#the margin of victory is less than 10%

[when-did-this-become-difficult]

OHIOANS VOTE JULY 2023

JULY 11, 2023 EARLY VOTING OPEN TODAY IN OHIO

Skip the lines and go to your early vote location! The last day you can vote is August 8, Election Day (it's an early election day, yes we also have a November election because the Ohio state legislature is so so so so stupid) but anyways

VOTE NO ON ISSUE #1 🙏🙏🙏

a) it's the right thing to do

b) it's pretty easy cause you have a whole month to get it done early

c) fuck em

[foreverlogical]

Dueling primaries in the critical swing state of Michigan added some new data points and, in many ways, built on several preexisting narratives. Here's a basic roundup.

1. Donald Trump underperformed the polling again!

Congrats to Trump on his 42-percentage-point victory over rival Nikki Haley, but the polls still love him more than the people do—a consistent phenomenon this cycle. 

With 98% of the vote in, Trump holds a roughly 42-point edge over Haley, nothing close to his predicted margin. The final 538 polling average had Trump winning by 57 points, meaning he underperformed his polls by about 15 points. 

Since the GOP primary has become a two-person race, Trump has consistently underperformed his polls. Across the four contests so far (excluding Nevada’s overcomplicated primary/caucus system), he has now underperformed his 538 polling average by 9 points. One way or the other, it can’t be bad for Biden. 

2. "Uncommitted" passed their 10,000-vote goal, but President Joe Biden still finished strong 

The "uncommitted" vote—an effort to challenge President Joe Biden's pro-Israel stance on the war in Gaza—set a low bar of getting 10,000 votes in this Democratic primary and easily surpassed it, clearing the 100,000 mark. 

Hillary Clinton famously lost Michigan to Trump by about 10,000 votes. So Tuesday night's results revealed a meaningful level of concern about Biden's support for Israel in a key swing state with a large number of Arab American voters. 

That said, the overall percentage of "uncommitted" voters—a little over 13%—only modestly surpassed the 11% share of uncommitted voters in 2012, the last time a Democratic incumbent president faced a virtually uncontested primary. Later that year, President Barack Obama went on to win the state by nearly 450,000 votes.

The bottom line is that the uncommitted protest vote made a statement, but Biden still finished strong, with more than 80% of the vote in a primary where voters had three other options (uncommitted, author Marianne Williamson, and Rep. Dean Phillips).

3. Marianne Williamson (who wasn't running) bests Rep. Dean Phillips (who was running)

Big night for Williamson, who had suspended her campaign and has now unsuspended it after blowing out Phillips by less than half a point, 3.0% to 2.7%.

Phillips is toast. And Williamson's move to re-enter the race is a laughable over-read of her “victory” over Phillips, who, again, is toast. “Uncommitted” beat both by double digits.

4. The Trump protest vote was far more meaningful than the Biden protest vote

More than 30% of voters in the state’s Republican primary cast what is functionally a protest vote against Trump, who's won every state so far. Haley garnered the majority of those votes and will likely finish with north of 26%. 

At the same time, just under 20% of voters in the state’s Democratic primary didn’t vote for Biden. 

In other words, Biden will win Michigan’s Democratic primary with more than 80% of the vote, despite a lot of suspense around the uncommitted vote, but Trump will win the Republican primary with under 70% of the vote, despite his diehard supporters surely wanting to make a statement against Haley and all non-MAGA Republicans.

5. Haley isn't done bashing Trump

Despite her loss, Haley vowed to stay in the Republican primary until at least Super Tuesday. She is also on pace to hold at least 10 fundraisers in the 10 days before those contests ensue, according to Andrew Romano of Yahoo News. 

Haley also used her spotlight Monday evening to make some astute observations about Trump and the Republican Party. 

"What I am saying to my Republican Party family is, we are in a ship with a hole in it," Haley said.

"The RNC is not about winning races up and down the ticket. The RNC is now about Donald Trump," Haley argued, calling the organization Trump's "legal slush fund."

The Biden-Harris rapid-response account helpfully tweeted out the clip.

[accursedkaleeshi]

Accursed Izvoshra: Bentilais san Sk’ar

Behold! The only Izvoshra to be (retroactively) named & expanded upon in the source material! After surviving both the shuttle crash that took Grievous from his people & Thrawn’s orbital bombardment of his colony on Oben, Sk’ar was put to work as an Imperial General. That’s Legends canon bruv. The rest of this is community headcanon!

Long before that Sk’ar was the Prince of Kaleela & the Hand of the West. When he met Qymaen & Ronderu he was young, younger than them by a couple years, but already 9 standard feet tall & accomplished enough to be the Khan of his father’s military. Through the Huk war he would be instrumental in the defeat of the yam’rii & even kept getting bigger, just under 10 feet at his largest. Out of all Kalee, Bentilais worked closest to Grievous for the longest. They were comrades in arms in a way that the term best friends didn’t really seem to cover.

How did big Benny meet Qymaen & Ronderu? I asked some of the other Grievous nerds what they thought & outsourced really liked what TB came up with. Meet-cute under the cut by @tuberculosis-bot-9000. (The Consumption. #bentalais, Kaleeaboos. Discord, July 7, 2023.)

Kaleela is in and of itself a nation. Located on the convergence of multiple major trade routes by land and sea, it’s the largest city on Kalee by a massive margin. It’s influence is incredibly widespread. The Kaleela Tongue is a pidgin language that is spoken almost globally, as a lingua franca is some places and as the default in others. The state-sponsored faith is the most codified “church” type thing Kalee has. The pockets of Kaleela’s elite are deeper than some countries. And all of it bows to the Emperor.

The Emperor of Kaleela is… not what you expect when you imagine the most important person on Kalee. He’s miserly, he’s physically unimpressive, and he’s ancient as shit. He’s a hop, skip, and a jump away from being a skeksis. And he’s Sk’ar’s father.

Because Kaleela is untouched by the war! Yes, the outlying colonies to the east are bedeviled with rumors of invaders, and the southern territories are all but wiped out, and more and more refugees are flooding in by the day, but the Jewel City is safe. There is no war in Kaleela. The Emperor sees no reason to join the war effort, much less bend the knee to some backwoods eastern barbarian.

This makes Q+R very mad.

They just park their army in the city and start making other connections. It’s a careful song and dance convincing cushy nobles to lend their strength and resources, but it’s one they play well. They have to. Kaleela is the crux of it all. Without Kaleela’s army and navy, the war will eventually end in a Yam’rii victory.

Then, at a party, they meet the prince. It’s a celebration of his recent appointment as Khan of Kaleela. He’s the one that controls Kaleela’s military now. So they have to be precise.

Sk’ar is intrigued by the demigods. He’s heard tales of their glory, their cunning, their prowess in battle. He knows the skinny man with a rifle is the best shot on the planet and the woman with the mane and swords moves faster than the eye can see. And he knows he’s got them on the back foot. He’s interested in seeing what they do more than what they say.

They tell him, in no uncertain terms, that the war will come, and sooner rather than later. The Emperor wants to hide behind his money and his wives and his 88,888 things, but the bugs don’t care. They’ll drag him off his throne, crack open his skull, and eat him before his mewling pups if something isn’t done. Sk’ar finds the idea hilarious. He knows his father is weak. But he wants to know why he should follow Qymaen rather than take a throne by himself. He certainly has enough money and warriors for it. Qymaen just shrugs. If he wants to do it that way, he can, and Qymaen will take what remains when the bugs rout the Kaleela prince. Sk’ar throws his head back and laughs. The gall!

He agrees.

(Thank you @tuberculosis-bot-9000 for letting me use your words & the Benny braincell!)

[achilleanfemme]

To Win Trans/Queer Freedom, There Are No Shortcuts

The clout chasing has already begun. After any mass tragedy, like yesterday’s shooting at Club Q, a queer nightclub in Colorado Spring, there’s a move to politicize the events from the liberal center of US-American politics. I would argue that amongst no marginalized community is this push towards liberal assimilation, and movement co-optation, worse than amongst LGBTQ people. I have already seen the tweets of liberal politicians asking for liberal LGBTQ “organizers” (campaign workers) to “drop their venmos/cash-apps/zelles/etc” so that “they can get paid in the wake of such a tragedy”. The level of unapologetic clout chasing is honestly galling. Bodies are not even in the ground and they’re already asking for people to give money to LGBTQ Democratic candidates. It’s disgusting. 

Liberal assimilationist forces in the LGBTQ movement have been around for a very long time. Timothy Stewart-Winter’s Queer Clout: Chicago and the Rise of Gay Politics well documents the neoliberal turn of white gay men in Chicago towards Democratic Party politics and away from street action and mass organizing, as a means of assimilating into the liberal status quo, instead of challenging it. This turn continues to contemporarely benefit a small minority of LGBTQ people, especially (but not exclusively) gays and lesbians, while the rest of us trans and queer people are hung out to dry. Civil rights victories like same-sex marriage, which itself represented an assimilationist turn in trans and queer politics, have not ushered in a wave of continued mass organizing for expanded civil and social rights for LGBTQ people. As many trans organizers and scholars have pointed out, the “marriage equality” victory in 2015 represented the collapse of organizing infrastructure and the end of lesbian and gay politics being done on a national scale.

Liberal politicians, social media influencers, and journalists, both queer and non-queer, love to point out that trans and queer people of color were the ones who “threw the first brick at Stonewall”. Every June there are endless articles about “10 Ways to Support Trans Women of Color” and “50 LGBTQ People that Lead the Way for Equality” yet the radical politics of folks like Sylvia Rivera and Lorraine Hansberry are rarely acknowledged, and the contemporary movement implications of their work are never acknowledged. This is because the forces of assimilation in LGBTQ liberalism would be called into question if these implications were put to the forefront of public discussions of politics amongst trans and queer people.

The contemporary radical implications of our queer ancestors and foreparents are clear. It is time for that we build a radical trans and queer movement in the United States of America rooted in Black feminism, PIC abolition, trans liberation, and economic justice. Events like yesterday’s mass killing at Club Q and the Trans Day of Rememberance are not going to become less frequent while trans and queer people hold no political power in society outside of the Democratic Party establishment. We need to organize to pass the Equality Act and fight beyond it. We need to fight to free all trans and queer immigrants and asylum seekers locked in cages for seeking safety outside of their countries of origin. We need to fight to free all trans and queer people from prison. We need to fight to end the prosecution of trans women of color for acting in self-defense against violent men. We need to fight for housing for all, trans-inclusive medicare for all, free abortion on demand without apology, jobs for all, food for all, and disability benefits that are easily accessible and paid at a thriveable level. We need to fight for a globally just, decolonial, anti-militarist Green New Deal that divests from death-making institutions and invests in live-giving institutions so that trans and queer peoples of the Global Majority have the ability to stay and thrive in their places of origin without fear of US-backed coups, imperial wars, or climate catastrophe destabilizing their countries of origin, leading to violence that harms them the most. 

