of state under James Monroe. After his presidential term, he served in the House of Representatives.
Isan Control Of Congress
This table shows the number of Congresses in which a party controlled either the House, the Senate, or the presidency.
Party
^U.S. Senate: Party Divisions
^The Anti-Administration Party was not a formal political party but rather a faction opposed to the policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. The faction eventually coalesced into the Democratic-Republican Party.
^The Pro-Administration Party was not a formal political party but rather a faction supportive of the policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. The faction eventually coalesced into the Federalist Party.
^ abThough Washington never formally joined a party, he was broadly sympathetic to the coalition which later became the Federalist Party.
^Washington disapproved of formal political parties and refused to join either party, though he became a symbol of the Federalist Party.
^Adams won election as a Democratic-Republican, but he sought re-election as a National Republican.
^Whig President William Henry Harrison died April 4, 1841, one month into his term, and was succeeded by John Tyler, who served for the remainder of the term. Tyler had been elected as vice president on the Whig ticket, but he became an independent after the Whigs expelled him from the party on September 13, 1841.
^Whigs held their only trifecta from March 4, 1841 until later that year when the Whigs expelled Tyler from the party on September 13 and he became an Independent.
^
You May Like: Trump 1998 People Magazine Quote
Election Of 1796 And Vice Presidency
In the presidential campaign of 1796, Jefferson lost the electoral college vote to Federalist John Adams by 7168 and was thus elected vice president. As presiding officer of the Senate, he assumed a more passive role than his predecessor John Adams. He allowed the Senate to freely conduct debates and confined his participation to procedural issues, which he called an “honorable and easy” role. Jefferson had previously studied parliamentary law and procedure for 40 years, making him unusually well qualified to serve as presiding officer. In 1800, he published his assembled notes on Senate procedure as . Jefferson would cast only three in the Senate.
During the Adams presidency, the Federalists rebuilt the military, levied new taxes, and enacted the . Jefferson believed that these laws were intended to suppress Democratic-Republicans, rather than prosecute enemy aliens, and considered them unconstitutional. To rally opposition, he and James Madison anonymously wrote the , declaring that the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it by the states. The resolutions followed the “” approach of Madison, in which states may shield their citizens from federal laws that they deem unconstitutional. Jefferson advocated , allowing states to invalidate federal laws altogether. Jefferson warned that, “unless arrested at the threshold”, the Alien and Sedition Acts would “necessarily drive these states into revolution and blood”.
Democrats And Republicans Want 95% Of The Same Things
Buzz Thomas
Save
The tail is wagging the dog. A recent study by the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland revealed that voters in majority red and majority blue congressional districts actually differ on less than 5% of the issues facing Americans. The big stuff jobs, education, health care, national security we generally agree on.
What divides us are the handful of issues that suck up most of the air on talk radio and cable news. You know the list: abortion, LGBTQ, Second Amendment. If we can stop shouting about those issues for 10 minutes, we might all discover were still one nation.
But before you break out the champagne, consider this: The energy in both political parties is generated by the extremes. Among Republicans, its the rock-ribbed Trump base. The folks who showed up in Washington on Jan. 6. Among Democrats, the juice is with Bernie Sanders and AOC. These are the people who can fill a stadium. Not the sensible, ho-hum leaders like Joe Biden or George Bush.
Was Bush the last moderate Republican who will ever be elected president? Will Biden be the last moderate Democrat? You and I, dear reader, will decide.
The question simply put is this. Can the center hold? Or will the extremes continue to pull us apart until American democracy becomes American Gladiator writ large?
Ignore the silliness.
Don’t Miss: Kaines Lapel Pin
Energy Issues And The Environment
There have always been clashes between the parties on the issues of energy and the environment. Democrats believe in restricting drilling for oil or other avenues of fossil fuels to protect the environment while Republicans favor expanded drilling to produce more energy at a lower cost to consumers. Democrats will push and support with tax dollars alternative energy solutions while the Republicans favor allowing the market to decide which forms of energy are practical.
Relation To Marital Status And Parenthood
Democrats/Republicans – Two Sides of the Same Coin
Americans that identify as single, living with a domestic partner, divorced, separated, or widowed are more likely to vote Democratic in contrast to married Americans which split about equally between Democrat and Republican.
