#the narrative shift from the last election they had

[beardedmrbean]

The video begins with loud bangs on a door that leads to a dimly lit stairwell.

“They are entering my home arbitrarily. They are destroying the door,” a woman can be heard crying.

It is the voice of María Oropeza, a campaign co-ordinator for opposition coalition Vente Venezuela, who is live streaming her detention on Instagram.

The bangs increase in intensity as she tells her followers that she has done nothing wrong: “I am not a criminal.”

Officials from Venezuela’s military counterintelligence agency then burst through her door and the video cuts to black.

Ms Oropeza is the latest opposition figure who has been detained following the announcement in the early hours of 29 July of Venezuela’s disputed presidential election result.

In the days since, members of the security forces have seized Freddy Superlano and Roland Carreño – both of whom worked for the opposition party Popular Will – and Ricardo Estévez, a technical adviser for the same opposition movement as Ms Oropeza.

Targeted arrests

Amnesty International told the BBC they had “well-founded reasons to believe [the detained people's] lives and integrity are at risk”.

The pressure group says that they have been seeing a new pattern of more targeted arrests by the Venezuelan authorities since the election.

Many of those detained have reportedly not been told why they were being arrested.

In the live stream of Ms Oropeza’s detention, she can be heard asking those banging on her door if they have a search warrant. She receives no answer.

Tension has been high since Venezuela’s National Electoral Council declared President Nicolás Maduro the winner of the election - a declaration that was immediately dismissed by the opposition, which said it had proof that it, not the government had won. Mass anti-government protests quickly followed.

President Maduro accused the opposition of instigating a “coup” and announced plans to build two new maximum-security prisons to house protesters it accuses of being “criminal fascists”.

The government says more than 2,000 people have been detained, some of which it accuses of “terrorism”.

Clara del Campo, Amnesty International’s Americas senior campaigner, said the arbitrary detentions had followed a “two-pronged trend”.

“On the one hand, they have been massive and indiscriminate when it comes to protesters who took to the streets to support the opposition’s claim to election victory and, on the other, targeted and selected towards human rights defenders and opposition members,” she explained.

According to Ms del Campo, the mass detention of protesters is aimed at punishing and dissuading people from publicly expressing dissent.It is an observation echoed by Venezuelan human rights NGO Foro Penal, which told BBC Mundo that it had witnessed an unprecedented “escalation of repression”.

Foro Penal has received reports of people who had their phones checked arbitrarily while they were walking down the street, with the security officials stopping them citing social media posts or messages as the reason for their subsequent arrest.

The NGO told the BBC that people arrested in this manner have typically been held in detention centres without access to independent lawyers.

These detentions have led to a culture of fear, with some people now worried about sharing information on social media, attending protests, or even raising the alarm about people who have been seized for fear of punishment.

President Maduro himself has spoken of a strategy he called “Operation Tun Tun” (Operation Knock Knock).

Rights groups say it consists of the authorities going door-to-door to detain those with links to the protests or the opposition.

More than 2,000 have been detained since the election, according to government figures. Amnesty International says that among them are more than 100 children aged between 13 and 17 and at least six people with disabilities.

Ms Del Campo said those detained were “largely accused of ‘terrorism’ and related crimes, denied legal defence, remain disappeared and incommunicado, and are at high risk of ill treatment”.

She also said that human rights defenders and members of the opposition had been specifically targeted so as to “curtail political participation and the protection of rights”.

One of them is Kennedy Tejeda - a young pro-bono human rights lawyer with Foro Penal - who was arrested as he was trying to assist other people detained for protesting.

As well as implementing its “Operation Knock Knock”, the authorities have also targeted activists and opposition members in other ways.

The BBC has been told about dozens of people, including journalists and activists, whose passports have been revoked.

Edni López, a university professor and humanitarian worker who assisted many NGOs in Venezuela, was detained on the morning of 4 August at the international airport in the capital, Caracas.

She was planning to board a flight to Colombia from where she was going to fly to Argentina for a holiday with friends.

She last contacted her friends and boyfriend from the airport. In Whatsapp messages seen by the BBC, she told them that the migration authorities claimed her passport was “expired”, despite it being in date. They then lost contact with Ms López.

The airport later informed them she did not board her Avianca airlines flight.

A close friend of hers told the BBC that Ms López’s case was not unique: “Many people with no ties to any political cause have stated that their passports have been cancelled as well.”

The friend, who asked to remain unnamed, said that there were apparently “no clear criteria” for deciding whose passports were void and called the detentions “unconstitutional”.

'Give me back my daughter'

The BBC has approached the Venezuelan government and Avianca for comment. Avianca said it could not comment on specific passenger cases unless ordered to by an authority, but added the airline only allowed passengers who in addition to meeting travel requirements had been approved by the country’s authorities beforehand.

We have not yet received a reply from the government.

Talking to reporters, Edni López’s mother made a plea to the country’s authorities: “Give me back my daughter, it’s not fair that a Venezuelan mother has to go through this.”

She also said that her daughter had a health condition that required daily medication.

After two days in which they visited several detention centres, her family finally learned that she was being held at one of them and told she would be taken to court in the city of La Guaira.

They have so far received no information about the charges being brought against her.

Her friend described the situation as “overwhelming”. “We don’t know the conditions of her captivity.”

Another person close to Ms López told the BBC: “The only reason we think this measure was taken is because she works in the humanitarian sector and because she is a university professor.”

The friend added that they had heard that the charges against Ms López were of a political nature.

“I can attest and testify that Edni has not participated in any political event, much less that she has issued or made a political publication on any [social] network or platform,” the friend insisted.

Ms López is not the only person to be detained at the airport.

A day earlier, prominent LGBT activist Yendri Omar Velásquez was also seized at the same airport as he was trying to leave Venezuela to report human rights violations to the United Nations.

He was told his passport was cancelled and was held for six hours before being released.

The impact of these detentions is immense, not only on those who are seized by the authorities but also on those close to them.

Ms López’s friends and relatives asked not to be named, fearing they could face repercussions for simply highlighting her plight.

Human rights groups say that this fear is exactly what the authorities are trying to achieve.

They argue that by targeting rights activists and lawyers - the very people that those swept up in the mass arrests may turn to for help - those already in detention are further isolated, and those who may think of speaking out will be deterred.

[booasaur]

Remember during the 2016 elections, we were so scared of what Trump might do? How afraid we were for Roe but were told by so many people, pro-choice people even, that it was such settled law and it would be such a flashpoint, they'd never touch it. Don't overreact, you sound hysterical, this fearmongering is ruining your credibility. Hell, maybe worry for gay marriage, but abortion? No chance.

We watched Kavanaugh and ACB confirmed with increasing trepidation and STILL there was so much shock when the Dobbs leak happened.

Remember that feeling of knowing what was going to happen, because of your experience and knowledge, and nobody believing you till it was too late? And the very people who smugly shut you up pivoting and continuing to act like the authority, that, ah, yes, now was the time to worry?

This guy above represents the mainstream Western narrative since Israel killed the World Central Kitchen aid workers.

Somehow, after everything we've already seen, Israel was still getting the benefit of the doubt. After killing hundreds of aid workers already, mostly Palestinian, after killing more than 15,000 children, after killing multiple people waving white flags. After literally a scenario where a Red Crescent ambulance arranged safe passage with the IDF--just as this WCKitchen convoy had--to rescue a 6 year old child and ending up bombed.

Why didn't the world listen before? Israel didn't suddenly change, only perceptions have. They're the same now as they were three days ago, as they have been for the last months, years, decades. This wasn't an escalation, it was an inevitability.

Chef José Andrés, who runs the WCKitchen, and recently a vocal critic of Israel, was actually strongly defending them earlier. I saw someone call that Western naivety, but... is it simply being too naive, too trusting, when your good faith is only extended to one side? Isn't that just bias? Now Pelosi is signing a letter to stop weapon transfers to Russia when she was accusing protesters of being paid by Russia? Now, Western governments are saying this is too much?