The legacy of our trans and queer foreparents is a legacy of radical resistance to the World as it is and a radical reimagining of the World as it could be. If we continue to let liberal LGBTQ clout chasers who want to run for office, be social media influencers, or head non-profit organizations lead us down the path of assimilation, many more of us will die. If we let ultra-left anonymous twitter accounts lead us away from mass politics and towards focusing exclusively on armed self-defense and mutual aid, many more of us will die. To paraphrase Jane McAlevey, to win Trans/Queer freedom in our lifetimes, there are no shortcuts.

[reasoningdaily]

WASHINGTON (AP) — With Donald Trump facing felony charges over his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, the former president is flooding the airwaves and his social media platform with distortions, misinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories about his defeat.

It’s part of a multiyear effort to undermine public confidence in the American electoral process as he seeks to chart a return to the White House in 2024. There is evidence that his lies are resonating: New polling from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that 57% of Republicans believe Democrat Joe Biden was not legitimately elected as president.

Here are the facts about Trump’s loss in the last presidential election:

REVIEWS AND RECOUNTS CONFIRM BIDEN’S VICTORY

Biden’s victory over Trump in 2020 was not particularly close. He won the Electoral College with 306 votes to Trump’s 232, and the popular vote by more than 7 million ballots.

Because the Electoral College ultimately determines the presidency, the race was decided by a few battleground states. Many of those states conducted recounts or thorough reviews of the results, all of which confirmed Biden’s victory.

In Arizona, a six-month review of ballots in the state’s largest county, Maricopa, that was commissioned by Republican state legislators not only affirmed Biden’s victory but determined that he should have won by 306 more votes than the officially certified statewide margin of 10,457.

In Georgia, where Trump was recently indicted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 result there, state officials led by both a Republican governor and secretary of state recertified Biden’s win after conducting three statewide counts. The final official recount narrowed Biden’s victory in the state from just shy of 13,000 votes to just shy of 12,000 votes.

In Michigan, a committee led by Republican state senators concluded there was no widespread or systematic fraud in the state in 2020 after conducting a monthslong investigation. Michigan, where Biden defeated Trump by almost 155,000 votes, or 2.8 percentage points, was less competitive compared with other battleground states, although the result in Wayne County, home of Detroit, was targeted by Trump and his supporters with unfounded voter fraud claims, as were key urban jurisdictions across the country.

In Nevada, the then-secretary of state, Republican Barbara Cegavske, and her office reviewed tens of thousands of allegations of possible voter fraud identified by the Nevada Republican Party but found that almost all were based on incomplete information and a lack of understanding of the state’s voting and registration procedures. For example, Cegavske’s investigation found that of 1,506 alleged instances of ballots being cast in the name of deceased individuals, only 10 warranted further investigation by law enforcement. Similarly, 10 out of 1,778 allegations of double-voting called for further investigation. Biden won Nevada by 33,596 votes, or 2.4 percentage points.

In Pennsylvania, the final certified results had Biden with an 80,555-vote margin over Trump, or 1.2 percentage points. Efforts to overturn Pennsylvania’s election failed in state and federal courts, while no prosecutor, judge or election official in Pennsylvania has raised a concern about widespread fraud. State Republicans continue to attempt their own review of the 2020 results, but that effort has been tied up in the courts and Democrats have called it a “partisan fishing expedition.”

In Wisconsin, a recount slightly improved Biden’s victory over Trump by 87 votes, increasing Biden’s statewide lead to 20,682, or 0.6 percentage points. A nonpartisan audit that concluded a year after the election made recommendations on how to improve future elections in Wisconsin but did not uncover evidence of widespread voter fraud in the state, leading the Republican co-chair of the audit committee to declare that “the election was largely safe and secure.” The state’s Assembly speaker, a Republican, ordered a separate review, which a state judge said found “absolutely no evidence of election fraud.”

AP INVESTIGATION FINDS MINIMAL VOTER FRAUD IN SWING STATES

An exhaustive AP investigation in 2021 found fewer than 475 instances of confirmed voter fraud across six battleground states — nowhere near the magnitude required to sway the outcome of the presidential election.

The review of ballots and records from more than 300 local elections offices found that almost every instance of voter fraud was committed by individuals acting alone and not the result of a massive, coordinated conspiracy to rig the election. The cases involved both registered Democrats and Republicans, and the culprits were almost always caught before the fraudulent ballot was counted.

Some of the cases appeared to be intentional attempts to commit fraud, while others seemed to involve either administrative error or voter confusion, including the case of one Wisconsin man who cast a ballot for Trump but said he was unaware that he was ineligible to vote because he was on parole for a felony conviction.

The AP review also produced no evidence to support Trump’s claims that states tabulated more votes than there are registered voters.

Biden won Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and their 79 Electoral College votes by a combined 311,257 votes out of 25.5 million ballots cast. The disputed ballots represent just 0.15% of his victory margin in those states.

TRUMP’S OWN ADMINISTRATION FOUND NO WIDESPREAD FRAUD

Trump was repeatedly advised by members of his own administration that there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

Nine days after the 2020 election, the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued a statement saying, “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.” The statement was co-written by the groups representing the top elections officials in every state.

Less than three weeks later, then-Attorney General William Barr declared that a Justice Department investigation had not uncovered evidence of the widespread voter fraud that Trump had claimed was at the center of a massive conspiracy to steal the election. Barr, who had directed U.S. attorneys and FBI agents across the country to pursue “substantial allegations” of voting irregularities, said, “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

The Jan. 6 House committee report details additional instances where administration officials and White House staff refuted Trump’s various allegations of voter fraud.

COURTS HEARD TRUMP’S LEGAL CHALLENGES AND REJECTED THEM

The Trump campaign and its backers pursued numerous legal challenges to the election in court and alleged a variety of voter fraud and misconduct. The cases were heard and roundly rejected by dozens of courts at both state and federal levels, including by judges whom Trump appointed.

One of them, U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, was on a federal panel that declined a request to stop Pennsylvania from certifying its results, saying, “Voters, not lawyers, choose the president. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections.”

The U.S. Supreme Court also rejected several efforts in the weeks after Election Day to overturn the election results in various battleground states that Biden won.

CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT VOTING MACHINES WERE UNFOUNDED

Many of the claims Trump and his team advanced about a stolen election dealt with the equipment voters used to cast their ballots.

At various times, Trump and his legal team falsely alleged that voting machines were built in Venezuela at the direction of President Hugo Chavez, who died in 2013; that machines were designed to delete or flip votes cast for Trump; and that the U.S. Army had seized a computer server in Germany that held secrets to U.S. voting irregularities.

None of those claims was ever substantiated or corroborated. CISA’s joint statement released after the election said, “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.”

Nonetheless, many of these and other unfounded claims were repeated on Fox News, both by members of the Trump team as well as by some of the network’s on-air personalities. Dominion Voting Systems sued the network for $1.6 billion, claiming the outlet’s airing of these allegations amounted to defamation.

Records of internal communications at Fox News unearthed in the case showed that the network aired the claims even though its biggest stars, including Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, as well as the company’s chairman, Rupert Murdoch, did not believe they were true.

Dominion and Fox News settled out of court for $787.5 million.

CLAIMS INVOLVING SUITCASES AND BALLOT MULES ARE DEBUNKED

Trump and his supporters also have claimed that a number of other factors contributed to a broader effort to steal the presidential election.

One theory advanced by both Trump and one of his lawyers, Rudy Giuliani, is that “suitcases” full of fraudulent ballots in Georgia cost Trump the election there.

Then-Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen told the Jan. 6 House committee that he personally reviewed the video purported to show the fraud allegation in question. He recounted telling Trump: “It wasn’t a suitcase. It was a bin. That’s what they use when they’re counting ballots. It’s benign.”

State and county officials also had confirmed the containers were regular ballot containers on wheels, which are used in normal ballot processing.

But a week later, Trump publicly repeated the suitcase theory, saying, “There is even security camera footage from Georgia that shows officials telling poll watchers to leave the room before pulling suitcases of ballots out from under the tables and continuing to count for hours.”

Richard Donoghue, the former acting deputy attorney general, told the Jan. 6 committee that, days later, he told Trump that “these allegations about ballots being smuggled in in a suitcase and run through the machine several times, it was not true. … We looked at the video, we interviewed the witnesses.” But Trump continued to repeat the false claim.

Another debunked claim spinning a tale of 2,000 so-called ballot mules was featured in a film that ran in hundreds of theaters last spring. The film alleges that Democrat-aligned individuals were paid to illegally collect and drop ballots in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. But the AP determined that the allegations were based on flawed analysis of cellphone location data and drop box surveillance footage.

[ssss-character-smackdown]

Stats time! All in the Family Round 1 results

Tuulikki Hotakainen v Veeti Hollola - 24 to 17 - I mean, we all wanted to squish wee Lalli, did we not?

Árni Reynisson v Ulf & Elvira Västerström - 34 to 3 - Árni has written an acceptance speech, "Dear fans, how are you? I am fine. I just wanted to s"Thankyouverymuch, Árni! *ahem*

Bjarni Árnason v Michael Madsen (Mikkel's twin) - 26 to 19 - like the battle between Leaftroll & Hilja, Michael was declared the winner at the end of the Forum voting, but Bjarni garnered at least 4 more votes after the poll officially closed.  However, the tumblr vote went decidedly Bjarni's way, so now he knows what victory looks like.

Signe Sørensen v Aksel Eide - 33 to 13 - even with 2 'can't decide' votes, the margin was so overwhelmingly for Signe on the Forum.

the Terrible Trio v Michael Madsen (Prologue) - 20 to 19 - this was a dead heat in tumblr and only a snip of 1 vote margin on the Forum.  Thus ends the hope of both Michael Madsens.

Mia Västerström v Kaino Hotakainen - 14 to 25 - at least Kaino will have more of a story here than in canon?

Sigríður Jónsdóttir v Berit Eide - 11 to 30 - whoa, a complete shut-out on the Forum, with stronger support here on tumblr!