General Social Surveys of more than 11,000 Democrats and Republicans conducted between 1996 and 2006 came to the result that the differences in fertility rates are not statistically significant between these parties, with the average Democrat having 1.94 children and the average Republican having 1.91 children. However, there is a significant difference in fertility rates between the two related groups liberals and conservatives, with liberals reproducing at a much lower rate than conservatives.
Recommended Reading: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans
Democrats And Republicans No Longer Speak The Same Language
A dictionary for these polarized times.
By Michelle Cottle
Ms. Cottle is a member of the editorial board.
President Biden campaigned on a promise to unify America. An inspiring goal, to be sure, but one that aint anywhere close to happening. Decades of polarization, turbocharged by the us-versus-them philosophy of former President Donald Trump, have left the nation so divided that it can feel as though the two political teams are not only talking past each other but speaking in entirely different tongues.
English is a living language, built to grow and evolve, but the red-blue political split is pushing its limits. There are increasingly fierce disagreements over what it means to be canceled, what constitutes bipartisanship and dont even try to figure out what counts as infrastructure.
At this point, each team could use its own dictionary, with contested terms defined according to that sides worldview. Think of it like a French-to-English dictionary, only angrier.
Some terms cry out for translation more than others:
Voting reform. Both parties agree on the need to shore up the integrity of the electoral system. But, for Democrats, voting reform means making ballot access easier and encouraging maximum participation. Republicans want to go in the opposite direction, with measures that risk hitting minority voters especially hard. As a piece in the conservative National Review asked this week, Why Not Fewer Voters?
The Parties Change Course
After the war, the Republican Party became more and more oriented towards economic growth, industry, and big business in Northern states, and in the beginning of the 20th;century it had reached a general status as a party for the more wealthy classes in society. Many Republicans therefore gained financial success in the prosperous 1920s until the stock market crashed in 1929 initiating the era of the Great Depression.
Now, many Americans blamed Republican President Herbert Hoover for the financial damages brought by the crisis. In 1932 the country therefore instead elected Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt to be president.
The Democratic Party largely stayed in power until 1980, when Republican Ronald Reagan was elected as president. Reagans social conservative politics and emphasis on cutting taxes, preserving family values, and increasing military funding were important steps in defining the modern Republican Party platform.
Don’t Miss: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans
History Of The Democratic Party
The party can trace its roots all the way back to Thomas Jefferson when they were known as Jeffersons Republicans and they strongly opposed the Federalist Party and their nationalist views. The Democrats adopted the donkey as their symbol due to Andrew Jackson who was publicly nicknamed jackass because of his popular position of let the people rule. The Democratic National Committee was officially created in 1848. During the civil war a rift grew within the party between those who supported slavery and those who opposed it. This deep division led to the creation of a new Democratic party, the one we now know today.
Crime And Capital Punishment
Republicans generally believe in harsher penalties when someone has committed a crime, including for selling illegal drugs. They also generally favor capital punishment and back a system with many layers to ensure the proper punishment has been meted out. Democrats are more progressive in their views, believing that crimes do not involve violence, such as selling drugs, should have lighter penalties and rehabilitation. They are also against capital punishment in any form.
Read Also: When Did Republicans And Democrats Switch Platforms
Why Did House Democrats Underperform Compared To Joe Biden
The results of the 2020 elections pose several puzzles, one of which is the gap between Joe Bidens handsome victory in the presidential race and the Democrats disappointing performance in the House of Representatives. Biden enjoyed an edge of 7.1 million votes over President Trump, while the Democrats suffered a loss of 13 seats in the House, reducing their margin from 36 to just 10.
Turnout in the 2018 mid-term election reached its highest level in more than a century. Democrats were fervently opposed to the Trump administration and turned out in droves. Compared to its performance in 2016, the partys total House vote fell by only 2%. Without Donald Trump at the head of the ticket, Republican voters were much less enthusiastic, and the total House vote for Republican candidates fell by nearly 20% from 2016. Democratic candidates received almost 10 million more votes than Republican candidates, a margin of 8.6%, the highest ever for a party that was previously in the minority. It was, in short, a spectacular year for House Democrats.