I'll take any help we can get in stopping this onslaught, but these recent shifts came too late to save so many, including the WCKitchen workers. What changed for so many people now? We can't ignore why THIS was so many people's red line when tens of thousands of Palestinians weren't. Not only would it be an injustice to them but until this bias is interrogated how are we going to stop this or from repeating if the same wrong ass people are making the same decisions with the same worldview?

[inawickedlittletown]

Oh boy. This is the last text post I write tonight. I swear. I just...I have a theory.

First off, Oliver Stark...what the hell is wrong with you? Those interviews...and the IG story he already deleted. eek.

And okay so people saying he wasn't happy with bucktommy and even with working with LFJ...maybe you were all right about that. But I think this is actually deeper.

I think something changed as late as this week.

We know that 8x06 was shot before 8x05 and every interview coming out after 8x04 about both 8x05 and 8x06 (yes the ones from Oliver) had some pro-bucktommy stuff in them. He was vague and he talked about how much he enjoyed those episodes. He said "if Buck and Tommy were ever on a break" and he talked about not knowing if Tommy was his forever partner or something...everything was there's hurdles and things for them to deal with and it just didn't imply break up or that things wouldn't be worked out...

So here's my theory now that I've had time to think about it.

I fully think the break up in 8x06 was written as temporary. I think we weren't going to see Tommy in 8x07 or 8x08 and we were going to be left wondering about Buck's decision on if he wanted Tommy back over the winter hiatus. And Oliver sort of says that too...that Buck will struggle with blocking his number or reaching out type of thing...so maybe we'll see that.

I think the decision was made...and maybe it came from the network...maybe it was the writers and Tim who knows but I think sometime between last episode and this one they decided to shift paths and not go forward with the bucktommy storyline...the romcom. This could even be as a result of the election. It's possible.

LFJ in his interviews comes off like he didn't expect it to end here. But if those interviews were already set before the decision came down then he had to do them and firmly close the door and explain his exit. It's what he was probably told to do. Doesn't change how odd it is for a non-main actor to do an exit interview. Has anyone else ever done one for a side-character?

As for Oliver...I find it very interesting how he went down the line of Buck is free to sleep around. Like it's such an interesting talking point. In no way am I condoning what he said or defending it, but it is a big switch from how he's talked about Buck being bi before...it feels a little like since bucktommy isn't happening Oliver is jumping at the only non-buddie thing for Buck to do. And as a straight white guy why wouldn't he say something like that without a second thought.

So yeah...I think they pulled the plug on bucktommy for one reason or another and that's why the interviews are like that. But narratively...they'll do some hand waving and make Buck decide he actually didn't love Tommy instead of following the threads they've left there.

[the-cimmerians]

At midnight on Saturday, more than 20 anti-LGBTQ+ bills died in West Virginia after the legislature adjourned sine die. Bills that did not pass included the misleadingly named "Women’s Bill of Rights," which would have ended legal recognition for transgender people in the state, as well as a bill that would have prohibited gender-affirming care for all transgender youth. West Virginia is the second state in a week hinting that anti-transgender legislative attacks are encountering resistance. Last week, Florida's legislature also adjourned, effectively killing dozens of anti-transgender bills.

One bill that failed to pass as the West Virginia legislature adjourned was House Bill 5243, also known as the misleadingly-named "Women’s Bill of Rights" by its proponents. The bill primarily aimed to exclude transgender individuals from all legal gender protections in the state. Riley Gaines, who heavily promoted the bill, joined Governor Jim Justice at a press conference where it was announced as a major policy priority. The proposed legislation would have led to bathroom restrictions, prohibitions on driver's license and ID changes, and the elimination of legal recognition for transgender people's gender identities. Despite frantic, last-minute efforts by some Republicans to pass it, Democratic lawmakers countered by proposing dozens of amendments for debate. As a result, Republicans placed it at the bottom of the calendar.

“HB 5243 offered no real tangible protections for cisgender women, all while punching down on another marginalized community, and sought to erase protections for transgender West Virginians,” says Ash Orr, a trans organizer in West Virginia, “Essentially, it amounted to yet another culture war bill designed to divert attention from genuine issues affecting all residents of West Virginia.”

Another bill that did not pass in West Virginia was House Bill 5297, which sought to entirely prohibit gender-affirming care for all transgender youth. The state had previously enacted a ban on gender-affirming care, but it included an exception for transgender youth experiencing "severe dysphoria." HB 5297 aimed to eliminate that exception. More than 400 health care providers signed a letter opposing the bill, describing gender-affirming care as lifesaving and urging the legislature to reject it. The bill failed to pass before the legislature adjourned, meaning that at least some transgender youth in the state will continue to be able to receive care, making it one of the few red states where this is still the case.

The state is the latest in a series of developments suggesting that the anti-transgender panic gripping the GOP may be diminishing in the lead-up to the 2024 elections. Florida also recently adjourned without passing numerous anti-transgender and anti-LGBTQ+ bills. Recent elections have raised questions about the effectiveness of anti-transgender policies in driving voter turnout. In 2023, more than 70% of Moms for Liberty candidates were defeated. The Virginia legislature shifted to Democratic control, despite Governor Youngkin's efforts to campaign for Republicans by emphasizing anti-transgender politics as a policy priority. Governor Andy Beshear was reelected in Kentucky despite substantial ad expenditures attacking him for vetoing anti-transgender legislation.

When asked about the failure of these to pass, Orr stated, “The truth is, transgender people of all ages are living happy, complete, and beautiful lives - this contradicts the false narrative created around our community by anti-transgender politicians.”

The only bill that did pass in the state was a bill that would stop non-binary gender markers on birth certificates, though it is unclear what effect the legislation would have given that the state did not have a history of issuing such birth certificates.

Although these bills are failing to pass in states that have historically targeted transgender individuals, it remains unclear whether their failure signifies a genuine shift away from targeting LGBTQ+ people or merely a pause in anticipation of the 2024 election outcomes. The threat remains significant in many areas, with a few extreme bills being enacted this year, including a gender-affirming care ban in Wyoming and an adult bathroom ban in Utah. Additionally, some new states have witnessed the successful advancement of anti-trans legislation, such as a "Parents Rights in Education" bill in Washington, which could lead to forced outings, and a bill in New Hampshire that permits sports and bathroom bans. The national budget debate also includes anti-trans provisions that are still under negotiation.

Nevertheless, activists in states that have experienced the most severe attacks see reasons for celebration and hope. The failure of dozens of bills targeting the LGBTQ+ community means that residents in these states will have another year to prepare and strategize. If the 2024 elections yield unfavorable results for Republicans who have advocated anti-transgender legislation, similar to the outcomes in 2022 and 2023, it could further argue against the political viability of making these bills a policy priority. Most importantly, transgender individuals in these states are granted the valuable gift of time to catch their breath following the relentless barrage of legislative efforts that have dominated political discourse over the past five years.

[mariacallous]

Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania man beheaded his father, who worked as a federal employee, and displayed the severed head in a video where he urged viewers to rise up against the government. Another man in Illinois was building bombs he hoped to one day use against a “corrupt government.” In two separate cases, people were arrested for threatening to kill President Joe Biden and federal officials. An Arizona man plotted a mass shooting at a rap concert in Atlanta because he wanted to spark a race war ahead of what he believed was “impending martial law.”

All five of these cases, which occurred over the past eight months, have been linked by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis to what it sees as a concerning trend: fantasies and conspiracies of an impending civil war mobilizing individuals toward violence surrounding the US election.

The memo, first reported by WIRED, was circulated last month to law enforcement agencies.

“Some domestic violent extremists (DVEs) are reacting to the 2024 election season and prominent policy issues by engaging in illegal preparatory or violent activity that they link to the narrative of an impending civil war, raising the risk of violence against government targets and ideological opponents,” the memo states.

Online chatter about civil war has become an inevitable knee-jerk response to any divisive sociopolitical news event in recent years—from prosecutions of Capitol rioters and the attempted assassination of Donald Trump to disputes over enforcement at the US–Mexico border. And that chatter has, perhaps unsurprisingly, only continued to ramp up ahead of the 2024 election.