Tuuli Hollola v Asbjørn & Solveig Eide - 13 to 22 - Tuuli possibly got a late vote or two, because the Forum said the Generals Eide won, as well as winning handily on tumblr.

Magnus (the cat) v Reynir's fylgja - 10 to 19 - the battle of the cuties, with 3 'can't decide' votes

Guðrun Árnasdóttir v Saku Hotakainen - 10 to 50 - Holy smokes, we love a sad sack Hotakainen!

Sigrun Larsen v Ukko-Pekka - 31 to 17 - another case of the Forum winner at poll closing getting dunked by late voting, but Sigrun Larsen had a 2:1 margin on tumblr, so, yeah, sorry dude whoever you really were.  (Possibly a harbinger of how the polling is going to go once her namesake enters the fray?)

Ensi Hotakainen v Ingrid Pedersen & Gøran Anderson - 45 to 4 - by far the biggest margin!  I admit I set up an easy one there.

Jukka & Juha Hotakainen v Ragnar Árnason - 24 to 14 - the hair was indeed epic, but the twins won this one.

Aino Hotakainen v Frida Eide - 40 to 8 - so far, if the name is Hotakainen, the character is a winner (see, Ukko-Pekka, if you'd hung around & taken the name Hotakainen, you'd'a bin a contender).  We shall see what happens in later rounds!

Whew!  Round 2 will be coming soon for these families, but there's less than 1 day to get your vote in the Round 2 of Gods & m0nSTeRs.

[newstfionline]

Sunday, August 11, 2024

Half a century ago, Nixon became the only president to resign (NPR) It was no longer a surprise, but it was still a shock. On a Thursday night in August 50 years ago, Americans turned on the evening news to be told the president of the United States would resign the next day. Nothing remotely like this had ever happened before; but for those who had been paying attention, it was increasingly difficult to imagine any other outcome. The resignation of Richard Nixon was the culmination of two years of swirling controversy that began with a burglary at the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate complex in June 1972. While initially viewed as a minor event, burglary was connected to Nixon’s reelection campaign and the White House was involved in the subsequent cover-up. There had been two years of persistent probes and damning reports, mounting evidence and a steady erosion of Nixon’s support in his party and from the public at large. A Harris Poll published the week of the resignation found two-thirds of Americans thought it was time for Nixon to be impeached and tried. Could this man reading a farewell statement straight to camera from the Oval Office on August 8 be the same Nixon who had carried 49 states in winning a second term as president just 21 months earlier?

Video and Airplane Sketch Raise New Questions About Saudi Ties to 9/11 (NYT) A trove of evidence seized by British authorities from the home of a Saudi national with ties to the Sept. 11 Al Qaeda hijackers is now being made public for the first time as part of a long-running lawsuit against the kingdom’s government by the families of some of the victims. Former U.S. intelligence officials say the new evidence could change the story of the 2001 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people, and of the possible involvement in the plot of Omar al-Bayoumi, the Saudi national. The officials also question why some of the evidence was not shared with the 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan group of lawmakers and experts who were tasked with writing the definitive account of the attacks. George Tenet, who led the C.I.A. at the time of the attacks, said that the new evidence was significant enough to require further evaluation, according to a spokesman. “The 9/11 families deserve no less,” Mr. Tenet said through the spokesman.

Maduro goes after X and WhatsApp as pressure mounts to back up his claim to victory in Venezuela (AP) Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro is trying to accomplish something that seems impossible in the South American country: steer people away from WhatsApp and X. Maduro’s announcement this week that he had ordered a 10-day block on access to X in Venezuela is the latest in a series of efforts by his government to try to suppress information sharing among people voicing doubts about his claim to victory in the July 28 presidential election. It also reveals how every aspect of Venezuela’s government is subject to Maduro’s wants and needs, as he went from demanding his Cabinet to retweet his posts in May to ordering the nation’s telecommunications agency on Thursday to block access to X. Electoral authorities declared Maduro the winner of the highly anticipated election, but unlike previous presidential contests, they have yet to produce detailed voting tallies to back up their claim. Meanwhile, the opposition revealed it collected tally sheets from more than 80% of the 30,000 electronic voting machines nationwide showing he lost by a more than 2-to-1 margin.

As Ukraine Pushes Deeper Into Russia, Moscow Sends Reinforcements (NYT) Ukrainian forces pressed deeper into Russia on Friday, trying to capitalize on their surprise cross-border offensive, as Moscow moved quickly to shore up its defenses against the largest assault on Russian soil since the war began. After capturing several small settlements the last few days, Ukraine was battling to take full control of a town near the border and sending small units to conduct raids farther into the southwestern Russian region of Kursk. At the same time, the Russian military announced it was sending more troops and armored vehicles to try to repel the attack. Russian television released videos of columns of military trucks carrying artillery pieces, heavy machine guns and tanks.

Iran to deliver hundreds of ballistic missiles to Russia soon, intel sources say (Reuters) Dozens of Russian military personnel are being trained in Iran to use the Fath-360 close-range ballistic missile system, two European intelligence sources told Reuters, adding that they expected the imminent delivery of hundreds of the satellite-guided weapons to Russia for its war in Ukraine. Russian defence ministry representatives are believed to have signed a contract on Dec. 13 in Tehran with Iranian officials for the Fath-360 and another ballistic missile system built by Iran's government-owned Aerospace Industries Organization (AIO) called the Ababil, said the two intelligence officials. Moscow possesses its own ballistic missiles, but the supply of Fath-360s could allow Russia to use more of its arsenal for targets beyond the front line, while employing Iranian warheads for closer-range targets, a military expert said.

Making House Calls to Mongolia’s Herders (NYT) Shurentsetseg Ganbold is a health worker in Mongolia whose job involves an unusual amount of travel. She serves the Dukhas, a community of semi-nomadic reindeer herders in a remote part of the north, who follow their herd wherever they roam. And wherever the herders settle for the season, Ms. Shurentsetseg has to find them, too, sometimes on horseback, along forest paths in East Taiga. She makes house calls to respond to emergencies, treat minor illnesses and vaccinate children. Her patients call her Dr. Shuree. Community health workers like Ms. Shurentsetseg are the backbone of the health system in Mongolia, one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world. They travel great distances to provide basic health services to people like the nomads who live far from city clinics and hospitals. Reindeer herders live so far from country roads that she sometimes has to rent horses to reach them. When no horses are available, she rides a reindeer to get from one tepee-like tent, called an ortz, to another. Growing up in a nomadic family, she had taught herself how to ride a horse at age 5. These days, riding to patients both calms and energizes her. “My spirit is lifted,” she said.

China’s Great Wall of Villages (NYT) Qionglin New Village sits deep in the Himalayas, just three miles from a region where a heavy military buildup and confrontations between Chinese and Indian troops have brought fears of a border war. The land was once an empty valley, more than 10,000 feet above the sea, traversed only by local hunters. Then Chinese officials built Qionglin, a village of cookie-cutter homes and finely paved roads, and paid people to move there from other settlements. Qionglin’s villagers are essentially sentries on the front line of China’s claim to Arunachal Pradesh, India’s easternmost state, which Beijing insists is part of Chinese-ruled Tibet. Many villages like Qionglin have sprung up. In China’s west, they give its sovereignty a new, undeniable permanence along boundaries contested by India, Bhutan and Nepal. In its north, the settlements bolster security and promote trade with Central Asia. In the south, they guard against the flow of drugs and crime from Southeast Asia. The buildup is the clearest sign that Mr. Xi is using civilian settlements to quietly solidify China’s control in far-flung frontiers, just as he has with fishing militias and islands in the disputed South China Sea.

The threat Israel didn’t foresee: Hezbollah’s growing drone power (AP) Lebanon’s militant Hezbollah group launched one of its deepest strikes into Israel in mid-May, using an explosive drone that scored a direct hit on one of Israel’s most significant air force surveillance systems. This and other successful drone attacks have given the Iranian-backed militant group another deadly option for an expected retaliation against Israel for its airstrike in Beirut last month that killed top Hezbollah military commander Fouad Shukur. While Israel has built air defense systems, including the Iron Dome and David’s Sling to guard against Hezbollah’s rocket and missile arsenal, there has been less focus on the drone threat. Since the near daily exchange of fire along the Lebanon-Israel border began in early October, Hezbollah has used drones more to bypass Israeli air defense systems and strike its military posts along the border, as well as deep inside Israel.

Israel Launches Another Offensive in Gaza’s South Amid Push for Truce (NYT) An Israeli ground assault in the southern Gaza Strip on Friday forced tens of thousands of Palestinians to flee their homes and shelters, many for a third time or more, even as the United States and some Arab allies pressed both Israel and Hamas to restart peace talks. Between 60,000 and 70,000 people had fled by Thursday evening after the Israeli military ordered people in the city of Khan Younis to leave, according to UNRWA, the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees. More continued to flee into the night and into Friday. Under a blazing sun, women carrying babies and blankets, men pushing carts and wheelchairs over sandy roads and young children carrying suitcases and backpacks have walked away from homes and shelters and toward unknown destinations. Some were in tears. “People are sleeping in the streets. Children and women are on the ground without mattresses,” Yafa Abu Aker, a resident of Khan Younis and an independent journalist, told The New York Times in a text message. “Death is better,” an older woman said on Thursday, in video from the Reuters news agency. “We’re fed up. We’ve already died. We’re dead.”

As South Sudan’s oil revenues dwindle, even the security forces haven’t been paid in months (AP) The recent rupture of a crucial oil pipeline has sent fresh pain through the economy of South Sudan, where even the security forces haven’t been paid in nine months. Some soldiers and civil servants are turning to side hustles or abandoning their jobs. South Sudan’s economy largely depends on the oil it exports via neighboring Sudan. But war in Sudan has created widespread chaos, and the pipeline in an area of fighting ruptured in February. The drop in oil revenues has compounded South Sudan’s long problem of official mismanagement. Now the already fragile country is seeing protests in the capital over lack of pay, with more expected. In recent weeks, The Associated Press visited government ministries and other offices in Juba and found them mostly empty during working hours. Remaining employees said colleagues had left after getting tired of working without pay since October. One government worker said her salary—when it came—was the equivalent of $8 a month. She has since found work at a restaurant and makes about $20.

For a celestial spectacle this weekend, look up (NYT) The universe is chock-full of cosmic wonder, but the vast majority of it is too distant to witness with the naked eye. For those without a telescope, this weekend is one of your best chances to catch a natural fireworks show: The Perseids meteor shower will reach its peak on Sunday night, lighting up the night sky with as many as 100 colorful streaks per hour.