To understand the difference this Democratic disadvantage can make, compare the 2020 presidential and House results in five critical swing states.
Table 1: Presidential versus House results
Arizona
Era Of Good Feelings 18171825
Monroe believed that the existence of political parties was harmful to the United States, and he sought to usher in the end of the Federalist Party by avoiding divisive policies and welcoming ex-Federalists into the fold. Monroe favored infrastructure projects to promote economic development and, despite some constitutional concerns, signed bills providing federal funding for the National Road and other projects. Partly due to the mismanagement of national bank president William Jones, the country experienced a prolonged economic recession known as the Panic of 1819. The panic engendered a widespread resentment of the national bank and a distrust of paper money that would influence national politics long after the recession ended. Despite the ongoing economic troubles, the Federalists failed to field a serious challenger to Monroe in the 1820 presidential election, and Monroe won re-election essentially unopposed.
Read Also: Can Republicans Win Back The House
What Made John Adams A Good President
Learned and thoughtful, John Adams was more remarkable as a political philosopher than as a politician. When Adams became President, the war between the French and British was causing great difficulties for the United States on the high seas and intense partisanship among contending factions within the Nation.
Wake Up Democrats And Republicans Are Totally The Same
‘Democrats, Republicans two heads of same snake’
America’s political landscape is changing. Specifically, the paradigm of choices is completely redefining itself. In the past, we became accustomed to the two choices being Democrats and Republicans, left and right. With the young generation of millennials, however, interest in that debate is subsiding. Disenchanted with both sides, their debate is between libertarian-anarchists and statists. And that’s how it should be.
The recent vote that failed to defund the NSA is a good case in point. Although the proposal failed, the fact that it was close tells us how contentious the issue is. More meaningful, however, is the party-switch that happened in this vote. Supposedly small-government Republicans voted against the proposal and supposedly large-government Democrats voted for the proposal. This isn’t new, but millennials are beginning to understand the meaning: the two parties have merged and there is no viable alternative.
For too long, our national debate has depended on these two dinosaur parties that haven’t truly represented anyone in America for decades. Put another way, these parties have, together, come to represent our contemporary statist party. This is most strongly evidenced by Obama’s aggressive, Bush-like foreign policy and the NSA scandal. People are beginning to see the two parties as one and as being concerned with the maintenance of the state itself more than the preservation of the rights of its citizenry.
Also Check: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid
Democrats And Republicans Are The Same
CW / Kylie Cowden
In case you havent heard yet, our political system is divided primarily into two sects: Democrats on the left, Republicans on the right. Abraham Lincoln was our first Republican president, and since 1852 all of our presidents have been either a Republican or a Democrat. Comparatively, the parties had much more in common back then, but in recent decades the left has leaned too far and tumbled further to the left and the right has regressed more and more into the right; the disagreements between the parties have grown more stark and their tolerance for one another has all but vanished. Republicans champion themselves as preservers of conservative values; Democrats proudly fight for an ever changing, progressive society. The most surefire way to offend either would be to call one the other and thats exactly what Im here to do.
Carter Yancey is a sophomore majoring in computer science and mathematics. His column runs biweekly.
Republican Vs Democratic Demographics
Interesting data about how support for each party broke down by race, geography and the urban-rural divide during the 2018 mid-term elections are presented in charts here.
The Pew Research Group, among others, regularly surveys American citizens to determine party affiliation or support for various demographic groups. Some of their latest results are below.
Also Check: Did Republicans And Democrats Switch Platforms
The Human Error In Politics
What’s even more tragic about these differences is that these two parties refuse to acknowledge the other as human. Politics can be a monster at its best, and it’s often the subject of many former friendships, relationships, and even families. It manifests itself within both liberals and conservatives, and forces them against each other. One group wants change while others want stability. One focuses on human rights, others want to protect themselves. But what this branch of philosophy forgets is the fact that both groups are grounded in what they believe is best for America. They both have a universal moral compass that we, as humans, both follow.
Take fear, for example. When humans perceive fear, they tend to look out for themselves and their loved ones, withdraw from situations where they believe to be in danger. They prioritize their safety far more than, let’s say, work for peace. Other examples include having, love, admiration, pain, and loss.
