#trump insults milwaukee

[tomorrowusa]

A day after Trump insulted Milwaukee, Democrats began buying billboard space to remind locals of what he thinks of them.

Billboards may seem very old school, but they are one way to get through to low information voters.

A group called Republican Voters Against Trump has its own campaign.

Back in Wisconsin, a Wauwatosa company called Penzeys Spices paid for this sign near the airport in Milwaukee.

Trump can be beaten and democracy saved, but it's going to take a lot of creative effort and grass roots work by everybody.

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

“Moore: I don't know many people in Milwaukee who have 34 felony counts against them. So our crime rate is going to go up when he joins us in Milwaukee.”

Trump will always say these things about cities that have large black communities.

🖕

[scottguy]

Article: Mike Johnson Has No Clue Trump Already Admitted Milwaukee Insult

Trump is so used to blind worship he thinks he can insult an ENTIRE city and still be loved.

Trump is a dangerous mix of arrogance and stupidity.

[mariacallous]

Glad people are finally finding out that these Pro Palestine protestors are ratfuckers-by-design at best (and Republicans at worst) and that's why they support Trump:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/08/dnc-palestinian-gaza-protests/679524/

One month ago, an NBC News headline reported:

Protesters made a tiny footprint at the RNC in Milwaukee. Other than a modest daytime march on Monday afternoon, the first day of the Republican National Convention, there were virtually no protests over the event’s four days and nights.

Obviously, the story from the Democratic National Convention in Chicago is already proving different.

This is part of a pattern. Gather any large number of Democrats together, in almost any city or state, whether at rallies, fundraisers, or presidential appearances, and pro-Palestinian protesters will try to wreck the event. These actions have been building to threats of outright violence. Pro-Trump and Republican events, meanwhile, are almost always left in peace.

Of the two big parties, the Democrats are more emotionally sympathetic to Palestinian suffering. The Biden administration is working to negotiate the cease-fire that the pro-Palestinian camp claims to want. The administration has provided hundreds of millions of dollars of humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza. President Joe Biden’s terms for ending the fighting in Gaza envision a rapid movement to full Palestinian statehood.

By contrast, former President Donald Trump uses Palestinian as an insult. His administration moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. In 2016, Trump campaigned on a complete shutdown of travel by Muslims into the United States; Trump now speaks of deporting campus anti-Israel protesters. He has pledged to block Gaza refugees from entering the United States.

Trump wants to tell the story that he and his party will enforce public order. He alleges that Democrats cannot or will not protect Americans against chaos spread by extremist elements. The pro-Palestinian movement works every day to create images that support Trump’s argument. As a visibly annoyed Vice President Kamala Harris asked protesters in Detroit earlier this month: Do they want to elect Donald Trump?

Not all pro-Palestinian demonstrators are thinking about the election. Many seem driven by moral outrage or ideological passion. But for those who are thinking strategically, the answer is obvious: Yes, they want to elect Trump. Of course they want to elect Trump. Electing Trump is their best—and maybe only—hope.

To understand why, cast your mind back a quarter century.

In the election of 2000, Vice President Al Gore faced Texas Governor George W. Bush. Gore probably would have won in a straight two-way contest. But that same year, the progressive advocate Ralph Nader entered the race as a third-party challenger—and he pulled just enough of the vote to tip the Electoral College and the presidency toward Bush.

Nader later professed regret for running as a third-party candidate. But at the time, Nader understood exactly what he was doing. Defeating Gore and electing Bush was the intended and declared purpose of Nader’s candidacy. Nader detailed his logic in many speeches, including this one to the summer-2000 convention of the NAACP:

If you ever wondered why the right wing and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party has so much more power over that party than the progressive wing, it’s because the right wing and the corporate wing have somewhere to go: It’s called the Republican Party. And so they’re catered to and they’re regaled—like the Democratic Leadership Council, they’re catered to and they’re regaled. But if you look at the progressive wing … they have nowhere to go. And you know when you’re told that you have nowhere to go, you get taken for granted. And when you get taken for granted, you get taken.

To paraphrase his argument even more bluntly: If progressives caused the Democrats to lose the presidency in the election of 2000, then Democrats would take progressives more seriously in all the elections that followed.

Nader’s logic was not altogether wrong. In many ways, the post-2000 Democratic Party has shifted well to the left of where the party was in the 1980s and ’90s. But catering to the party’s left has cost Democrats winnable races, and with them, key priorities: The Iraq War and 20 years of inaction on climate change head the list of progressive disappointments since the 2000 election, and the list extends from there. Whether or not the shift was worth the price, Nader was neither ignorant nor deceived. He identified his goal and willingly accepted the risks for himself and his movement.