Intelligence analysts say that they have seen online discussions about preparing for future violence against public officials and federal agents and are aware that some extremists are using the heightened political environment as an opportunity to engage in “illegal preparatory or violent activity,” according to the DHS report. The assessment aligns with earlier WIRED reporting that indicates the paramilitary movement has been organizing and training ahead of the election. The report was first obtained by Property of the People, a nonprofit focused on transparency and national security, under open records law. “Donald Trump is yet again inciting election and immigration-related violence," says Ryan Shapiro, executive director of Property of the People. "The documents make plain that many of his followers are listening.”

DHS also cautioned that it is unable to get a grasp on the full scale of the threat. “We lack a complete threat picture due the ability of some DVEs to evade law enforcement using advanced encryption,” the agency wrote. And because extremists have gotten tech-savvier, intelligence officials don’t really know whether they’re joining forces.

This is a trend that researchers and experts have observed especially since the Capitol riot nearly four years ago. “We’ve seen people move from mainstream platforms, where they were active in organizing January 6, and shift to platforms that offer more perceived anonymity, less moderation, and less reporting to law enforcement,” said Katherine Keneally, US director of threat analysis and prevention at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. “It is a law enforcement intelligence gap, it’s a gap for the whole field. We don’t see everything we once did.”

Regardless of whether extremists are coalescing or whether the threat remains atomized, the assessment recognizes that online chatter about civil war had already inspired plans for real-world violence.

In January, Justin Mohn, a 32-year-old man from Levittown, Pennsylvania, beheaded his father, a federal employee, and displayed the severed head in a 15-minute tirade uploaded online. In the video, titled “Mohn’s Militia-Call to Arms for American Patriots,” Mohn urged viewers to rise up against the government and hunt down federal agents and judges.

Months later, in March, federal agents arrested Benjamin Brown, a 45-year-old man in Waterville, Maine, for making threats to kill President Biden and other officials. The man allegedly claimed he was stockpiling weapons and ammo for a civil war and, according to an affidavit, said he wanted to hunt migrants and “burn Washington to the fucking ground.” Brown was charged with making interstate threats.

Then, in May, a stop for a minor traffic violation in Pekin, Illinois, led police to discover a padlocked canvas bag inside the vehicle containing a .45-caliber pistol and two homemade pipe bombs belonging to 34-year-old Dalton Mattus. When investigators searched Mattus’ home, after a brief standoff, they allegedly found more pipe bombs. A local radio station reported that Mattus told police he hoped to use the bombs defensively against “undocumented immigrants and a corrupt government.” It turned out that Mattus also had an extensive social media presence; for years, he had promoted QAnon conspiracy theories and civil war fantasies, advocated violence against federal officials, Democrats, and immigrants, and urged his followers to prepare for imminent conflict.

In June, an Arizona man who worked as a vendor at gun shows was indicted for allegedly plotting a mass shooting targeting Black people at a rap concert in Atlanta with the goal of inciting a “race war” ahead of the 2024 election. According to an affidavit, Mark Adams Prieto, 58, believed that “martial law will be implemented shortly after the 2024 election.” He also said he hoped to leave confederate flags at the site of his planned mass shooting, to send the message that “we’re going to fight back now and every whitey will be the enemy across the whole country.”

Also in June, 27-year-old Joseph Rose, a US veteran living on New Mexico’s White Sands Missile Range, was arrested for making threats online against Biden and federal employees. He vowed to declare war on the US and “attack federal employees on sight” over Biden’s immigration policies and said if anyone voted for Biden, “I'll shoot you on sight for supporting pedophiles.”

Intelligence analysts say that they’re most concerned about lone offenders or “small cells” taking violent action in the coming months, citing the ongoing prosecutions of the January 6 rioters as well as “false flag allegations that an event is orchestrated by the government to entrap and arrest attendees” as likely deterrents to large-scale mobilization.

DHS says it is continuing to advise federal, state, and local partners and urges law enforcement and the public to remain vigilant and report suspicious activity to authorities.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Natasha Korecki, Carol E. Lee and Monica Alba at NBC News:

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden’s political world is collapsing. Top allies have either publicly or privately called on him to step aside. Major donations have fallen off a cliff. Grassroots fundraising is not keeping up with the demands of a campaign that needs to aggressively scale up three months before the presidential election. Members of his own re-election effort have already declared he has no path to victory.  Since a disastrous debate in Atlanta upended the trajectory of his campaign three weeks ago, Biden has again and again attempted to dig in, bucking efforts to dislodge him from power. 

But there is now a palpable sense that the ground has shifted underneath him, according to five people with knowledge of the situation, even among some of the president’s most defiant internal backers who now believe the writing is on the wall. “We’re close to the end,” a person close to Biden said.  That person, who previously doubted Biden would ever step aside, acknowledged that it’s still the president’s decision but joined in the array of Biden allies who say he is nearing a point of no return.  As the extraordinary events have unfolded, the president tested positive with Covid on Wednesday and retreated to his vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, taking him off the campaign trail. Once again, it offered a sharp contrast with former President Donald Trump, who, even after his brush with death on Saturday, will appear at a raucous coronation at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on Thursday night. 

Also Wednesday, Rep. Adam Schiff, who is running for the Senate in California, made a remarkable public call for the president to abandon the nomination, a move that ended up exposing that other Democratic leaders — including Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Nancy Pelosi, and Sen. Chuck Schumer — had brought dire concerns, supported by polling, to the president indicating that he risked taking down control of Congress with him if he stayed on the same path.  In the hours after the assassination attempt on Trump last weekend, some Democrats said — even feared — that the calls for Biden to step aside would be “frozen” as the president dealt with a national crisis. But that faded quickly. Some allies now say that the shooting, which has caused an even more intense rallying around Trump within his party, only makes it more glaringly obvious that the nagging narrative of whether Biden is on a cognitive decline cannot win the White House. 

Just a few days ago, President Joe Biden was seemingly secure in keeping his re-election bid going.

But in the last day or so, the dam has re-breached, as multiple high-level Democratic figures such as Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and Barack Obama have raised significant concerns about Biden staying in the race. On top of that, Biden tested positive for COVID.

It is increasingly looking like Kamala Harris will be our nominee.

[ausetkmt]

White Supremacists Top Domestic Terror Threat, Officials Say

Top law enforcement officials say the biggest domestic terror threat comes from white supremacists.

“The department is taking a new approach to addressing domestic violent extremism, both internally and externally,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas told senators.

Mayorkas and Garland Testify on ‘Violent’ Domestic Extremism

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas testified to senators about the threat of domestic terrorism and extremism, which they both said is often racially or ethically motivated.

“Combating domestic violent extremism and domestic terrorism has long been a core part of the Justice Department’s mission. Immediately upon its founding more than 150 years ago, the department pursued white supremacists who had sought to deny newly freed slaves their rights under the Constitution, including the right to vote. Unfortunately, the horror of domestic violent extremism is still with us. Indeed, the F.B.I. assessed that 2019 was the deadliest year for violent domestic extremism since 1995.

In March of this year, the intelligence community, in a report drafted by D.H.S., the F.B.I. and the National Counterterrorism Center, under the auspices of the Director of National Intelligence, assessed that domestic violent extremists pose a elevated threat in 2021. And in the F.B.I.’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat we face comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race.” “The terrorism-related threats we face as a nation have significantly evolved since the department’s creation in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The threat landscape is now more complex, more dynamic and more diversified. Today, racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists are the most likely to conduct mass casualty attacks against civilians and anti-government or anti anti-authority violent extremists, specifically militia violent extremists, are the most likely to target law enforcement, government personnel and government facilities.

The threats posed by domestic violent extremism are often fueled by false narratives, conspiracy theories and extremist rhetoric spread throughout social media and other online platforms.”

Published May 12, 2021Updated June 15, 2021

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas told senators on Wednesday that the greatest domestic threat facing the United States came from what they both called “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists.”

“Specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race,” Mr. Garland told the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The cabinet secretaries’ comments reflected a dramatic shift in tone from the Trump administration, which deliberately downplayed the threat from white supremacists and similar groups, in part to elevate the profile of what former President Donald J. Trump described as violent threats from radical left-wing groups.

Last year, a former head of the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence branch filed a whistle-blower complaint in which he accused the department of blocking a report about the threat of violent extremism and described white supremacists as having been “exceptionally lethal in their abhorrent targeted attacks in recent years.”

Mr. Mayorkas told senators on Wednesday, “The department is taking a new approach to addressing domestic violent extremism, both internally and externally.”

As Mr. Garland and Mr. Mayorkas testified before the Appropriations Committee, former members of the Trump administration told the House Oversight Committee that Mr. Trump’s false claims to have won the 2020 election had fueled the domestic terrorism threat, a point many Republican lawmakers have rejected. Earlier on Wednesday, House Republicans ousted Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming from her leadership position for publicly pushing back on Mr. Trump’s claims, in the latest sign of Mr. Trump’s continued hold on the party.

While the Justice and Homeland Security Departments have long been involved in countering violent extremism inside the country, Biden administration officials have said the Jan. 6 pro-Trump riot at the Capitol showed an urgent need to focus more on domestic extremism.

Senate Republicans did not share that focus on Wednesday and instead grilled Mr. Garland and Mr. Mayorkas on border security issues.

The top Republican on the committee, Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, said that Democrats were politicizing the issue by describing violent domestic extremists as coming from the far right. He equated the Capitol riot to the protests against police violence last summer, and asked Mr. Garland why the Justice Department seemed to be prioritizing pursuing the perpetrators of the Jan. 6 attack over those who looted shops and attacked law enforcement during racial justice protests.

Mr. Garland said that “if there has to be a hard hierarchy of things that we prioritize,” the Jan. 6 attack would be at the top because it most threated democracy.

“I have not seen a more dangerous threat to democracy than the invasion of the Capitol,” Mr. Garland said, calling it “an attempt to interfere with the fundamental element of our democracy, a peaceful transfer of power.”

“That does not mean that we don’t focus on other threats and that we don’t focus on other crimes,” he said.

The Justice Department is leading the investigation into the Jan. 6 riot and has arrested more than 430 people across the country, Mr. Garland said. Prosecutors have begun informally negotiating plea deals, while some defendants have been fighting the charges.

Both Mr. Garland and Mr. Mayorkas said that the threat of domestic extremism had significantly changed because of online communications, particularly via encrypted apps, and the proliferation of increasingly lethal weaponry.

[tomorrowusa]

It's difficult to imagine a worse start to Rishi Sunak's campaign for the July 4th general election in the UK.

He made the announcement of the upcoming election outdoors in pouring rain and without benefit of either raincoat or umbrella. By the time he completed his remarks he looked like he had taken a shower with all his clothes on. And during his announcement an anti-Brexit activist down the street used a sound system to blast the Labour Party's 1997 election theme song "Things Can Only Get Better" so that everybody outside 10 Downing Street could easily hear it.

Then, after taking a day or so to dry off, Sunak visited a brewery in Wales where he made a gaffe related to the Wales national football team.

Rishi Sunak scores own goal at Welsh brewery with gaffe over national team’s Euros absence

Rishi then headed off to Northern Ireland. In Belfast, he conducted a photo op at one of the most inauspicious places in the city – the site where the doomed luxury passenger ship the RMS Titanic was built.

Sunak's election tour branded shambolic after Titanic Quarter visit inspires sinking ship comparison As James McCarthy from BelfastLive reports, Rishi Sunak was visiting the Titanic Quarter in Belfast this morning. This is what happened when Sunak was asked if he was captain of a sinking ship. [ ... ] While harmless on their own, the danger with incidents like this is that quite quickly they enable the media (or at least those parts of the media that aren’t slavishly loyal to the Tories) to establish a ‘loser narrative’, and once that’s in place, it can be near impossible to shift. What then happens is that every trivial mishap gets reported as a campaign calamity. There is some evidence that Sunak is getting stuck with this label already. His ‘things can only get wetter’ election announcement was as a genuine presentational disaster, and two of the most memorable things that happened on day one (yesterday) were a Euros gaffe in Wales, and a Q&A with workers that was not quite what it seemed. Labour mocked both of these in a vicious campaign video last night.

While every campaign has its gaffes, few campaigns make them semi-predictable events. And when they are clustered close to the start of a campaign, it becomes difficult to change the narrative.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Ryan Burge

Published: May 7, 2023

I was born and raised Southern Baptist. Gave my life to Jesus at 15. Got baptized in a pair of white pajamas. Then, I went to a Free Methodist college. Got a job at an American Baptist Church and have been serving in the ABCUSA for more than twenty years. I will be elected to the Board of General Ministries for American Baptist denomination this summer.

My wife is Irish Catholic. We got married in St. Teresa of Avila in our hometown. My very Southern Baptist grandmother went to her grave not knowing that piece of information.

Both my boys have been raised in the Catholic church. They were baptized as infants, and both have had their First Communions. They go to PSR classes nearly every Sunday morning before coming to worship at my church. And our sons attend Wednesday night youth group at the local United Methodist Church.

We wanted them to be part of a religious community. They are active in three. I hope that one of those sticks.

I try to get to Mass with my family a few times a year. Usually on Holy Days of Obligation, and other important days like Ash Wednesday. I really do like a lot of aspects of the Catholic Church. They certainly have better architecture than the average non-denominational Protestant building. Plus, I don’t have to do anything when I go to Mass. I can just sit there and meditate on the scriptures and get lost in the rituals.

I think one of the reasons I like going to Mass is that it gives me something to compare my own church to. We worship the same God, are saved by the same Jesus, and read (mostly) the same Bible.

From a data standpoint, however, there’s a lot going on in the Catholic Church that’s worth unpacking.

But before we dig into that - let’s just start as broad as we can: What share of Americans identify as Catholic and has that changed over time?

The General Social Survey has been asking about religious affiliation for nearly five decades. Same question, basically the same response options. The results are pretty boring, to be honest. Between 1972 and 1990, the share of Americans who identify as Catholic did not budge - 26%. From 1990 through 2010, it barely shifted as well - maybe dropping a single percentage point.

But, from 2010 through 2021, the trend line begins to move. It’s pretty evident that the Catholic share has dropped below 25%. However, it’s hard to pinpoint the exact percentage. In both 2016 and 2018, the number was 23% and in 2021 it dropped to 21%. But that last figure may be impacted by a methodological issue that I discuss at length here.

Overall, though, that’s a pretty solid result. I’ve shared this graph in a few talks that I have given with Catholics in the audience, and they seem fairly pleased with this result. I mean, I don’t blame them. Between 1972 and 2010, the Catholic share dropped by a single percentage point. Not bad.

However, that’s not the entire story with American Catholicism. Not even close. Lots of Americans still identify as Catholics but how many of them actually come to a Mass on a regular basis? That’s where the narrative about the Catholic Church in the United States starts to change.

I calculated the share of four Christian groups that report attending services nearly every week or more over the last fifty years. I love a graph like this one because the point I am trying to make becomes crystal clear in the visualization: Mass attendance for Catholics has fallen off a cliff.

In the early 1970s, about half of Catholics were weekly attenders. Today, it’s about 25%. And no, that’s not a result of the pandemic. Attendance was already down to 26% in 2018 - long before the world had ever heard the word “COVID-19.”

Note, also that the share of evangelicals who attend weekly has noticeably risen over the last fifty years (up at least a dozen percentage points). Weekly attendance for both Black and Mainline Protestants has stayed relatively stable, as well.

I think what is happening in the latter two cases, at least, is that people who marginally attended decades ago now no longer identify as Protestant. That means the denominator has gotten smaller and only the truly committed are left in the fold. It isn’t a resurgence, it’s probably more like a concentration.

The burning question here is: why have Catholics seen their attendance decline so precipitously? There could be a million and one reasons for Catholic churches to be emptying out, just like their Protestant cousins. But I wanted to focus on just one today: politics. I am a political scientist, after all.