Changes To House Rules
After Democrats took control of the House in the 116th Congress, they voted to change some rules from the previous session of Congress when Republicans were in control. Some of the changes appear below.
PAYGO: Democrats approved PAYGO, a provision that requires legislation that would increase the deficit to be offset by spending cuts or revenue increases.
Ethics: Democrats made changes to House ethics rules that required all House members to take ethics training, not just new members. The rules also required members to reimburse taxpayers for settlements that that result from a members discrimination of someone based on race, religion, sex, national origin, or disability, among other things. Lawmakers were also prohibited from sitting on corporate boards.
Climate change committee: Democrats created a new climate change committee to address the issue. The committee was not given subpoena power or the ability to bring bills to the floor.
A full explanation of the rules changes can be viewed here.
Read Also: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans
1 note
·
View note
Text
Appradab exclusive: Four families connected by pain are hoping to use their influence to get out the vote
New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/appradab-exclusive-four-families-connected-by-pain-are-hoping-to-use-their-influence-to-get-out-the-vote/
Appradab exclusive: Four families connected by pain are hoping to use their influence to get out the vote
Whether the candidates on the ballot were running for president or local office, Breonna made sure to exercise her constitutional right, Austin said.
So when Austin encounters people who aren’t enthusiastic about either presidential candidate in the upcoming election, she reminds them about her niece.
“Please, if you don’t have a candidate in mind, just vote because Breonna can’t vote,” she said.
Just days before Election Day, the families of Taylor, George Floyd, Jacob Blake, and Alvin Cole are joining forces at a rally in Chicago on Thursday in an effort to encourage people to vote. Their message is clear: Lasting change won’t come just by marching in the streets — people must also cast their ballots.
For Black Americans, the stakes in this election are especially high, say the families whose lives have been forever altered by police violence.
The election comes on the heels of a pandemic that has killed more than 227,000 Americans, disproportionately affecting Black people at every turn. It follows a global uprising over the shootings of Black people at the hands of police that prompted a reckoning with systemic racism not seen in previous years. And it could determine whether or not there are any meaningful national reforms to address those inequalities.
“We need to get somebody in office that’s going to work on our behalf,” Austin said.
The future is on the ballot
Taylor’s killing already has resulted in some policing reforms in her hometown of Louisville, Kentucky.
As part of a $12 million settlement with her family, the city agreed to implement establish housing incentives for officers to live in the areas they serve, have social workers provide support on certain police runs and require commanders to review and approve search warrants before seeking judicial approval, among other changes. It also passed a law banning no-knock warrants, along with several other cities.
But given a grand jury’s decision not to indict any officers in connection with her death, the family isn’t standing down any time soon.
“Until she gets justice, I’m going to continue to be a voice for her,” Austin said.
This month, the family launched the Breonna Taylor Foundation to keep her legacy alive and give back to the community. One of the foundation’s first initiatives has been picking up voters from neighborhoods around Louisville and offering them free rides to polling sites.
“Our future is at stake at this point,” Austin said. “People need to realize in order for us to move forward, we need to get out here and vote.”
Black voters are already fired up and turning out to vote in much higher rates than they did four years ago. It’s a dynamic that Austin said she’s seen in Louisville too — most of the people she’s encountered have already voted early or mailed in their absentee ballots.
“A lot of people are just sick and tired,” she added.
Even though enthusiasm is already high, Taylor’s family no plans of slowing down their voter mobilization efforts as Election Day approaches.
Tamika Palmer, Taylor’s mother, is representing the family at Thursday’s rally in Chicago. Meanwhile, Austin will be out in Louisville with other members of the Breonna Taylor Foundation, escorting people to polling sites and making sure they’re filling out their ballots correctly.
Two brothers find that people are listening
Philonise and Rodney Floyd have also been at the forefront of advocating for change.
Since their older brother died in May in Minneapolis with a police officer’s knee pressed into his neck, Philonise Floyd has pleaded with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to pass key policing reforms. Both have lent their voices in racial justice rallies across the nation.