[ledenews]

ON THE NAIL! - In Contention with 19 Games to Go

The Nailers bookended a win on Saturday with two more losses against Fort Wayne and Kalamazoo. What happened in those three games that caused the results to be what they were?

Well, that’s not exactly how you want the weekend to go.  Especially with games against teams that are hot on your heels in the standings.  And now, both teams are magically only five points behind the third place Nailers, with the K-Wings having three games in hand.   Things have really taken a bit of a dip over the last couple weekends now, but we’ll get more into that after bit. Friday’s game started off very well for the Nailers, as they jumped on the Komets early and often.  Tanner Laderoute got Wheeling on the board just over three minutes into the game, followed by Matthew Quercia, and less than halfway through the first period, Wheeling was already up 2-0.  It really had the feeling that all the Nailers had to do was keep pushing, try to get one more in the cage, and they could really open things up.  However, Fort Wayne found a way to beat Jaxon Castor with just under seven minutes left in the frame, followed by a second goal only 22 seconds later to tie the game before the intermission, and it became apparent this would be a dogfight. The second period featured quite a bit of back-and-forth action, with both teams getting good scoring chances.  Finally, after almost eight and a half minutes of play, the Komets got another one past Castor to break the deadlock and take their first lead of the game.  Wheeling tried to push to get the goal back, but it felt like momentum had shifted pretty strong in favor of the visitors.  Finally, with just over four minutes left in the period, Sebastian Dirven took a sharp wrister from the point that found its way through to tie the game back up in time for the final frame.

In said final frame, the game went quite a bit like it had been, with neither team finding a way to break it open.  Unfortunately, with 10:15 remaining in regulation, Shaw Boomhower was called for an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, followed by a 10-minute misconduct, and the Komets were able to cash in on the ensuing power play, their only score on four chances with the man advantage.  Wheeling tried their hardest to put Fort Wayne into tough situations and force them to play back a bit, and it paid off with a late power play.  Coach Army tried to shift things in their favor even more by pulling the goalie to give them a 6-on-4 advantage on the ice, but the Komets got possession of the puck and put it in the empty net to earn the 5-3 victory despite the tough play of the Nailers. The opponent might have changed for Saturday’s game, but you could tell the Nailers were frustrated with how the night before had gone, despite their best efforts.  Wheeling brought the game to Kalamazoo, peppering the Wings goalie as if he was standing up to a firing squad.  Shots in the period ended up 14-7 in favor of the Nailers, but neither team was able to find enough space for the puck and the game was tied 0-0 after 20 minutes. The second period was quite similar to the first, with Wheeling yet again winning the shooting battle, this time by a 13-8 margin.  As the clock ticked later and later, it felt like neither team would find a way to capitalize again until the Nailers got a 5-on-3 power play chance late and cashed in off the stick of Justin Lee to take the lead late.  Nine seconds after the goal, Kalamazoo took another penalty to put Wheeling on another 5-on-3, and this time, Jordan Frasca was the one to put the puck into the net to make it 2-0 Nailers going to the third. In the third period, despite Wheeling leading in shots yet again with a 12-9 tally in the period, it felt quite a bit more back and forth.  The Nailers had moments where they were back on their heels, but then they’d complete a line change, and the next group out would force play back into the Wings zone.  Late in the game, Kalamazoo pulled their goaltender to try and get one, which they finally did with less than a minute left on the clock.  The final 52 seconds ticked by slowly, with the K-Wings trying to maintain possession and tie the game, but Wheeling finished things off and earned the victory. Going into the last game of the weekend, the Nailer fans heading into the building had to be hoping for more of what they saw the first two periods the night before rather than the last.  Unfortunately, Kalamazoo came out hopping, while Wheeling looked like they were playing their third game of the weekend.  The Nailers found themselves down 2-0 just over six minutes into the game when, 37 seconds after the second tally, Wheeling finally found the scoreboard off the stick of Jordan Martel, and the fans came to life and tried to infuse the team with some energy.  However, with just under seven minutes left in the period, the K-Wings were able to put another shot in behind Taylor Gauthier to push it to 3-1 after 20 minutes of play. The second period was a little more even, as Wheeling got into the swing of things and tried to erase a multi-goal deficit.  The pressure by the Nailers eventually caused them to get called for a penalty, as Thimo Nickl took an interference penalty, and Kalamazoo found a way to capitalize with the advantage, their second power play goal of the game to make it a 4-1 advantage for the visitors.  Wheeling continued to force the issue, playing a little more loose, but still couldn’t get one and went to the final period of the weekend with a three-goal deficit. In the final frame, Isaac Belliveau tried to will the Nailers to get back into the game, scoring twice a little more than four minutes apart to bring it back to 4-3 Kalamazoo with just under four minutes left in regulation.  If Wheeling could’ve found a way to get one more goal and possibly force overtime, it felt like the momentum would carry them to earning the additional point.  Wheeling pulled their goalie late in the hopes of getting that tying goal, but the Wings got possession and put it into the empty net, earning the 5-3 win to keep pace with the Nailers in the standings for the weekend.

Wheeling couldn’t complete the season sweep over Reading on Tuesday, losing 4-0 on the road.  How did the Royals finally pull one off against the Nailers?

It’s not easy, when you face a team nine times in a season, to sweep the entire season against them.  Wheeling had the chance to do just that with a victory in Reading, but the Royals were up to the task and avoided the embarrassment of having that happen to them.  The first period was quite even, with the Nailers receiving an early power play under two minutes into the game, but they couldn’t do anything with it.  The referees then got Matt Koopman for a trip with about seven minutes left in the period, and the Royals were able to do what Wheeling couldn’t and cashed in to take the 1-0 lead, which was the difference into the intermission. In the second period, Justin Lee lost his composure big time and received two-, five-, and ten-minute penalties in one fell swoop, and Reading yet again took advantage of the extra player on the ice to make it 2-0 then, only 15 second later, punched yet another one in to make it 3-0, and this time, it felt like Wheeling didn’t have it in them to come back despite their considerable lead in shots.  In the third period, the Royals got another goal just under three minutes into the period and didn’t look back, as Wheeling was shut out for the first time since December 27th against Indy. The good news is, Reading only managed to get 23 shots on goal, which was the 17th time in the last 18 games that the Nailers managed to keep their opponent below 30 shots on goal for the game.  They have managed to do that 32 times in the 52 games they’ve played this season, and they currently sit sixth in the ECHL in shots against per game at 28.74.  The problem is the quality of the shots that are getting through has improved.  During their winning streak, shots reaching the goal were clearly seen by the goalies, allowing them to make saves, and a lot of the shots were coming from further out from the net.  Lately, shots are coming from close range, or with more screens in front of the net, and they’re finding their way through.  That being said, you still have to be able to count on your keeper to make the saves they need to make but giving them a chance to make the save is just as important, and it’s what Wheeling needs to get back to doing.

The Nailers start March with two road games in Cincinnati and Fort Wayne, followed by a Sunday home game against the Cyclones.  What do they need to do in order to maximize their points from these games?

Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but these are games the Nailers need to take advantage of.  Cincinnati has not been having a very good season this year, sitting in sixth place in the division with 51 standings points, 11 behind the Nailers and six behind Fort Wayne for the fourth and final playoff spot in the division.  Their record at home this season is one game above .500, while their road record leaves a lot to be desired and they are currently on a four-game winless streak.  The real problem for the Cyclones this year when playing away from Cincy has been their penalty kill group, which is 26th out of 28 teams in the league.  If Wheeling can force Cincinnati to take some penalties and cash in with the extra skater, there’s no reason they can’t come away from those games with a couple wins. As for Fort Wayne, the Nailers need to get payback for their loss last weekend on home ice.  They currently sit five points behind Wheeling, with both teams having played 53 games on the season.  The good news for the Nailers is just how bad the Komets have been at home this season, with a record of 10-12-1-2 on their own ice.  Two things to watch for in this game is their man advantage group, which is the second-best unit on home ice in the entire league, with a 27.2% success rate.  If Wheeling spends too much time shorthanded, this could be a long game for them.  The other thing is Fort Wayne doesn’t score the first goal in their games very often, converting first in only 45% of their games thus far, with a record of 16-7-1 in said games.  Wheeling, on the other hand, usually sees a lot of success when scoring first.  So, if the Nailers can score quickly and put the pressure on the Komets, they have a good chance of coming away with the two points.

Since their 12-game win streak came to an end, the Nailers have a record of 2-5.  How can they reverse that trend and get back to playing winning hockey more consistently?

It’s not overly surprising the Nailers have struggled a bit since tying the longest winning streak in team history.  Most teams who are able to go on such extended streaks experience a bit of a letdown when it ends.  When you’re in the midst of the streak, you try to just focus on continuing to do the things that are working.  You might eat the same midday meal every game day, take your pregame nap at the same time (at least, as much as you can with spending time on the road and such), and continue to focus on the parts of your game that got you to that point.  Suddenly, something changes and it’s not enough anymore, and you find your team losing games they would’ve found ways to win just a few weeks ago. In cases like this, the best thing to do is to get back to basics.  Each player has to look in the mirror at their own game and figure out what they were doing to contribute to winning hockey being played.  As I said last week, there have been a number of player movements, and some guys in the lineup now didn’t get to be a part of that streak.  Those guys need to consider what they’re replacing in the lineup and figure out how their game helps this team.  I’m sure Coach Army has been working hard with the guys to put a lineup together that gives them the best chance to win games, and I have the utmost confidence that they’ll put it together again here soon and make that strong push with just over a month left in the regular season.

Another rough month for the Nailers, as they only have five home games in the entire month of March.  How do you think that affects the boys in black and gold?