I calculated weekly attendance rates among Catholics, but I broke it down by political partisanship. I was hoping to see some type of narrative emerge. It’s surprising to note that even through the mid-1990s, a Catholic Democrat was just as likely to attend weekly Mass as a Republican Catholic.

The clear partisan gap in Mass attendance only began to open up around the election of George W. Bush. But the divide was a small one: only three percentage points. It’s continued to widen from there, though. From about 2010 onward, a Republican Catholic is about six percentage points more likely to attend Mass nearly every week compared to a Catholic Democrat.

That’s not what I would call a huge divide. And if you don’t focus on the gap and instead look at the trend line - Mass attendance among Republicans has dropped from 55%+ to below 30% now. It’s not like conservatives are holding the line while liberal Catholics are jumping ship in huge numbers.

I wanted to take one more look at this, so I pulled up the Cooperative Election Study to test a working hypothesis. Maybe the devout White Catholics are becoming more Republican, while the ones who never darken the church doors are moving more toward the Democrats. I was surprised with the result, to say the least.

First, look at the right-hand side of the graph. Among weekly attending White Catholics, there is little to report. In 2008, 57% were Republicans. In 2022, it was 59%. Certainly, no big shift there - just a lot of stability over the last fourteen years.

Now, look at the never or seldom Mass attenders. This is where things get very interesting. In 2008 and 2012, it’s pretty clear that this group was a point of strength for the Democrats. However, between 2012 and 2016 some pretty tectonic shifts were underway. Instead of the distribution being +15 for the Democrats, it now becomes an even mix (around 42% for both parties).

From that point forward, the composition of low attending White Catholics continued to tilt to the right. Look at 2022 - it’s basically a mirror image of 2008. Democrats were 50% - Republicans were 35% in 2008. Now they are the exact opposite of that.

I am not one to write myself out of a job - but it’s pretty hard to make a causal argument that theology is what pushed low attending White Catholics toward the GOP - because they weren’t in the pews to hear those arguments from the priests and bishops.

For now I will leave you with this thought: shouldn’t White people who report their religious attendance as seldom or never have the same view of politics regardless of how they answer a question about religious identity? You can probably guess that a non-attending Catholic is a bit distinct from a non-attending agnostic. I will explore just how big that divide is in a future post.

[ Via: https://archive.md/SPWF7 ]

==

More Good News.

[stardate44002point3]

Star Trek and the problem of political salience

So, I've been thinking a lot about the Shaw/Seven deadnaming controversy and I think much of what has happened in terms of the level of outrage about it - which probably wasn't entirely what the writers were going for - is the ongoing problem of Star Trek using contemporary political issues to signal things about character and, in this case, having it backfire on them, just a little.

To explain, first what I think the writers were going for was a quick shorthand way of signaling that Shaw was a bit of a dick, but a redeemable one (hence he was always going to call Seven, Seven by the end of his character arc). However, two things got in the way of that and has resulted, at least in the Tumblr and Twittersphere, of a not insubstantial number of Trek fans celebrating his death (because deadnaming someone is clearly death-worthy) and harassing people who openly either like Shaw or, even worse, ship Shaw/Seven.

Why did this go somewhat awry? I think there are two reasons.

The first is that they just didn't think it through when they wrote it. Not only do people openly call Seven, Hansen (without any blow back from her) in earlier seasons of Picard (and not just in the fascist S2 version of the UFP), but now that she is in Starfleet, she must have a name on file. I've said this before. Either that name is Annika Hansen, in which case it is on her to change it, and neither Shaw (nor the rest of the crew) can really use another name for her because the computer won't recognize it. Unless we're expecting them all to shift between names depending on whether they are talking to her or referring to her with the onboard computer.

OR her name is Seven in the system. But narratively that's not going to work, because then Shaw would HAVE to call her Seven or, again the computer wouldn't recognize her. Since he refers to her as Hansen when talking to the computer we have to assume that is her name in the Starfleet HR system. If she has a problem with it, she needs to change it, I can't imagine Starfleet cares what people want to call themselves, nor make it difficult for people to change their names in the system.

So that's just careless writing, they were trying to make a point, and didn't really think through the whole process, relying on the contemporary political zeitgeist to do the work for them.

Which brings us to the second issue. Picard S3 was written in 2020/2021 and largely filmed in 2021. At that time, while deadnaming was something that was talked about and recognized, and understood to be a very bad thing, we were only at the start of the culture wars shifting to Republicans focusing on attacking trans rights (because up until last summer they still had abortion as their go-to wedge issue). Since the Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme court ruling, and the relatively buoyant performance of the Democrats in the 2022 Midterm elections, Republicans have gone all out at the local, state and national level on attacking every aspect of the trans community's existence - from the ability to legal change names to the process of transition itself, to the ability of trans people to exist in society without harassment.

And not unexpectedly, there has been a huge surge in support for the trans community, which means that any indication of disrespect is now a much more politically charged issue than it was even this time last year. So what the writers intended to be throw away signifier of tension between captain and XO, has become a huge red flag of abuse.

Using a contemporary issue in this way is much more fraught than it used to be because, for a variety of reasons, the political zeitgeist changes much more rapidly in the 21st century than it ever did before.

So tl;dr; I don't think Shaw was ever meant to be an irredeemable asshole, I just think the writers did a piss poor job trying to demonstrate friction between him and Seven and the political situation has changed in such a way that the issue they chose has become so much more salient in the last year.

[total-drama-brainrot]

So if the roles for Courtney and Heather didn’t swap what do you think would Heather do or be like? I don’t think she’d have much to do if she wasn’t a manipulative antagonist. So would she even be in the show as long as she was? Also I don’t think it was a last minute decision but an intentional switch and bait. But then they switched their roles in the second season and then they switched it again and again still but without a good pay off that fit their character for the sake of dramatics. It’s like they got mixed up like in a Looney Toons scene.

I think, in the case that my hypothetical swap would take place, Heather's role as the antagonist and subsequent actions would be shifted over to Courtney- which in turn would mean Courtney's actions would be shifted onto Heather.

So, instead of forming 'alliances' (read: taking advantage of the more vulnerable/easily manipulated members of her team) and orchestrating events to have her teammates/competition eliminated, Heather would instead take to bossing around the Screaming Gophers whilst hate-flirting turned flirting with Duncan on the side.

And, given her archetype of the "Queen Bee", it isn't entirely out of left field to imagine someone as haughty and entitled as Heather to elect herself as the de facto leader of the Gophers. In fact, that's exactly what she does in canon. Her intrinsic need for control and power over her teammates might've been an aspect of her "villainy" in canon, but it's also characteristic of every single "Queen Bee" in pop culture (think Regina George from Mean Girls, or Heather Chandler from Heathers) regardless of if they're an antagonist or not. Though they are primarily antagonists because of this.

Also, I think her rivalry with Gwen would still be a significant plotline for Island, even if she never fully delves into the full-on antagonism of her canon self. Because her and Gwen's enmity isn't necessarily an aspect of her role as the Main Antagonist- despite the narrative framing it as such, given Gwen's role as the unwritten protagonist of Island- in very much the same way that Duncan and Harold's dynamic doesn't automatically label Duncan as a villain (just an asshole).

So, I don't think she'd lose all of her plot significance, but she wouldn't be nearly as apparent/crucial to the story as a whole. She definitely wouldn't reach the final three, especially since her personality would remain unchanged meaning she'd still be just as bitchy and as such as universally disliked by the other contestants- just this time without the power of plot armour to save her.

(Essentially, the role swap would literally swap both of their plotlines and their elimination orders. Does that mean Heather's elimination would be a result of Harold rigging the vote to spite Duncan? IDK, maybe 🤷‍♀️)

As for your second point, Courtney's role as Action's antagonist really does feel like the writers realised her potential as a villainous force, after seemingly forgetting how they set her up to be a central character in the first couple of episodes of Island and not really doing anything with her (outside of the Duncney subplot). Of course, re-establishing Heather as the main antagonist of Action wouldn't've worked plot-wise, given that the characters themselves are fully aware of her tricks and thus wary of her, so they obviously needed a different source of conflict/a different antagonist. It just so happened that they had a character with a confrontational personality and a fitting motive. (Two if you count Justin, though his own brand of 'villainy' feels like the off-brand cola to Courtney's coke, if that makes any sense?)