Lately, the younger Floyd brothers have been showing up to different polling sites in Houston — Floyd’s hometown — passing out potato chips and water bottles to voters and cheering up kids who are waiting in lines with their parents.
When people recognize them as the brothers of George Floyd — whose killing has been a catalyst for the change seen in police departments across the nation — they’re anxious to talk about what’s on their minds, Philonise Floyd said.
It’s been heartening to see how the tragedy that befell their brother is driving so many people to the polls, Philonise Floyd added. But sometimes the two brothers encounter residents in their communities that don’t believe their votes will make a difference.
Their message to those people: Vote like your life depends on it, because it does.
Philonise and Rodney Floyd said they’ve taken to framing what’s at stake in this election in terms that make sense to some of the skeptics they encounter: healthcare, income taxes and government assistance. And because of the platform they now have, they find that they’re able to get through to people.
“Ever since this stuff has happened to my brother, everywhere I go people just stop and they just listen,” Philonise Floyd said.
A father is carrying on a family legacy
Jacob Blake, 29, has left the hospital since getting shot several times in August by police in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Though the younger Blake is now dealing with constant pain, he’s doing “as well as to be expected by a young man who’s been shot in the back seven times,” Blake’s father Jacob Blake Sr. said.
Despite everything he and his family have endured over the last few months, Blake Sr. is invigorated.
“If we speak with one big voice that is unified, people have to listen,” he said.
Because to change laws and challenge the conditions created by centuries of systemic racism, he added, they need votes.
Now Blake Sr. finds himself in a position of influence and leadership on issues of racial justice — a role that’s not entirely unfamiliar.
The Rev. Jacob Blake Sr., his father and the junior Blake’s grandfather, led the fight for fair housing in Evanston throughout the 1960s and ’70s, organizing marches after the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that eventually led city council members to ban racial discrimination in housing.
So while the circumstances are painful, Blake Sr. feels equipped to meet this moment.
“It sits on like a fur-lined slipper,” he said of his new role. “I’m comfortable, and I know what I have to do.”
His father instilled in him a fearless attitude and a determination to fight for his people, Blake Sr. said. And in the coming days, he’s using his platform to turn out the vote.
“I can challenge the system,” Blake Sr. said. “The system has been broken for over 400 years. It’s never included us wholeheartedly. So that makes it easy for me to keep going.”
A mother wants change for the next generation
The changes that are being fought for in the streets and at the ballot box will ultimately have come too late for the families of police violence victims.
That includes the family of Alvin Cole, a 17-year-old who was shot and killed in February by police in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.
But what has transpired since has made his mother Tracy Cole even more determined to make sure that those changes are realized — starting with voting for the candidate she thinks will listen to the concerns of African Americans.
Earlier this month, a prosecutor announced that an officer involved in Cole’s death would not face criminal charges. In the protests that followed, Tracy Cole and her daughters were arrested — and Tracy Cole’s lawyer alleges that the incident left her injured.
“We do not see justice,” she said. “It’s a constant thing in our community when it comes to police killing our kids or our loved ones. Something needs to be changed. Police should be accountable for what they do to us. It’s just like there’s nothing happening.”
By voting to make a change in the country’s leadership, Cole said she’s standing up not only for grieving mothers like herself, but all the families who could encounter a similar fate to hers.
When she casts her ballot, Cole said she’ll be thinking about her son Alvin, whose right to vote was lost when his life was cut short. But in the end, the fight today is about making a difference for future generations.
0 notes
Text
!!!!!!!!!!mother!!!!!!!!!!!!
mother! motherrrrrr! mamaaaaaaaaa! mama! mama! ma! Hey, ma! motherrrrrrrr!
mother?
There you are!
Originally, I wasn’t going to see this movie. I know that in certain circles, what I'm about to say is sacrilege, but Jennifer Lawrence just doesn’t do it for me. She aiiight, you know?? – but just aiiight. What really got me to see this movie was the exclamation point; proving itself to be a first ballot hall of famer.
Every time I see this title I shout "mother!" Then, I proceed to keep shouting things. I don’t know whether that says more about the exclamation point or me, but whatever… it makes me happy.
This film has also caught a lot of controversy. I have heard things from "I love it!" to "What the hell is this garbage?!" I figured I should pick it a part myself.