You know, it was nice back in November when the Nailers had only five games on the road for the entire month.  Then in December, when Wheeling only went on the road four times that month.  The problem with that is, then you run into a month like January, where you only have three games on home ice in the entire month.  And again, here in March, where the Nailers will play at home this Sunday, then four games in a row later in the month, but that’s it. It's definitely a bit of a double-edged sword, where you had the chance to spend a lot of time at home in other months just to have to spend extra time on the road later.  The good news for the Nailers is they have found a way to improve their record on the road from what it was earlier in the season.  Despite losing three of their last four on the road (with two of those losses coming on the other side of the country in Utah), Wheeling had managed to win their previous seven road games in a row, and their current record away from the Friendly City for the season is 14-11-1.  To be successful in most pro sports leagues, teams want to find a way to be over .500 on the road, so if Wheeling can keep this up over this month, there’s no reason to think they won’t find a way to play later in April. Just as important though are those five games they get to play at home.  When a team doesn’t get to play in front of their fans much in a month, they really count on having that support in their building when they are there.  They have to go into hostile buildings nine times in the month of March and perform at their best without that fan support.  When they’re back home, we have to find a way to be there for them and support them and help them find ways to win at home.  I hope to see everyone there when given the chance. Read the full article

[arpov-blog-blog]

..."The idea that a “unity ticket” featuring a Republican and a Democrat could somehow produce a nominee with “a clear path to victory” is worse than a political fiction. The group behind it, No Labels, is pushing a dangerous lie that would simply serve to put Trump back in the White House.

How can I be so certain? Look at the last half-century of election results. In modern U.S. presidential history, third parties have not won much. In 1968, George Wallace won 46 electoral votes by running a regionally-targeted (and racist) campaign. Since then, they’ve won zilch — not a single state. Not Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in 2016, and not Ralph Nader in 2000. None of them broke 5 percent of the vote.

Then there’s Ross Perot, who No Labels aspires to emulate for his appeal to “the vast middle of the electorate.” Despite unlimited cash and facing an unpopular incumbent in George H.W. Bush and a near-unknown in Bill Clinton, Perot failed to win a single state. Can No Labels twist the data and make an argument that Perot could have won if he had done things differently? Sure! But that’s like saying I could have been the quarterback of the Denver Broncos — technically true, but come on!

There’s a reason for this lack of success: Our political system isn’t designed to support third parties at the presidential level.

The biggest barrier is the Electoral College. States use a “winner takes all” system to distribute their electoral votes, which is why Perot won nearly 20 percent of the popular vote but got a big fat zero from the Electoral College. This leads to two practical effects: First, parties are incentivized to form the largest coalitions possible, which naturally leads to a two-party system. Second, many voters don’t want to “waste” their vote on a candidate with no chance of winning, so they default to the major parties. Both effects make it harder for third parties to compete.

The question of whether Americans are willing to vote for a third party comes up every presidential cycle. Consider this: Two months before the 2016 election, Gary Johnson polled at 10 percent. In June 1992, Perot led all candidates at 39 percent. These polls were mirages — neither got anything close to that number of votes. Third parties often poll well during a campaign, but that support vanishes on Election Day.

This points to a larger truth: Americans think a third party is needed, even if they won’t vote for one. Voters want to express discontent with their party. Sure, nearly half of the electorate thinks a third party is necessary, but No Labels mistakenly assumes this means those voters will actually vote for one. Once Americans get a good look at the alternatives, like Perot or Johnson, they end up sticking with the major parties.

In 2016, Trump’s margin of victory was less than 50,000 votes in these states, and third parties won significantly more votes than that in each one. Did they flip the election for Trump? It’s possible. In 2020, with no third parties to contend with, Biden beat Trump in Michigan by 154,188 votes, Pennsylvania by 80,555 votes and Wisconsin by 20,682. All of those margins are smaller than what third parties received in 2016. These Blue Wall states will be close again in 2024, and if third parties perform similarly in 2024 as they did in 2016, they will deny Biden a second term.

This alone should give any responsible person pause. A No Labels candidate in these states could easily hand the election to Trump. But maybe that’s the goal. Whatever their original intentions, the people behind No Labels — including Harlan Crow, the GOP mega-donor who gifted travel and luxury vacations to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — are using dark money on this folly. The group is working to raise $70 million and has already qualified for the ballot in 12 states, including states that could be pivotal to the outcome, such as Arizona, Nevada and North Carolina.

There are serious questions about how the group’s ticket would be picked (likely behind closed doors) and whether acting like a political party without registering as one is legal. Not to mention, its own founders and staff are in “open revolt” over the group’s current aspirations.

While I’m not a fan of polling done more than a year out (seriously), The Wall Street Journal did an analysis that showed third parties would more likely draw votes from Biden. The report points to an NBC survey that has Biden and Trump tied head to head, but if you add a third-party candidate, Trump leads by 3 percent. (Of course, this math might change if Liz Cheney or RFK Jr. make a serious run.) New polling of young voters shows a similar dynamic, shrinking Biden’s lead with the introduction of third parties.

Historical data suggests the same. Based on exit polling (a highly flawed metric), No Labels believes Perot in 1992 may have siphoned votes from both parties equally. However, an American Journal of Political Science study concluded that Perot increased turnout by 3 percent and decreased Clinton’s margin of victory by 7 percent.

If we look at who helped Biden win last time, they are the type of voters who might switch parties: Voters who selected a third party in 2016 voted for Biden by 29 percent. Those voters could be the difference for Biden in 2024."

[biblenewsprophecy]

‘Will America Make It Until November 5, 2024?’

COGwriter

NBC reported the following:

November 7, 2023

WASHINGTON — Pick a metaphor: President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign is a “five-alarm fire.” It’s a cardiac case in need of a “defibrillator.” Or a lemming on course to “slowly march into the sea and drown.”

All come from Democratic strategists whose low-boil frustrations with Biden’s candidacy erupted over the weekend amid a spate of bleak polling numbers. No less a party mastermind than David Axelrod, architect of Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, suggested in a social media post that Biden consider dropping out of the race and letting someone more electable take his place as the Democratic presidential nominee.

The 2024 presidential election looks increasingly like it will be a rematch of four years ago, and Democrats are more and more worried that the outcome may not swing their way this time. Yet at this point, they’re stuck with Biden — whether they like it or not.

Biden has given no indication he is interested in dropping out. Nor does his campaign team seem to be sweating the New York Times/Siena College poll that showed him losing to Republican Donald Trump in five of the six swing states that he captured in his 2020 victory.

Troubling signs for Democrats jump out from the poll. The party’s bedrock constituency, Black voters, appears to be eroding. In 2020, Black voters favored Biden over Trump by a margin of 78 percentage points. In the new survey, Biden’s margin had dropped to 49 points. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/democratic-frustrations-biden-spill-open-five-alarm-fire-rcna123841?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&taid=654a26c66de02a00016ad2be&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Yes, unless Joe Biden or Donald Trump die, pull out, or are so impacted by legal matters, a rematch of 2020 is the position of most pundits.

Related to the two of them and 2020, the Continuing Church of God (CCOG) put together the following video on our Bible News Prophecy YouTube channel:

10:25

Biden, Trump, and the Bible

The USA presidential campaign is in full swing. Though Democratic party candidate Joe Biden and Republican party candidate Donald Trump have differing economic and climate policies as well as different views on abortion and racial matters, there are many similarities both share. Do they have policies that they share that are leading to the destruction of the USA? What do Bible prophecies reveal about sexual immorality, debt, and hypocrisy? What are some of the national sins of the USA? Does the Bible endorse voting? What did Jesus teach related to what to seek and pray for? What does the New Testament teach that Christians are to do related to leaders? Is the lesser of two evils still evil? Dr. Thiel goes over these matters, including going over eleven similarities the two major party candidates share and some of what the Bible teaches about evil.

Here is a link to our sermonette video: Biden, Trump, and the Bible.

Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump have also taken steps consistent with my published warnings about them in my respective books (Biden-Harris: Prophecies and Destruction and Donald Trump and America’s Apocalypse).

Furthermore, the USA is becoming more and more divided. As Jesus said:

25 Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. (Matthew 12:25)

17 Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and a house divided against a house falls. (Luke 11:17)

The divide in the USA is growing as many of its sins (including hypocrisy) become more blatant.

As far as the fall of the USA goes, a reader sent me a link to the following:

Will America Make It Until November 5, 2024?

November 6, 2023

This past weekend, America hit an important, although a bit overlooked, milestone. As of Sunday, we are exactly 366 days until the 2024 presidential election. ..

A question I, and I believe so many other Americans, have begun to ponder also popped back into my head. So I am going to ask it out loud. Can America make it to November 5, 2024? …

While it might sound a bit melodramatic, I can’t help but think that so many Americans are feeling the same way. For the first time in their lives, they are truly frightened for the future of our country. Not because of any one thing specifically, but the entire toxic stew that seems to be bubbling up, and no one in any position of authority is competent enough, or even seems to care enough, to handle it. …

But the one thing that chills me to the bone is the byproduct of this potential World War III scenario — the virulent, unrelenting, and pathological antisemitism that has reared its head in a nation founded as the refuge for freedom and liberty for anyone seeking it in the world. It is an ugliness that many Americans, including myself, would have never thought we would see anywhere else in the world ever again, much less in America. Add in the fact that Iran, already funding Hamas, has threatened to become even more involved in the powder keg that is the Middle East, as have other nations. …

But the collective threats America now faces could easily erupt into utter unmanageability well before the 2024 election, and we would have few options as to how to proceed. This game of beat-the-clock is a scary proposition, but if little old me is thinking about it, others surely are, too. https://redstate.com/beckynoble/2023/11/06/will-america-make-it-until-november-5-2024-n2165961

While the USA will make it past 2024, yes many in the USA are uneasy.

And yes, many are uneasy about a Joe Biden or Donald Trump re-election.

But WWIII is not about to begin–that is at least 3 1/2 years away (cf. Daniel 9:27, see also The ‘Peace Deal’ of Daniel 9:27) –but it is getting closer.

As far as how long the USA may last, the Continuing Church of God (CCOG) put out the following video on our Bible News Prophecy YouTube channel:

34:10

Is the USA prophesied to be destroyed by 2028?

Are there prophetic reasons to believe that the USA will not last two complete presidential terms? Yes. There is a tradition attributed to the Hebrew prophet Elijah that humanity had 6,000 years to live before being replaced by God’s Kingdom. There are scriptures, writings in the Talmud, early Christian teachings that support this. Also, even certain Hindu writings support it.

Here is a summary of ten items to consider: 1. If as the School of Elijah taught, that God inspired Elijah to state that the world as we have known it would last 6,000 years, to be followed by a thousand year sabbatical time, which Jewish tradition (Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin [97a]) and early Christian traditions records (e.g. Irenaeus, a hearer of Polycarp. Adversus haereses, Book V, Chapter 30:4), then we are getting close to the end of that time.

2. And if, consistent with scriptures in both the Old and New Testaments, we can apply the concept that a thousand years is as a day to God (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8).