In the context of the hypothetical I suggested, Heather would just swap places with Courtney in Action, making her the surprise antagonist of the season whilst Courtney is delegated to being outcasted as public enemy #1. I doubt she'd be as aggressive towards Duncan, but she'd be just as controlling/high maintenance as a girlfriend leading to their relationship's eventual decay.

I don't think their role swap in Action is uncharacteristic, per se, given than both Heather and Courtney are repeatedly established as strong competitive forces and ruthless in their endeavours throughout the series- making them prime Conflict Character material. But I do think that Courtney's antagonism, at least, had little payoff for what the writers made her do/go through. Heather at least gets her semi-redemption arc in World Tour, wherein she's the reluctant hero to Alejandro's villain ("You mean I'm the good guy?"), but Courtney? Her story doesn't get a happy/satisfying ending. (I haven't watched All-Stars yet, but I've heard that Sundae Muddy Sundae is a terrible episode for her)

[starseedfxofficial]

Trump Triumphs & Markets Roar: Discover Hidden Opportunities Behind the Chaos Buckle Up, Traders: Trump-Led Rollercoaster and the Market Frenzy Nobody Saw Coming The political carnival is in full swing, and boy, it’s taking the markets on a wild ride! Just when you thought your trading strategies were starting to make sense, the US Presidential Election results have thrown in a healthy dose of chaos. And what a spectacle—Trump is poised for victory, the Senate looks like it's going Republican, and the House is just too close to call. It’s the kind of suspense that would give even Alfred Hitchcock a run for his money. But forget the popcorn, grab your charts, because we’re about to dive into the market madness. Equities Are Popping Off—And It’s Not Just the Champagne Corks If you’re sitting there wondering why the equity markets are partying like it’s 1999, you’re not alone. The Russell 2000 (RTY) was the star of the show, seeing some serious outperformance. And who can blame it? Investors are betting that a Trump-led government means fewer regulations and more room for businesses to go full throttle. But here’s the kicker—it’s not just about who’s in power, it’s about the market’s reaction to change. The equity surge shows us one thing: the markets LOVE certainty, even if it comes wrapped in unpredictability. Meanwhile, Novo Nordisk jumped +7.1%, all thanks to robust Q3 sales of Wegovy, its famous weight-loss drug. Here’s an insider tidbit for you: investors aren't just buying Wegovy's promise; they’re buying the narrative that a health-conscious population is more likely to stay alive to spend more—and isn’t that the type of long-term bullish story we all love? Dollar Flies High Like an Eagle, Leaving the EUR & JPY in the Dust If currencies were birds, the Dollar would be an eagle today, soaring at a peak of 105.00 on the DXY index before easing off to 104.90. It’s clear who’s wearing the crown amongst the G10s—the EUR and JPY didn’t even come close. The EUR looks like it's still trying to find its glasses, and the JPY? Let’s just say it’s taking a much-needed nap after this ride. What’s interesting here is the context. The Dollar’s strength is a classic “Trump Trade��� play—confidence in the good ol’ USA means more dollars are in demand. But let’s go ninja on this analysis—the EUR is underperforming partly because of lingering Eurozone economic instability. If you’re in the game of cross-asset trading, this is where you pull out your contrarian strategy and eye those opportunities everyone else is too scared to touch. The Trump Trade—Curveballs and Steeper Curves The bond market’s had a moment, with USTs getting pressured while Bunds got bolstered by the so-called Trump Trade. This has left the US yield curve steeper than a ski slope in Aspen. If you’re thinking about fixed income strategies, it’s time to keep an eye on that House result—it’s going to decide whether this steepening is just the appetizer or the main course. Advanced tactic for the bold? Steep yield curves often signal growth, but also higher inflation risk. Consider hedging with inflation-protected securities (TIPS) if you’re feeling defensive, or, if you’re like me and love a good thrill, short the short-term and long the long-term for maximum curve exposure. There’s your hidden gem for the day—ride the Trump curve steepener while it lasts. Oil and Gold: The Yin and Yang of Trumponomics Oil prices had a soft session—thanks, in part, to the firmer Dollar and Trump’s well-known stance on drilling and supply. When Trump’s around, oil goes under pressure because everyone expects expanded drilling—more supply, lower prices. And gold? XAU softened up too, probably deciding it needed a break from being the “go-to safe haven” for every nervous Nellie in the market. Here’s an unconventional approach—if you’re trading crude, look beyond the noise. Trump’s drilling policy is great news for supply, but the real secret sauce lies in watching for shifts in demand, especially from energy-hungry giants like China. Gold, on the other hand, will always have a place in the portfolio, especially when inflation rears its head. Remember, Trump might be digging up oil, but he’s also digging a hole for the Dollar’s purchasing power—and that’s gold’s cue to shine. Looking Ahead—What’s in Store? So, what’s on the docket? We’ve got the NBP Policy Announcement, more election results (because apparently one round of chaos just isn’t enough), and comments from ECB President Lagarde, de Guindos, and BoC’s Rogers. Plus, there’s supply from the US and earnings galore from big players like Qualcomm, CVS Health, Gilead Sciences, and Arm Holdings. Pro tip for the upcoming news cycle? Watch those central bank comments like a hawk. Lagarde and de Guindos can move the Euro with just a twitch of their lips. As for earnings, tech giants like Qualcomm will be interesting, especially since the broader market’s making a comeback—what they say could give tech stocks a boost or lead to a nasty spill. Final Thoughts—Stay Smart, Stay Nimble In a market driven by politics, emotions run hot, and headlines hit hard. But if you’re here with me, you know the real edge lies in peeling back the layers and finding the opportunities others miss. Whether it’s riding a steepening curve or betting against conventional currency trends, there’s always a hidden gem waiting to be uncovered. Our Services—Get Ahead with StarseedFX To truly master the markets, having the right tools and knowledge is key. StarseedFX offers services that provide exclusive insights and game-changing strategies: - Latest Economic Indicators and Forex News: Stay informed on market movements and groundbreaking concepts with real-time updates at Forex News Today. - Forex Education: Expand your knowledge with in-depth resources, advanced methodologies, and little-known strategies at Forex Education. - Community Membership: Join the StarseedFX community for expert analysis, daily alerts, live trading insights, insider tips, and elite tactics by visiting Community. - Free Trading Plan: Set goals, manage risks, and track progress with our detailed trading plan. Discover rare strategic advantages at Free Trading Plan. - Free Trading Journal: Enhance performance and refine strategies with real metrics using advanced methods for progress tracking at Free Trading Journal. - Smart Trading Tool: Optimize your trading with automated lot size calculations, insights, and order management at Smart Trading Tool. —————– Image Credits: Cover image at the top is AI-generated   Read the full article

[ramrodd]

Watch The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell Highlights: May 31\

COMMENTARY:

Lawrence, here's what you need to understand about Christian Nationalism as it reveals the cognitive mechanism of Nazification as the political strategy of all things Trump and the January 6 wing of the GOP that is currently the dominant coalition. The only principle guiding their logic is what they want in a Virtue of Selfishness kind of way, This is the mechanism behind the moving goal posts of all things House Freedom Caucus, what I've seen of most businesses in the American economy is that they all tend to work like Trump  Organization, When I was in Banking during the Nixon years, it was assumed that al commercial entities tend to maintain three sets of books, on for Taxes, one for Banking and one for Daily Bread,, the operational score card. In the high marginal tax brackets of Eisenhower's 1965 Presidential Platform, it was expected that a prudent management scheme would to balance things out dynamically,, The push was to keep doubling down on new technology coming out of the Manhattan Project. I was a credit analyst, I was trained to account for those agendas as part of my analysis, It was always a guess. We knew pretty well what their cash flow was and we had a line of credit more or less tied into their business cycle. One of the industries I surveyed  was commercial aviation as a strategic asset. In a later stage of my career as a venture capitalist. I was a consultant to the FedEx IPO in 1977, The political issue was shifting FedEx from a FAR 23 Carriers to a FAR 25 carrier and I explained how Nixon's design for airline deregulation was based on replacing the route structures based on railway right of way with ZIP Codes ant that was FedEx's business model, that problem went away, So, what I am saying is that the Trump Organization is a pretty typical Mom-and-Pop operation in regard to the paper work involved. The fact that it is micro-managed has always been Trump Achilles's Heel: he's never had any success actually running anything but his mouth, but he was very lucky early in his career to hook up with Barbara Res, his necessary project manager, that let him get these projects in motion and she would control the PERT Chart and she told him who needed to be paid to get to the next phase of his vision, The thing that is scaring white supremacists  in business as owners of senior executives in the absolute autopsy Alvin Bragg din on the Stormy Daniels account, All these guys run their business affairs on pretty much the same basis as Benjamin Franklin and Franklin was a meticulous book keeper. So, they see this verdict as an attack on Business Stewardship as a Christian vocation, which I subscribe to, The thing is, a crime was committed that not without fiscal damages to the Clinton campaign, Clinton won the popular vote. Trump games the system perfectly legally at first blush by focusing his resources on a very narrow set of votes controlling the Electoral College vote. My first impression was that Trump's tactic was very clever and all's fair, etc. He had won it fair and square, And then he said on CBS that he couldn't have done it without Clinton's analytics, which he acquired from his Russian business partners in the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant who had hacked Clinton's campaign, That was treason, but proving it was treason depends upon understanding how treason works, And everybody wants to pretend it didn't happen,, in a Jefferson Davis kind of way,  Only there was another crime associated with the same election, the stormy Daniels account, And that's what Alvin Bragg has wrought, Johnathan Turley is what would have happened if Peter had married Wendy and grown up to be a lawyer: the personification of a nursery tale. Trump is a charismatic leader, Charisma is all about sexual arousal, that's the connection between Trump and the Charismatic narrative of the white supremacy of the Pro-Life Calvinism of Christian Nationalism,: they mistake the way he makes them feel with the Holy Spirit. What they are actually experiencing is the Spirit of God  amplifying their collective sexual energy and feed it back like a sub-wooer in a low-riders ride. Your analysis doesn't give them the same sexual push FOX News can, But that's just me

[mariacallous]

Before we know the final results of the midterm elections, a new round of narrative-making about Latino voters has already begun. Democrats are saying that Latinos helped fight back the expected red wave, and that the dominant narrative of the past two years—that Latinos are becoming more conservative—was built on a shaky foundation. Republicans acknowledge that they didn’t have the night they expected, but argue that they nevertheless maintained the gains they made with Latinos in 2020, maybe even increased them slightly, as Latino Republicans won seats up and down the ballot and were actually dominant in some places. It is a confusing landscape, in which losses are made to seem like victories, and victories like losses.

“Overall,” Clarissa Martinez De Castro, of UnidosUS, said in a statement last Wednesday, “this election was consistent with historic Hispanic voter voting patterns, with two-thirds of Latinos supporting Democrats and one-third supporting Republicans.” There were “local exceptions,” she said, but “that pattern continues to hold.” In response to national exit polls showing that the Latino split between Democrats and Republicans was something like 60–40, which was better than the numbers Donald Trump did in 2020, Daniel Garza, the president of the conservative LIBRE Initiative, tweeted that “Latinos proved to be an electoral asset for GOP.” Neither of these sentiments is wrong, but they’re not entirely right, either; instead, the results appear to be pointing in several different directions.

Part of the discrepancy between the two narratives has to do with long-standing disagreements about the best way to count the Latino vote. Some Latino pollsters, such as the team led by the political scientists Matt Barreto and Gary Segura, the co-founders of BSP Research, produce their own polls, which have consistently shown higher Latino support for Democrats and lower Latino support for Republicans than exit polls. The Midterm Election Voter Poll, for example, reported that Democratic candidates for Congress won sixty-four per cent of the Latino vote, and Republican candidates won thirty-three per cent. Liberals, like Martinez De Castro, use their numbers to support the idea that Latinos reverted back to the 2–1 support for Democrats that has been a historical norm.

Even the Latino pollsters’ numbers, however, showed a marked shift toward Republicans in 2020 and again in 2022. Moreover, though the pollsters have detected a shift as others have, their numbers haven’t always accorded with the final results. In the spring of 2021, after months of analysis, a consensus emerged that Trump won thirty-seven or thirty-eight per cent of the Latino vote in 2020, rather than the twenty-seven per cent reported in the American Election Eve Poll—which Latino Decisions, Barreto and Segura’s old firm, helped conduct—or the thirty-two per cent reported by national exit polls. Today, most professionals have settled on the idea that exit polls aren’t definitive, and the only way to really know how Latinos voted is to wait for precinct-level results, which take time to analyze.

Another source of confusion has to do with the fact that a story got fixed in the months leading up to the election in which Latinos were moving swiftly away from the Democratic Party. This made it possible, when the results were nowhere near as bad as expected, for Democrats to argue that a steady state from 2020 to 2022 was some kind of victory. It was also perplexing that Democrats in certain places, like Arizona, were narrowly winning elections despite declining Latino support. Given that large majorities of white voters were expected to vote for Republicans, the idea was that Democrats had to run up the numbers with nonwhite voters; 66–33 splits among Latinos could lead to Democratic victories, but 60–40 splits were more dicey. It turns out, though, that, because the Latino electorate has grown relative to the non-Latino white electorate (as well as other groups of voters), and college-educated non-Latino white voters continue to move toward the Democratic Party, the margins don’t have to be quite as pronounced.

For decades, Democrats dominated in the heavily Mexican American Rio Grande Valley, until support for Trump there rose dramatically in 2020. This year, both parties invested heavily in candidates in the region, and Democrats can sigh in relief that the Democrat Vicente Gonzalez defeated the Republican Mayra Flores, fifty-three to forty-four per cent, and that the Democrat Henry Cuellar defeated the Republican Cassy Garcia, fifty-seven to forty-three per cent. They can also point to the gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke, who did better in the Rio Grande Valley than Joe Biden did in 2020. Democrats can also note that a record number of Latinos will take seats in the House next year, perhaps as many as forty-two. Most of them are Democrats, and they include a slate of young progressives who are all firsts in one way or another: Gregorio Casar, a thirty-three-year-old Mexican American, will become the first-ever Latino to represent Austin; Maxwell Alejandro Frost, a twenty-five-year-old Afro-Cuban from Orlando, will be the first-ever Gen Z member of Congress; Robert Garcia, the forty-four-year-old Peruvian American mayor of Long Beach, will be the first-ever L.G.B.T.Q. immigrant in Congress; and Delia Ramirez, a thirty-nine-year-old Guatemalan American from Chicago, will be the first-ever Latina member of Congress from the Midwest. Spread across the country, from different ethnic backgrounds, they represent the dramatic expansion of Latino politics.

Compared with the close results in other parts of the country, what happened in Florida was an unmitigated disaster for Democrats. Governor Ron DeSantis won the Latino vote outright, and not only among anti-communists. He won sixty-eight per cent of the Cuban vote, but also fifty-five per cent of the Puerto Rican vote and fifty per cent of votes from “other Latinos” (Venezuelans, Colombians, Mexicans, etc.). He was the first Republican in decades to win Miami-Dade County, and, as many have observed, Florida is now a solid red state rather than a swing state. If Republicans end up winning the House, it will owe in part to the newly elected Latina Republicans from Florida, such as the Air Force veteran Anna Paulina Luna, who won the seat vacated by DeSantis’s Democratic opponent, Charlie Crist.