So it is now with the pro-Palestinian demonstrators of 2024.

They start with a fundamental political problem: Their cause is not popular. Solid majorities of Americans accept Israel’s war in Gaza as valid and fiercely condemn the Hamas terrorist attacks as unacceptable. The exact margin varies from poll to poll depending on how the question is asked, but when presented with a binary choice between Israel and the Palestinians, Americans prefer Israel by a factor of at least two to one.

The brute fact of those numbers makes it very difficult for pro-Palestinian activists to win elections. In this cycle, despite all the emotion stirred by the Gaza war, two of Israel’s fiercest critics in Congress lost their primaries to pro-Israel challengers.

From the point of view of any practical politician: If a cause is so unpopular that it cannot help its friends, why listen to its advocates?

The only answer to that question, again from the practical point of view, is the message of the protesters in Chicago: Maybe we can’t help you if you do listen to us, but we can hurt you if you don’t!

Think of it another way. Since the bloody attack by Hamas on October 7 and the Israeli response, pro-Palestinian protesters have marched and agitated all over the United States. They have occupied college campuses. They have impeded access to Jewish schools, businesses, and places of worship. They have posted impassioned words and images on social media.

Yet all of their militant action has barely budged U.S. policy. Arms, intelligence, and economic assistance continue to flow from the United States to Israel. U.S. military forces cooperate with Israel against Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Yemen. Although the U.S. has imposed restraint on some Israeli operations, Israel has mostly been allowed to fight its own war in its own way.

These were President Biden’s decisions, not Vice President Harris’s. But she was the second-highest-ranking member of the administration. If Biden’s deputy inherits Biden’s office, the message is clear: His administration’s record of support for Israel carried no meaningful political price. All of those street demonstrations and campus occupations will have amounted to so much empty noise. All of those articles arguing that Gaza explained Biden’s troubles with young voters would be exposed as ideological wishcasting.

If Harris wins, the pro-Palestinian movement will have lost.

If Harris loses, however, pro-Palestinian protesters can claim that they were responsible for her defeat. That claim might not be true—in fact it probably would not be true—but try disproving it. The pro-Palestinian movement would have at least some basis to argue: You lost because you alienated us.

If Harris wins, she may want to do something about the pro-Palestinian cause—for humanitarian reasons, for reasons of diplomacy and geopolitics, for reasons of Democratic-constituency management in particular congressional districts. But she won’t have to do it. She’ll know that the protesters tried to beat her, and they failed.

If Harris loses, however, future Democratic candidates will tread more carefully on Israeli-Palestinian terrain. Even if they privately doubt that the party’s position on Gaza explains anything truly important, they will be worried by advisers and donors who will believe it or who will want to believe it.

But what about Trump? Why aren’t the pro-Palestinian demonstrators in Chicago more fearful of Trump’s possible return to the presidency?

Although the pro-Palestine cause attracts support from progressives, it is not exactly a progressive cause. Americans associate progressivism with secularism, feminism, and gay-rights advocacy, among other causes. The Palestinian national movement, especially now that Hamas has effectively replaced the Palestine Liberation Organization as leader of “the resistance,” has become markedly religious, patriarchal, and socially reactionary. But it is also a movement fiercely opposed to American global hegemony—and that is its “anti-imperialist” appeal to Western progressives.

If you oppose American global hegemony, Trump is your candidate (as a long list of anti-American dictators have already figured out). Trump fiercely opposes the alliances and trade agreements that magnify American power and make the U.S. the center of a huge network of democratic, market-oriented countries. Trump’s “America First” bluster is actually a pathway to American isolation and weakness that will further remove American power from the world.

If you wish America ill, of course you wish Trump well. The far left and far right of U.S. politics may disagree on much, but they agree on that.

The protesters in the streets of Chicago are not acting aimlessly or randomly. The people on the receiving end of their protests would benefit from equal clarity. The protesters want chaos and even violence in order to defeat Harris and elect Trump. They are not ill-informed or excessively idealistic or sadly misled. They are not overzealous allies. They are purposeful adversaries.

The Chicago-convention delegates should recognize that truth, and act accordingly.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Richard Luscombe at The Guardian:

Donald Trump returned to the campaign trail in Florida on Tuesday night, hurling insults at Joe Biden and airing a litany of familiar grievances, but declining to name a running mate for November’s general election. The former president and presumptive Republican nominee was speaking to a crowd of several hundred supporters at his golf club in Doral, a western suburb of Miami, keeping them waiting in 90F heat for a freewheeling monologue that began more than an hour later than scheduled.