3. And if, as generally understood in the Church of God that Jesus was killed and resurrected no later than the Spring of 31 A.D. on Passover.

4. And if we can presume that the “last days” of a 7,000 year prophetic week began AFTER the middle day (day 4), then the last days prior to the “sabbatical” time, which some would refer to as the millennial Kingdom of God would last two thousand years.

5. And if when Peter referred to being in the last days (Acts 2:17-18) and since Hebrews 1:1-12 teaches that “God … has in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”

6. Then adding 2,000 years to a period of time leads to the end of the 6,000 years no later than 2031 (and it could be earlier than that).

7. Since the Great Tribulation is expected to start 3 1/2 years prior to that (cf. Revelation 12:14; 13:5) subtracting 3 1/2 years from the Spring of 2031 would be late in 2027.

8. Understand that the U.S.A. is prophesied to be taken over near the rise of the Beast and start of the Great Tribulation (cf. Daniel 11:39; Jeremiah 30:7; Matthew 24:21-22).

9. Therefore, since the end of two full U.S.A. presidential terms would end in January of 2029, these prophetic understandings point to the end of the U.S.A. prior to two full presidential terms.

10. This is also consistent with certain Hindu and Roman Catholic prophetic writings as well. This video gives more details and quotes which point to the destruction of the United States of America by 2028.

Here is a link to the video: Is the USA prophesied to be destroyed by 2028?

That said, some see hope in Joe Biden and others in Donald Trump. I do not (though one could be better for the economy than the other).

Voting for Donald Trump or voting in Republicans will not stop the decline of the USA.

Voting for Joe Biden or voting in Democrats will not stop the decline of the USA.

The Bible warns:

20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil (Isaiah 5:20).

I am NOT a voter nor a Democrat nor a Republican –I am a non-partisan Christian looking for the return of Jesus and the establishment of the Kingdom of God.

Notice two translations of Psalm 146:3:

Don’t put your confidence in powerful people; there is no help for you there. (New Living Translation)

Do not put your trust in princes, Nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help. (NKJV)

The Book of Psalms also teaches:

8 It is better to trust in the Lord Than to put confidence in man. 9 It is better to trust in the Lord Than to put confidence in princes.  (Psalms 118:8-9)

From a Christian perspective, consider that neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden advocate national repentance nor the kingdom of God.

So, what should a Christian do?

Well, one thing is to pray:

1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

9 In this manner, therefore, pray:

Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.  (Matthew 6:9-10)

Understand that neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump will change what will happen to the USA without national repentance.

The USA needs the return of Jesus and the coming Kingdom of God.

The Feast of Tabernacles, which was observed last month, is a foretaste of the Kingdom of God. One in which:

15 … “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!” (Revelation 11:15)

So, yes, there is good news, despite what goes on with the governments of this age. Related Items:

USA in Prophecy: The Strongest Fortresses Can you point to scriptures, like Daniel 11:39, that point to the USA in the 21st century? This article does. Two related sermon are available: Identifying the USA and its Destruction in Prophecy and Do these 7 prophesies point to the end of the USA?

Who is the King of the West? Why is there no Final End-Time King of the West in Bible Prophecy? Is the United States the King of the West? Here is a version in the Spanish language: ¿Quién es el Rey del Occidente? ¿Por qué no hay un Rey del Occidente en la profecía del tiempo del fin? A related sermon is also available: The Bible, the USA, and the King of the West.

Christian Repentance Do you know what repentance is? Is it really necessary for salvation? Two related sermons about this are also available: Real Repentance and Real Christian Repentance.

Is God Calling You? This booklet discusses topics including calling, election, and selection. If God is calling you, how will you respond? Here is are links to related sermons: Christian Election: Is God Calling YOU? and Predestination and Your Selection. A short animation is also available: Is God Calling You?

Might the U.S.A. Be Gone by 2028? Are there prophetic reasons to believe that the USA will not last two complete presidential terms? Yes. There is a tradition attributed to the Hebrew prophet Elijah that humanity had 6,000 years to live before being replaced by God’s Kingdom. There are scriptures, writings in the Talmud, early Christian teachings that support this. Also, even certain Hindu writings support it. Here is a link to a related video: Is the USA prophesied to be destroyed by 2028? In Spanish: Seran los Estados Unidos Destruidos en el 2028?

Donald Trump and America’s Apocalypse This 188 page book is for people truly interested in prophecies related to Donald Trump and the United States, including learning about several that have already been fulfilled and those that will be fulfilled in the future. The physical book can be purchased at Amazon for $12.99 from the following link: Donald Trump and America’s Apocalypse.

Donald Trump and America’s Apocalypse-Kindle Edition This electronic version of the 188 page print edition is available for only US$3.99. And you do not need an actual Kindle device to read it. Why? Amazon will allow you to download it to almost any device: Please click HERE to download one of Amazon s Free Reader Apps. After you go to for your free Kindle reader and then go to Donald Trump and America’s Apocalypse-Kindle Edition.

Biden-Harris: Prophecies and Destruction Can the USA survive two full presidential terms? In what ways are Joe Biden and Kamala Harris apocalyptic? This book has hundreds of prophecies and scriptures to provide details. A Kindle version is also available and you do not need an actual Kindle device to read it. Why? Amazon will allow you to download it to almost any device: Please click HERE to download one of Amazon s Free Reader Apps. After you go to your free Kindle reader app (or if you already have one or a Kindle), you can go to: Biden-Harris: Prophecies and Destruction (Kindle) to get the book in seconds.

The Gospel of the Kingdom of God This free online pdf booklet has answers many questions people have about the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and explains why it is the solution to the issues the world is facing. It is available in hundreds of languages at ccog.org. Here are links to four kingdom-related sermons:  The Fantastic Gospel of the Kingdom of God!, The World’s False Gospel, The Gospel of the Kingdom: From the New and Old Testaments, and The Kingdom of God is the Solution.

LATEST NEWS REPORTS

LATEST BIBLE PROPHECY INTERVIEWS

[f1]

Wolff: F1 had two cars fighting when Mercedes dominated unlike now | 2023 Belgian Grand Prix

Mercedes’ spell of dominance in Formula 1 brought more to the sport because there was a close competition between its drivers, team principal Toto Wolff has claimed. His team’s drivers won every championship from 2014 to 2020. All bar one of those titles was taken by Lewis Hamilton, but the 2014 and 2016 contests were decided in final-race showdowns between him and team mate Nico Rosberg. At the halfway point this season, Max Verstappen has won all bar two of the 11 grands prix and leads the championship with 281 points to team mate Sergio Perez’s 171. Red Bull have more than twice as many points as their closest rival. While Mercedes regularly won the constructors championship by huge margins in the mid-2010s, Wolff said the contest between their drivers made those seasons more entertaining than today. Hamilton and Rosberg fought each other hard at Mercedes “I don’t know whether our dominance was similar or less [than Red Bull’s],” he told media including RaceFans yesterday. “I think we had years where we did it in the same way. “But at least we had two cars that were fighting each other so that caused a little bit of entertainment for everyone. And that’s not the case at the moment.” Mercedes is the only team besides Red Bull to have won a race in the last 12 months. However following George Russell’s victory at Interlagos in the penultimate race of last season, Mercedes dropped far back from their rivals during the winter. Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free Wolff admitted the scale of Red Bull’s margin over the competition had taken them by surprise. “I often say that it’s a meritocracy and it’s up to us to fight back. Did we expect that gap? Certainly not. Poll: Rate the 2023 Belgian Grand Prix sprint race “I think with the last step of upgrade it seem they have another advantage that they were able to exploit. But again it always gets me back to the point of we’ve just got to dig in and and do the best possible job.” Red Bull scored their 12th consecutive grand prix victory in Hungary last week. That broke the record set by McLaren in 1988, when the team had its famed all-star line-up of Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost. Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said Verstappen, who is on course to win his third world championship this year, deserves to be regarded on the same level as that pair. “It’s so difficult to compare drivers from different generations but Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost, both legends of the sport and I think Max is rapidly joining that group.” However pairing two drivers of that calibre brings challenges, said Horner, noting Senna and Prost “got pretty sparky between the two of them” before the latter left McLaren the following year. “Two alphas is always a difficult one to manage,” he added. Bringing the F1 news from the source RaceFans strives to bring its readers news directly from the key players in Formula 1. We are able to do this thanks in part to the generous backing of our RaceFans Supporters. By contributing £1 per month or £12 per year (or the equivalent in other currencies) you can help cover the costs involved in producing original journalism: Travelling, writing, creating, hosting, contacting and developing. We have been proudly supported by our readers for over 10 years. If you enjoy our independent coverage, please consider becoming a RaceFans Supporter today. As a bonus, all our Supporters can also browse the site ad-free. Sign up or find out more via the links below: Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free 2023 Belgian Grand Prix Browse all 2023 Belgian Grand Prix articles via RaceFans - Independent Motorsport Coverage https://www.racefans.net/

[newstodayjournal]

Denmark’s Jonas Vingegaard Nears Victory in the Tour de France

Jonas Vingegaard fired off a blistering ride on a hilly time trial in the Tour de France on Tuesday, winning the stage and seizing control of the race with less than a week until its finish in Paris. His time over the 14 miles was a yawning 1 minute 38 seconds better than that of his rival, Tadej Pogacar, and that lengthened his 10-second overall lead to 1:48, potentially a decisive margin. For…

[leagueofleaguesff]

CARLA🔪OLIVER

Kung Suh Panda knock off Til Shiloh to remain undefeated, 127.82-122.64

👀 This was super close 👌 throughout the entire matchup❗

Kung Suh Panda won their third consecutive game to open the season with a hard-fought win over Til Shiloh, earning a 127.82-122.64 victory. Kung Suh Panda never trailed in this one after grabbing a 6.40-point lead on Thursday behind Nick Chubb (18.1 points).

The Baltimore Ravens defense (26 Pts Allowed, 447 Yds Allowed, 4 Turnovers) and Carson Wentz (211 Pass Yds, 22 Rush Yds) did their part for Til Shiloh in the loss. Kung Suh Panda (3-0) will look to keep it rolling against Forged by the Sea, while Til Shiloh (1-2) will face off against Steve’s Babysitters Club in an effort to get back in the win column.

Matchup Highlights

Sunday Early

Carson Wentz had a 45-yard pass for Til Shiloh, while Jaylen Waddle had a 45-yard catch for the team, who trailed 112.32-111.14 after the early games.