Honestly, it took me some time to pick it a part. Y’all may need a couple of days of silence after seeing this movie, so you can process it, and maybe even rethink your place in the world. Perhaps while you’re taking those days of quiet, this post can help.
The actors should be the easiest part of this movie to break down, so let’s start there:
Look at this cute couple (Javier Bardem and J.Law)
– aren’t they simply adorable together?
"What?? No!" – is the proper response to that question. It’s not the age difference (although the movie speaks on that a lil). And they’re both attractive people, it’s just that they’re in different leagues (not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s strange). J.Law is in a league of… the nice, but mischievous girl next door, while Javier is in the league of… well, if you’re rooming with him we can’t be surprised if something dies. I mean, just look at him.
You know what I mean? Nice lookin guy, it's just...
... yeah.
Seems like a better person for Javier would be someone like Ryan Gosling.
You know? Charming, but he has that brooding, dark nature to him. He might enjoy JB's antics.
Picture that! What if Gosling played the role that J.Law is playing, and we called him "mother"... get him a nice Summer dress; there's your controversy:) I can see Javier and Ryan sitting around the house brooding with each other.
Seems like a better fit.
But, JB and JLaw make it work somehow. Javier plays a famous poet who is living out in the middle of nowhere, struggling with writer’s block. His lovely wife spends her days, adoring her husband, fixing up the house, and pretending like everything is ok when clearly their marriage has some issues.
That’s the beginning of the movie – those two playing house. It’s kinda boring.
Things don’t get interesting until Ed Harris and Michele Pfeiffer show up; another odd couple, but it works a lil better.
Javier decides that despite both of these people randomly showing up (as strangers) to their home, he should let them stay with him (without consulting J.Law) and his now reluctant wife.
Really?? I mean MAYBE we’d let Michelle (as a stranger) come in and use our bathroom or our phone or something, but Ed? … he looks like he belongs to the same "league" as Javier.
This is already odd, but you can add to it that both of these house guests are difficult to deal with:
Ed is coughing and puking all over the place for some reason. Michelle is … well… an ice cold bitch! I’m sorry to call her that, but there’s no other way to put it. She treats J.Law terribly.
Plus, these two aren’t shy about getting freaky in front of you.
Ed Harris’ hands all over Michelle…
There’s a scene where Jennifer Lawrence catches them in the act and of... we'll say "sexy hands", and I gotta tell y’all… a true popcorn puke moment. Just Ed Harris’ hands errwhere.
There are many horrific images you'll witness in this film, but the one that disturbed me the most was Ed's hands smearing lovin all over MP. You might tell me "John Praphit, that's wrong! Leave Ed alone!" Well, picture your grandparents making out.
See??!
Ed Harris is like our grandparents - you know it happens but you don't want to see it! This was probably the role of a life time for him.
"Wait, a lovin scene with Michelle Pfeiffer?! I get to put my hands where?!"
He probably signed up before they even talked money. Most of us leave our jobs and can't wait to wash the day off of us. I'm sure that Ed was leaving work everyday smelling his hands, with a big satisfying smile on his face:)
Anyway, that’s now the movie:
Michelle being mean, Ed licking/groping/puking his way through the movie, us puking along with him, and Jennifer Lawrence’s character not speaking up for herself. We’re all confused and frustrated along with J.Law. She's like a child who has no control over their hostile environment. I spent a good part of this movie being mad at her for not speaking up.
And then… the strangers break something of Javier’s that changes this whole movie up. The shit goes down.
We need to take a pause, and maybe grab a cold one before we continue, cuz we’re about to say goodbye to reality. Seriously, there should be some type of warning before the movie enters the next act. Get ready to have your face look like this for the rest of the movie -
From here Ed and MP's sons show up to fight, there's blood, there's fighting, there's Javier boarding up a room, there's more blood, there's death, there's J.Law being frustrated, there's even more people showing up in the house, there's assholeish behavior, there's a house leaking, the house becomes FILLED with worshippers of Javier, the house becomes a funeral, the house becomes a night club, more fighting, the cops show up, the swat teams show up, Kristen Wiig shows up to shoot people (I'm NOT joking),
yep that Kristen Wiig; triangle and all.