There was more good news for Republicans across the country. In Wisconsin and Arizona, Republicans seem to have done just a little bit better among Latinos than they did in 2020. In Georgia, CNN reported, Senator Raphael Warnock lost some support among Latinos relative to both his and Biden’s Latino support in 2020. In the Los Angeles race for mayor, the Republican candidate, the billionaire Rick Caruso, could win—and with a larger share of Latino support than his Democratic opponent, Karen Bass. Poll results published just days before the election suggested that Caruso held a forty-eight-to-thirty-one-per-cent lead among Latinos.

These results display an image that’s more blurry than clear. That’s a good thing, if not for Republican or Democratic partisans then for Latinos. It shows that both parties have work to do in winning Latino voters, and should lead to more curiosity about Latinos, not as Republicans or Democrats but as a rapidly growing group of Americans. Democrats have argued that Latinos by and large support progressive policies, on issues that include reproductive rights, the cost of health care, climate change, and gun safety. Yet support for those policies hasn’t necessarily translated into votes. Democrats see this largely as a problem of messaging, but it would be a mistake for them to ignore how many Latinos are drawn to Republican support for American exceptionalism, charter schools, religious freedom, lowering taxes, and slashing financial regulations.

What would be most unfortunate is if Republicans and Democrats cherry-picked the results that favored their narrative the most, to help them argue that there’s no need to shift course and no lessons to be learned from what happened in 2022. If the current partisan narratives hold—that Latinos are moving back toward the Democratic Party (not universally true), or that Latinos are becoming Republicans (also not universally true)—the conversation two years from now will be the same as it has been for the past two years. Instead, we should aim for new narratives about Latinos that are as complicated and divided as America itself. ♦

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Parker Molloy at The Present Age:

In the wake of an assassination attempt, Donald Trump took the stage at the Republican National Convention last night with the eyes of the nation upon him. In the days leading up to this moment, pundits and political analysts buzzed with anticipation, predicting a "new Trump" — one who would rise above partisanship and deliver a message of national unity. Sound familiar? It should. For nearly a decade, the American press has periodically convinced itself that Donald Trump is on the verge of a dramatic pivot, ready to transform into a more "presidential" figure. Time and again, these predictions have proven to be little more than wishful thinking. Yet here we are, in 2024, watching the same story unfold. As Trump took the podium, promising to "end the discord and division in our society," many in the media were quick to herald this as the long-awaited pivot. But a closer examination of his speech reveals a familiar pattern: fleeting calls for unity bookending a core message rife with divisive rhetoric and partisan attacks. [...]

Reality Check: Dissecting Trump's Actual RNC Address

Trump's RNC speech, far from being the dramatic pivot many in the media anticipated, largely adhered to his established rhetorical patterns. While the speech opened with calls for unity and healing, it quickly devolved into familiar territory of divisive language, attacks on political opponents, and controversial policy positions. The speech began promisingly enough, with Trump stating, "The discord and division in our society must be healed. We must heal it quickly." He even proclaimed, "I am running to be president for all of America, not half of America, because there is no victory in winning for half of America."

However, this veneer of unity quickly gave way to more combative rhetoric. Trump's recounting of the assassination attempt, while poignant, seamlessly transitioned into attacks on the current administration and his political opponents. He referred to the Biden administration as "horrible" and "incompetent," and used inflammatory language to describe immigration, calling it "the worst invasion in history." Throughout the speech, Trump peppered his remarks with divisive policy positions and rhetoric. He promised “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country,” he railed against “crazy Nancy Pelosi,” took swipes at transgender athletes, referenced fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter, and falsely claimed that the 2020 election was stolen. This was not a speech built on “unity,” but on vengeance. This was a Donald Trump production, through and through.

While these positions may resonate with his base, they hardly represent the unifying message many in the media had predicted. The speech also included numerous attacks on the press, Democrats, and even some fellow Republicans who have opposed him. The speech was a microcosm of Trump's political persona: moments of conciliation quickly overshadowed by confrontational rhetoric and policy proposals that appeal primarily to his core supporters. The "new Trump" promised by pundits and allies was nowhere to be found. Instead, we saw the same Trump who has dominated American politics for the better part of a decade, slightly tempered by recent events but fundamentally unchanged in his approach and messaging. [...]

Consequences of Wishful Thinking: How 'New Tone' Narratives Skew Public Perception

The media's persistent embrace of the "new tone" narrative, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, has far-reaching consequences for our political discourse and the health of our democracy. These narratives create a false sense of transformation and progress. When major news outlets trumpet a shift in Trump's rhetoric that doesn't materialize in his actions or sustained messaging, it can and does lead voters to believe that real change is occurring when it isn't. This misperception can influence voting decisions, potentially swaying moderate or undecided voters based on a fleeting and illusory shift in tone. The repeated cycle of predicted pivots followed by disappointment contributes to public cynicism about the media. When readers and viewers repeatedly see headlines promising a new, more presidential Trump, only to be confronted with the same divisive figure, trust in journalism erodes. This erosion of trust is particularly dangerous in an era of widespread misinformation and "fake news" accusations.

[...] Perpetuating the pivot myth distracts from holding political figures accountable for their actions and statements. By constantly resetting the clock and treating each speech as a potential fresh start, the media fails to provide the consistent, critical coverage necessary for a well-informed electorate.

Excellent column from Parker Molloy on the media’s obsession with the elusive Donald Trump pivot narrative that doesn’t exist.

See Also:

MMFA: Media outlets touted MAGA spin that Trump's RNC speech would be unifying. After, they admitted it was divisive and disjointed.

MMFA: Trump's RNC speech was divisive, but front pages of mainstream media claimed it was “unifying” and “healing”

[lightdancer1]

Wrapped up the next volume of the Oxford History of the United States:

This and Battle Cry of Freedom remain the best two of the entire series thus far, and they are this because they both share a specific point none of the others really try to do. They do not merely recap the views and experiences of the time in a narrative history, they note and expose the sheer mass of self-deception and willingly buying into their own lies that underlay the hearts of some parts of this era, along with the casual barbaric brutality that was another part of it.

This book had a great many potential places to begin, but elected to do so with the funeral procession of Lincoln's train. It argues that the victorious Republicans of 1865 took from that victory vindication of the original Mk. I Free Soil vision and the very self-deceptive delusion that the scale of military defeat moderated the former rebel armies and their leaders. Neither proved to be true and in 873 pages precisely why that proved to be the case is illustrated. The book also notes the ironies that Black people were given specific rigged realities that have shaped their lives ever since, the Southern white elite through fire and sword recreating a pale ghost of the old order through night-rider terror and through wholesale destruction of the principle of rule of law. No land transfers were made on any scale that mattered for Black people, but the US government retained its fundamental nature to that point as a huge land transfer machine in the last phases of the old Indian Wars.

The country of George Washington vanished at Appomattox, the one envisioned by the Republicans of 1865 died a slower but no less total death to produce the corporate-state conglomerates that become recognizably that of our time, and where the avarice and greed of empire produced endless failures rewarded with lavish subsidies while official rhetoric, of course, pretended none of this was true. This was also the last golden age of Senatorial leaders as its main and most powerful political figures, men like Roscoe Conkling and James G. Blaine, were products of the Senate of that era who never translated that actual power into the Presidency.

The world of free labor became that of the particularly US pattern of industrial capitalism and even the advocates of that classical liberal view found the reality of the world forged in the fires of Reconstruction and then the convulsions of shifts from free soil to the reality of class struggle on the one hand and the efforts of the Bourbon South to re-establish a very specific kind of white supremacy in the South as the Army and politicians did so against first Indigenous peoples and then Chinese people in the West.

The reality was a USA whose air became filthier, whose cities were death traps where the very rich and the very poor engaged in strife that could and did turn horrifically bloody, where height shrank, lives got shorter, and misery increased to sufficient levels that in 1896, where the book ends, a signal crisis and the last gasp of Jeffersonian-Jacksonian politics died with a whimper in the Bryan vs. McKinley election. Modernity was very real, and for all the deep limitations the United States at this time really did become the juggernaut in the making that would become first a rival for global empire in 1945 and then last rat standing in 1991. But that process only began in the 1860s and was still in further motion in the 1890s and owed itself to a huge amount of luck and circumstances nobody could have foreseen short of omniscience.

10/10.