Matchup Player of the Week

Lamar Jackson

Jackson (218 Pass Yds, 4 Pass TDs, 107 Rush Yds, 1 Rush TD) scored 59.82 points in a 37-26 win over the Patriots in Week 3. He scored 40.1% more than his 42.71-point projection and overachieved for the third time this season. Jackson ranks #1 among all fantasy players this season and will face the Bills next week.

StatSmack

This wasn't even their best effort. Kung Suh Panda scored less in this one (127.82) than their season average of 165.02.

Kung Suh Panda are on fire, winning three in a row.

We heard scoring helps you win. Til Shiloh need some help then, averaging just 140.03 versus Kung Suh Panda's 165.02.

"Winning isn't everything" was probably said by someone who lost. Kung Suh Panda (3-0) have a better record than Til Shiloh (1-2). Kung Suh Panda don't let their opponents come within striking distance. They've got more blowout wins this season than Til Shiloh (2 vs 1).

Kung Suh Panda should change their team name to "The Overachievers" since they have beat their projection in more weeks than Til Shiloh (2 vs 1).

Kung Suh Panda have started more fantasy players who beat their projected score than Til Shiloh (13 vs 10).

Til Shiloh have worked hard with little to show for it, making more transactions (2) than Kung Suh Panda (0) this week and still losing the matchup.

By position, Kung Suh Panda have outscored Til Shiloh at QB, RB, and TE this season.

Kung Suh Panda don’t just win, they win BIG, with an average margin of victory of 47 points, highest in the league.

There's not much good to say about Til Shiloh this week. Maybe they'll get their act together, and we'll see something different next week!

Next Week Preview

Til Shiloh

On the docket for Week 4, ninth-place Til Shiloh (1-2) will try to get back in the win column against third-place Steve’s Babysitters Club (2-1). With three weeks in the books, Til Shiloh are ranked seventh in points scored (140.03 points per game), while Steve’s Babysitters Club have recorded the third-highest point total in Stranger Things Have Happened league.

Kung Suh Panda

In a matchup that features a pair of teams that are separated by just a single game in the standings, Kung Suh Panda (3-0) face Forged by the Sea (2-1) in Week 4. With three weeks of action now in the rear-view mirror, Kung Suh Panda have scored the second-most points in the league while Forged by the Sea (138.54 PPG) are ranked eighth.

💪 Carla is in 2nd place and is UNDEFEATED 💪

[youjustwaitsunshine]

Sebastian Vettel talks about Formula 1’s reaction to climate change, the bookkeeping on his own CO2 consumption and the accusation of hypocrisy. (26.12.2021, FAZ (original))

Interviewer: You’re one of the winners of this year!

SV: Yes, I’m healthy, I’m doing very well, I can do what I enjoy, all in all I can count myself as one of the big winners.

I was talking less about 12th place with Aston Martin in the final driver’s ranking ahead of your teammate than about your Election victory. You voted for the Green Party, who now provide the vice Chancellor and the foreign minister.

Oh, I understand. My part in it was rather marginal. One vote. Sadly not everyone voted. It’s not a dream result. But I feel like this result is a great chance to accept the challenge. I believe this could move us forward. In the next two years we will see how much of what was promised to us voters is just talk and how much will be implemented. I’m very curious.

A year ago, we talked about the development in Formula 1, about the need to be “part of the solution and not part of the problem” in times of climate change, as the team bosses put it. What did change and is it quick enough?

Not quick enough. We’re still in the same situation. The rules are fixed up until, and including 2025, the engine regulations won’t be changed. For the fuel we’ll stay with fossil fuels for now. There will only be a 10% percentage of biofuels or ethanol, this is neither sufficient nor up to date. I’ll stand by my criticism. We have all possibilities, we have the money, the resources, we can do many sensible things with that. I can understand that there’s resistance. Those who invest a lot of money in a team may see quick change as a defeat. But it would be a victory over the own ego.

Does the business model of Formula 1, that’s also funded by the world tour, allow this quick change?

It’s hard to give an honest, coherent answer to this. In Germany, the criticism of the absence of reactions to climate change will gain traction. And that’s right. At the same time, Formula 1 is growing. It’s racing in countries that didn’t belong to the calendar before, it broadens the interest in racing (23 in 2022/editor’s note) also in countries with no Grands Prix. I don’t want to evaluate the standing of the nations in the climate question. The problems aren’t perceived as important in every society as for example in Germany. But that will change. And that’s why it’s foreseeable that Formula 1 is getting more and more under pressure.

How do you recognize that?

Look at where we’re racing and where it’s getting harder and harder for Formula One Management, to find an organizer. In Germany, there’s no grants for a race, so there’s no appearance. 30 million Dollars just like that from the state, how some countries handle it, won’t be in the cards. Politicians see more important things. At the moment, state sponsorships seem unthinkable. But if Formula 1 could offer remedies, technology that helps against the consequences of climate change, then there’d be arguments again. It has the Potential for it. If it were further, one would be more open to a race in Germany again. But right now sadly the main question is if this is still up to date.

Are you a role model?

It’s not about me, it’s about the cause. That has to be the center of attention. Or it doesn’t feel right. I don’t want to convert anyone. Who am I to decide what’s right or wrong? I do things out of conviction. When I collect litter, I do it because I want it to not stay on the ground. It’s always good to speak up about important topics. But it wouldn’t work for me if I didn’t stand behind it and if I didn’t follow up on my words with actions. It’s all nice and well if I say we should throw our trash in the bin, we need to look after the environment, ride the bike more. For me it’s important that the people understand why I am doing this.

You intensely acquainted yourself with the topic?

In my sport I learned to intensively work on problems. I always want to know what’s behind something to understand the connections. Precisely: What happens with the collected trash from the grandstands once it’s in the bag? Where does it go? I find that very fascinating. I read a lot in a short time and talked to many people. I think I learned a lot.

Give an example.

Let’s take the topic of certificates. There was a project for which you pay roundabout 30 Dollars per ton of your own carbon emissions so that there can be trees planted somewhere. It’s better than doing nothing. But that wasn’t enough information for me. I met with specialists and quickly understood that the topic is more complex. Where do the trees get planted, how is the soil there, do they fit there, who’s taking care of them. How realistic is the chance that the upbringing succeeds? Now I pay about 1000 Dollars per ton, 30 times the amount, but still see myself at the beginning of the topic. Because I also learned that that the primary objective must be protecting the already existing forests, the natural forests. Germany has almost no pristine forests left, strictly viewed it’s plantations with 70 percent coniferous trees. I could talk about this topic for an hour.

…and act as an ambassador…

…that’s why I’m getting back on the topic of role models: I can’t know everything. If someone bombarded me with questions, I’d get to my limits and wouldn’t be of use as a role model, because I don’t have enough knowledge. That role feels wrong. The best role model you can be is in my opinion by your own actions. You have to live your own mindset or you become a hypocrite. I don’t want to hold nice speeches to seem noble.

Do you understand the criticism of readers who answered after last year’s interview, calling you a hypocrite for acting green?

Yes, and it’s true to some degree. We don’t have to talk around it. I drive fast cars for fun, those burn fuel, fossil fuels, which I am not positive about. Still I drive a car. Taking part in Formula 1 also means flying around the world. At the same time, my heart is in it. Because of that I think it would be wrong to give up Formula 1. Instead I try to make an effect, to make change both on a big and small scale.

What do you do?

It goes from the documentation of my travel calendar, going by bike instead of by car, the train instead of the plane if it works in any way, up to the demand to Formula 1 to react quicker. I write down everything concerning my carbon footprint, every travel, every flight, every car drive, every kilometer. I pay attention to my electricity provider at home, the connections between energy consumption and nutrition and so on. Since I started doing it consciously, since I pull that number up before my eyes, it influences my decisions.

Don’t you influence others with it?

I understand that I might have more range. But I don’t want to start a campaign, everyone should decide for themselves. I like putting attention on that topic when I’m asked. And when someone listens, I think that’s great. I was overwhelmed with the resonance of the two, three little things we did. A little girl from Holland wrote to me that she always wants to collect trash when she sees something while out walking. Wonderful. But the little ones already know. I visited a few schools, I don’t have to tell the kids anything. My generation and the older ones have more difficulties opening themselves up, that’s my perception. Questioning the status quo is joined with fears, with worrying about losing something. But change can also mean benefits.

What do your experiences mean for your future?

When I have more time one day I can imagine investing more, getting deeper into it.

Are you discovering the world right now?

It feels like it. I’m fascinated to track the connections. Sometimes I have the feeling there’s not enough time in one day to take everything in that interests me. I’m curious, and I’m easy to get into things. If about a beekeeper and his story about the bees or an expert explaining the meaning of the forest to me. I want to know how the world is changing, which consequences we can face, what it means for the future of humanity. The conscience developed with that also changes my perception.

How?

I haven’t been driving for so long (on the road/editor’s note), 16, 17 years. But back then, at some times of year, we had way more insects on the windshield when driving over the motorway. Now I notice that it’s gotten much less. ‘Why? Right! Aha’, that I notice it myself, the difference, the change, I find that crazy.

You sold some of your classic race cars. Is that a signal to pull back?

I am a car afictionado, as you can assume. Those are works of art to me. But when you can’t enjoy the biggest joy from these works of art, the driving, then you have to live with that change and recognize the good in it. I am lucky that in my job at the racetrack I can do what I love. Aside from that, I have no desire to race. I already have a hunch and many ideas what I want to do one day. But where it leads I don’t know yet, that will show itself. First there’s the next season.

[mariacallous]

There is a widespread sense that today’s autocracies differ from previous dictatorships in that rulers ruthlessly concentrate power but do not officially abolish institutions such as parliaments. Nor do they actually disavow democracy, for that matter. Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman’s Spin Dictators substantiates this intuition with data. Guriev and Treisman, social scientists who specialize in Russia, distinguish between “fear dictatorships,” a more traditional model relying on terror to enforce ideological conformity, and “spin dictatorships,” a newer kind that refrain from widespread repression but that ensure a change of power is nearly impossible.

Traditional autocracy has not vanished, and Guriev and Treisman concede that its most important example—China—has just “digitized the old fear-based model.” But a trend has emerged: Based on their empirical model, the authors find that fear dictatorships decreased from 60 percent of the total cohort of autocratic leaders in the 1970s to less than 10 percent in the period since 2000; meanwhile, the proportion of spin dictatorships increased from 13 to 53 percent.