There are explosions (in the house), there's water everywhere, there are more worshippers, something terrible happens to a child, all of a sudden we're in a scene from "Saving Private Ryan", there's some calm, J.Law... let's just say that things don't end well for her, there's some fire, and then a questionable excuse for it all.
People, this movie... If I can even call it a movie, but... I... *whew* I mean... the acting is good from Michelle Pfeiffer, Ed of course is enjoying himself, and team JB & JLaw are... ok.
It's a creative movie, but... there are some scenes that will (have) piss a lot of people off. I was cool with some stuff, cuz of the whole "it's art" bs, but... *sigh*
Before I go down that path...
I read stuff from the director and the cast concerning what they were going for... I feel it'll help if I share it with you.
Javier = kinda like God - I say "kinda", cuz as one who believes in God, I sure hope he ain't really like that in-person.
Jennifer Lawrence = mother earth
Ed Harris & MP = Adam & Eve (cuz when you think Adam & Eve, you think Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer. Who did the casting for this movie? Were there auditions?)
Anyway, without this info you might be confused. However, WITH this info, you might (like myself) dislike the movie even more.
Whenever we humanize God we get it wrong... he's not like us (he's frickin God!), so I personally believe that if an artist goes that way creatively, it should be done with that in mind.
Cuz if Javier is God (and I wish I could say more without spoiling anything), he's an asshole.
Though I recognize that this may only be a personally bias of mine.
And speaking of assholes, a big point this movie makes is to show how terrible we all are (espcially in relation to the earth). Personally, I think they went too far with that notion. I mean, of course we ARE assholes, but... did they have to do all of that??! Subtlety is not a bad word.
It feels like this shouldn't have been a mainstream movie. I see it as as artist who wanted to make some points, and was already married to how he would present and symbolize these points, and didn't care a whole lot about making... you know... a movie.
I blame Jennifer Lawrence for this... this... I don't know what to call it. It's not that I hate the movie. It's very creative. It makes some valid points. I just can't call it a movie.
I feel like I was inside the head of a artsy, angry hipster, who displayed his worldview in the most horrific fashion that he could... and then walked away with my money.
And he got us all to show up by dangling Jennifer Lawrence in front of us.
Which brings me back to blaming J.Law! No one would see this movie if it were just Javier Bardem chillin in a house somehwhere... I mean, just look at him!
- this is a shot of him on vacation; he can't help it!
But, Jennifer Lawrence! Oh J.JLaw... smh... you're killin me!
Don't you give me that sweet, innocent look... you know what you've done!
*deep sigh*
There will be some people who will love this "movie". These are probably the types of people who are either in the same league as Javier Bardem or people who sip their coffee with their pinky in the air (you know the types). The types who will look down on you as they tell you "You don't get it." I DO get it, that's why I'm giving it a plus... unfortunately, that plus is attached to an F.
Grade: F+
Don't go to see this movie. Go get yourselves some ice cream this weekend instead.... enjoy life! And try not to be an asshole like everybody who was in this movie.
#mother!#jennifer lawrence#john praphit#praphitproductions.com#javier bardem#Movie Reviews#Praphit#movies#ed harris#michelle pfeiffer
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
Bill Gates on Elizabeth Warren, Jeffrey Epstein, and why he’d pay more — but not too much more — in taxes
Bill Gates and fellow billionaire Warren Buffett. | Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Gates tried to split the difference in the conversation around Big Philanthropy and Big Government.
Bill Gates epitomizes the elite in 2019.
Gates sits at the center of the conversation about Big Tech, Big Money, and Big Philanthropy — all of which are increasingly unpopular with Americans who worry about the personal wealth that a small group of tech company leaders has amassed. But on Wednesday during an appearance at the New York Times’ Dealbook conference, the world’s second-richest person tried to offer a defense of billionaires in an age of massive income inequality.
Gates had to tangle with thorny questions about his connections to Jeffrey Epstein, whether the Gates Foundation should be as powerful as it is, and how he reckons with a possible Elizabeth Warren presidency.
Here are some of the most interesting things Gates discussed:
Bill Gates is open to paying more in taxes, but not too much more
Gates is different from other billionaires. But not too different. His net worth exceeds $100 billion and he has consistently indicated that he’s more open to paying higher taxes than many of his fellow billionaires seem to be. He has said he supports reinstating the higher rate for the estate tax, which is assessed when a millionaire dies and seeks to pass along money to their heirs, as well as an increase in the capital gains tax, or the rate at which money made through investments is taxed.
But Gates is concerned about proposals like Elizabeth Warren’s landmark wealth tax plan, which would assess a 3 percent tax on every dollar over $1 billion in net worth. He says that American innovation could be at “risk” if taxes get too high.
“I’ve paid over $10 billion in taxes. I’ve paid more than anyone in taxes. If I had to have paid $20 billion, it’s fine. But when you say I should pay $100 billion, then I’m starting to do a little math about what I have left over,” Gates said, eventually adding that he was “just kidding.”
“I’d love for somebody to find a middle-ground approach,” Gates said.
Bill Gates says he’d choose the more “professional” candidate in Warren versus Trump
Warren could very well be the Democratic nominee, and Gates seemed to be wrestling with what he would do if that ended up the case. Gates has not hidden his distaste for Trump, but he also evinced some dislike for Warren on Wednesday, as well.
“I’m not sure how open-minded she is,” Gates said when asked if he would meet with Warren, “or that she’d even be willing to sit down with somebody who has large amounts of money.”
Asked who he’d back in a hypothetical election between Warren and Donald Trump, Gates suggested but did not say outright that it would be Warren, saying that he’d cast a ballot for whichever displayed the “more professional approach” to the presidency, even if he disagrees with them.
”I hope the more professional candidate is an electable candidate.”
Bill Gates says that political giving — not philanthropy — is the problem
Some critics think billionaires should not be allowed to put their money into foundations and receive tax deductions for this philanthropic giving — arguing that it deprives the US government of revenue for social services. Gates said that some gifts to foundations could be “more taxed.”
But Gates, whose foundation gives out about $5 billion a year, defended Big Philanthropy against its critics who argue that it is a second-class way to solve the country’s problems, after government.
“Should rich people pay more in taxes? The answer is yes. For whatever remainder of money that they have left over, I do think philanthropy is a good thing. That 2 percent of the economy plays a role that neither the private sector or the government is able to do,” Gates said. “If you create a company that is super valuable, at least some part of that you should be able to have — a little bit for consumption, and hopefully the balance to do philanthropic things.”
Gates said the behavior he would try to avoid would be massive political gifts. In his view, those are undemocratic.
“I choose not to participate in large political donations. There are times it might feel tempting to do so,” Gates said. “But I just don’t want to grab that gigantic megaphone.”
Bill Gates is sorry for legitimizing Jeffrey Epstein
Gates offered another full apology for his meetings with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein’s conviction on charges of child abuse, which were exposed in reporting by the New York Times.
Gates said he acknowledged that his time with Epstein helped legitimize him by welcoming him back into high society’s mainstream. He said he was motivated by a desire to save human lives with more resources.
“I made a mistake in judgment that I thought that those discussions would lead, literally, to billions of dollars going to global health. It turned out that was a bad judgment. That was a mirage,” Gates said. ”And I gave him some benefit by the association. So I made a doubly wrong mistake there.”
Bill Gates worries about legitimizing other corrupt billionaires in the future
Unfortunately, Gates worries that an Epstein-like situation could happen again and that he could “credentialize” other billionaires through the Giving Pledge, which is Gates’s and Warren Buffett’s effort to convince the world’s billionaires to commit to giving half of their money away to charity.
Only 10 percent of the world’s billionaires have signed it, and the Pledge has particularly struggled to attract wealthy members from outside the US. Gates said it’s “tricky” to recruit billionaires in some countries because his staffers are ill-equipped to assess if their fortune was made through corrupt means.
“I feel bad. We probably will at some point accept someone into the Giving Pledge and it will turn out that their fortune is a disreputable fortune,” Gates said. “If you really want to get out there and get more people drawn into philanthropy, there is a risk that you’ll make a mistake.”
from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2oSR5qA from Blogger https://ift.tt/2PTK1VW via IFTTT
0 notes