Spin dictators focus on keeping people docile or distracted, often through sophisticated public relations, but they do not demand constant loyalty. Election victories with 99 percent of the vote provoke anger; spin dictators ensure the triumph is overwhelming but not obviously proof of fraud while still demoralizing the opposition. Guriev and Treisman write that the pioneer of this new form of authoritarianism was Singapore, where Lee Kuan Yew, who served as prime minister from 1959 to 1990, kept up a facade of democracy through regular elections. Rather than arresting opposition figures for dissenting, he would have them sued for libel—bankrupting them—and then benefit from a law barring bankrupt citizens from seeking office.

If traditional autocrats relied on the illusion of consent, today’s autocrats wish to create consent to the construction of illusions—whether about the persistence of real democracy, the leader’s infinite competence, or making the country great again. Guriev and Treisman write that many of these leaders start from a position of genuine popularity—Russian President Vladimir Putin is an example—and then slowly transform institutions such that they cannot lose power if circumstances change. This new autocratic playbook is easily copied across borders, the authors argue, not least because there is no unifying ideology. (Lee Kuan Yew, for instance, called himself a pragmatist.)

Guriev and Treisman marshal a wealth of empirical evidence to back up their argument, with each chapter detailing different mechanisms for how 21st-century dictators preserve power without obviously looking like tyrants. The authors show that today’s authoritarians are less violent than their 20th-century predecessors, including a significantly decreased propensity to start wars. There is one exception. Guriev and Treisman observe that Putin initiated far more military disputes than any other spin dictator: 21 at the time of the book’s writing and now 22 with his invasion of Ukraine.

Putin’s conduct during the war in Ukraine complicates other aspects of Guriev and Treisman’s account of the new authoritarianism. This spring, the Russian leader shuttered the last remaining—though already marginalized—independent news outlets in Russia and is working to make society conform to his ideological outlook. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan undertook a similar descent from simulated democracy toward outright repression in Turkey after the 2016 coup attempt against his government. It seems that when circumstances change and when the international context permits, today’s autocrats are ready to fall back on fear.

The Erdogan government’s current attempt to prevent the popular mayor of Istanbul from running in next year’s presidential election on a laughable legal pretext is closer to the Guriev-Treisman model, showing that repressive tactics can coexist with seemingly softer ones. And no matter the character of their regimes, today’s autocrats rely on an underrated factor for political survival: Whereas in the 20th century many borders were closed, discontents can now simply leave. It will presumably help Putin that hundreds of thousands of highly educated Russians left the country after the invasion.

That spin can give way to fear is not a decisive argument against Guriev and Treisman’s thesis. Drawing on a large range of cases, they capture something important about early 21st-century politics: Contrary to a view popular among liberal democrats since the fall of the Soviet Union, autocracies are not automatically self-undermining; autocrats can innovate and learn new governing techniques. Yet that some dictators revert to fear casts some doubt on the authors’ claim that a “modernization cocktail” of advances in the economy and especially in education will ultimately be a deadly mix for autocracy. Such leaders are clearly not invincible, but Spin Dictators makes us wonder if authoritarians will not just keep innovating in order to neutralize the apparent political consequences of modernization.

Gideon Rachman’s journalistic The Age of the Strongman nicely complements Guriev and Treisman’s social science-driven account. As the title suggests, Rachman, a columnist at the Financial Times, holds that the world has entered a new era. Putin provided the archetype for the strongman, and Xi Jinping’s elevation to head of the Chinese Communist Party in 2012 confirmed the trend. Importantly, the model originated outside the West, and it is not confined to authoritarian regimes: Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are also instances of strongman politics, Rachman writes.

Placing a bumbling member of the British establishment and murderous Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the same category will raise eyebrows, but Rachman insists on a continuum. Present-day leaders’ strategies to undermine independent institutions, particularly the judiciary and free press, are all too similar, he argues. So is the accompanying rhetoric: Johnson whipping up suspicion of the “people who really run the country” is not that different from Erdogan’s attacks on the “deep state.” (Since the book’s publication, Johnson has announced his intent to step down as prime minister pending a party leadership election.)

Although Johnson may not look like a strongman, he was able to get away with so much precisely because the United Kingdom relies on what the historian Peter Hennessy calls the “good chap” model of governance, which cannot cope with gentlemen who look like good chaps but are in fact political rogues. Despite plenty of measures taken from the authoritarian playbook—such as fiddling with the U.K. Electoral Commission—for years Johnson received the benefit of the doubt from politicians, journalists, and citizens in part because of the charming persona he has crafted and in part because people can’t imagine that one of the world’s oldest democracies could drift toward autocracy.

It helps his account that Rachman has had access to many of the figures he describes, through formal interviews or even on social occasions: He describes a wedding some years ago at which Johnson, a fellow guest, cheerfully admitted that his anti-European Union newspaper columns shouldn’t be taken seriously. Of course, not all such information can be verified. Rachman writes that autocratic Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban called his great ally, Polish leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski, a “madman” after spending a day together in 2016—a remark that would confirm the widespread assessment of Kaczynski as a nationalist Catholic fanatic in contrast to the opportunistic Orban. Then again, that’s just something one of Orban’s friends told Rachman.

Rachman inserts some liberal self-criticism into his gallery of strongmen, highlighting the “West’s urge to find new liberal heroes.” Figures such as Erdogan and Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed were once feted as great reformers; Rachman points to how politicians willing to let audiences hear the right buzzwords about globalization, diversity, and good governance generate excited chatter. To his credit, the journalist owns up to his own gullibility on this front, citing his own Times columns for misjudgments of figures such as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But is there a darker story—about Western elites shoring up their legitimacy with international converts while turning a blind eye to their abuses? Rachman does not quite say.

German playwright Bertolt Brecht famously wrote, “Unhappy the land that needs heroes.” But woe also to countries in which political analysis has been reduced to guesswork about the mind of a single person. Is there a pattern to explain their rise? Rachman goes through a familiar list, starting with the losers of globalization, but it’s doubtful how much one can generalize about this. Strongmen may look similar in different countries, but it does not follow that the causes of their success must be identical. In fact, Rachman’s own analyses of national contexts show that strongmen’s career paths are much more specific than glib pronouncements about a global wave of populism would suggest.

Rachman does identify one particularly pernicious strategy that strongmen have used in large multiethnic democracies such as the United States: the fear that the “real people”—a euphemism for the white majority—are being replaced by threatening “others.” And so the logic goes, only a strong leader can protect citizens from being “replaced.” Although today’s aspiring autocrats might not use most of the repertoire of 20th-century fear dictators, stoking panic can still work for them.

Great replacement theory—shorthand for the conspiracy theory that conjures up enemies of the nation who seek to substitute “others” for the “real people”—has become central to far-right rhetoric in many countries. That makes carefully framing any discussion of demographics all the more important. In his new book, titled The Great Experiment, the prominent political scientist Yascha Mounk echoes former U.S. President Barack Obama in labeling multiethnic democracy an “experiment,” phrasing that suggests someone is pulling the strings in the first place. In any case, Mounk is very worried that the experiment might go wrong. He suggests that humans are tribal by nature—or, as he puts it, “groupish.” Diverse countries might end up with anarchy, brutal domination by one group, or an uneasy modus vivendi, where power is divided among factions, the author argues.

Mounk offers three ways to counter these dangers: a rather vague set of policies; an attractive metaphor to imagine a diverse yet harmonious polity; and platitudinous appeals for optimism, in contrast to the “fashionable pessimism” that he argues pervades both the right and the left. Mounk situates himself elegantly between ethnonationalist strongmen and various leftist strawmen. The far-right thinks the great experiment will fail because minorities cannot fully integrate, he argues, while unnamed “academic and activist circles” on the left despair that democracies can’t end structural racism. Hence, amid this never-ending conflict, the progressives allegedly instruct people to “double down on their identities.”

This is the kind of false equivalence that gives centrism a bad name: Whipped-up hatred against ethnic and religious minorities is a real threat in some of the world’s largest democracies, while the supposedly pessimistic left remains in a marginal position in the United States and has little political support in the other countries that feature in Mounk’s volume. Instead of studied equidistance from supposed extremes, it would have helped if the author had elaborated on the image he suggests to replace the melting pot and salad bowl clichés: an open public park that allows people to encounter each other but also to do their own thing. It’s a good metaphor, but it remains unclear what the park would really mean for policy.

Mounk offers a laundry list of things he likes, from ranked-choice voting to strengthening the welfare state. But The Great Experiment does not address hard questions: Should religious minorities get exemptions from co-ed education? Would that undermine the civic patriotism that Mounk also advocates? Do institutions such as universities issuing statements on diversity constitute an illegitimate “doubling down on identity,” or can they be justified in the name of shared universal ideals?

Mounk’s book is short on real research and reporting; much space is instead given over to the self-conscious centrism that is in danger of legitimizing an anti-democratic right. Why would an author who describes himself as center-left call for “sensible precautions that curb voter fraud” when it has been shown there is no such thing? Or take Mounk’s argument that the European Union should return decision-making power, “especially in the social and cultural realm, to the national level”—never mind that the EU has no real competence in these areas. Under traditional political circumstances, conceding something to both sides might be reasonable, but when one side systematically promotes falsehoods, such a stance amounts to a failure of political judgment.

The one genuine insight that can be taken away from the book is that demography is not destiny. Here, Mounk’s otherwise mechanical “bothsidesism” has some justification: Plenty of Democrats believe the future is theirs because of minorities’ growing vote share, while Republicans double down on voter suppression based on the same predictions. Both underestimate that identities are fluid and that parties have plenty of leeway in deciding whose interests to appeal to. Mounk is right that both sides should get rid of what he calls the “most dangerous idea in American politics”—but in the end that’s slim pickings for an author who calls himself “one of the world’s leading experts on the crisis of liberal democracy.”

The world may be approaching a new cold war, but unlike the leaders of the Soviet Union and China in the 20th century, today’s autocrats do not offer an ideology aimed at global appeal. In fact, they have no new political idea at all—to justify themselves, they often invoke democracy. What’s new is their ability to refine their governing techniques and to exploit the West’s tendency to put profit above political principles. Putin’s system crucially relied on legal loopholes and the cooperation of Western bankers, lawyers, and real estate agents with Russian oligarchs. Spin dictatorships have also benefited from the willingness of former Western leaders to certify them as real democracies.

However, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine may lead to a moment of reckoning for the West and a reassessment of how to treat its adversaries. Guriev and Treisman’s indispensable book, and to some extent Rachman’s, can help the West understand just what it is dealing with.