There was speculation that he might use his first public appearance since last month’s debate with the president to announce Florida senator Marco Rubio, who was present, as his vice-presidential pick, six days ahead of the Republican national convention (RNC) in Milwaukee. Instead, Trump delivered a rambling 75-minute speech that included a succession of attacks on Biden and his faltering debate performance, which has raised questions among Democrats on whether the 81-year-old president was robust enough for a second term of office.

He seized on the post-debate turbulence that has prompted calls from some senior Democrats for Biden to step down and nominate Kamala Harris. “The radical left Democratic party is divided in chaos, and having a full scale breakdown all because they can’t decide which of their candidates is more unfit to be president, sleepy, crooked Joe Biden or laughing Kamala,” he said, repeating previous derogatory terms for the pair.

“Despite all the Democrat panic this week, the truth is it doesn’t matter who they nominate because we are going to beat any one of them in a thundering landslide.” Trump has kept a lower than usual profile in the days since the debate, a strategy an aide described as designed to allow Democrats to tear into each other following Biden’s dismal debate performance.

His remarks on Tuesday were notable for adding the vice-president’s name to numerous attacks on Biden policies, and sprinkling in mentions of both Rubio and Byron Donalds, a Republican Florida congressman also believed to be on Trump’s shortlist for vice-president. Otherwise, it was a standard Trump stump speech, full of evidence-free claims that his 2020 election defeat was fraudulent; baseless accusations that overseas nations were sending to the US “most of their prisoners”; and a laughable assertion that a gathering of supporters numbering in the hundreds was really a crowd of 45,000. It also touched on the surreal. Biden, he insisted, had raised the price of bacon four-fold. “We don’t eat bacon any more,” Trump said.

Electric cars, he said, “cheated” the US public because drivers had to stop for three hours to recharge their vehicles after every 45 minutes of driving. And, in an echo of one of the more bizarre debate exchanges with Biden over who was the better golfer, he challenged his White House successor to 18 holes over the Doral course while granting a 10-stroke concession. “It will be among the most watched sporting events in history, maybe bigger than the Ryder Cup or even the Masters,” Trump said, pledging $1m to a charity of Biden’s choosing if he lost. Returning to politics, Trump assailed Democrats for tax rises he said they wanted to impose; criticized Biden for the US military’s chaotic 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan; and promised to build an “iron dome” missile defense system for the US, if he was elected in November.

Donald Trump’s first post-debate rally on Tuesday in Doral, Florida served up the greatest hits of lies to his gullible brainwashed rallygoers.

See Also:

HuffPost: Trump Attacks Biden’s Debate Performance In Lie-Filled Return To Campaign Trail

[progressivepower]

Milwaukee Rep. Responds To Donald Trump's 'Horrible City' Insult With Brutal 1-Liner http://dlvr.it/T8Gr08

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Republicans were quick to spin Donald Trump’s decision to call Milwaukee a “horrible city” after his private meeting with House GOP lawmakers Thursday, offering a confused array of cover-up possibilities. And Trump’s own explanation seemed to make the least sense out of the bunch.

GOP representatives rushed to provide justifications that included whining about the city’s delay in answering the former president’s request to expand the security perimeter around the Republican National Convention to keep protesters further at bay. Several loyal allies even claimed that Trump never made the comments at all. Trump took a different route altogether.

“It was very clear what I meant,” Trump told Fox News’s Aishah Hasnie. “I said, we’re very concerned with crime. I love Milwaukee, I have great friends in Milwaukee, but it’s, as you know, the crime numbers are terrible. We have to be very careful.”

But that wasn’t all. Instead, Trump seems to feel it was obvious that he meant multiple things by the short insult.

“I was referring to, also, the election, the ballots, the way it went down, it was very bad in Milwaukee. Very, very bad,” Trump continued. “And the people understand that and they agree with me. Everybody agrees. No, that was a fake story that came out.”

“Yeah. Milwaukee has a problem with crime, as do most Democrat-run cities,” he said. “Most Democrat-run cities, almost all of them have problems. But they also have a problem with votes. And election integrity. And that’s what we want to make sure we get straight.”

Trump may still be reeling after a trio of his allies were hit with felony charges by Wisconsin prosecutors last week for their involvement in the 2020 fake elector scheme, including Kenneth Chesebro, who allegedly designed the national plot that aimed to frame Trump as the winner of the presidential election.

And, as for Trump’s claim that the city’s crime numbers “are terrible”—in reality, they’re way down, with homicides in the city decreasing by 42% when compared to 2022, according to data from the Milwaukee Police Department. Crimes such as rape, aggravated assault, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson have also dropped off drastically in the Brew City.

Baselessly insulting the city where you’ll be nominated for U.S. president in a handful of weeks is certainly a choice, but here’s hoping that Milwaulkee still knows how to give Trump a warm welcome when he arrives.

[wahoo-stomp]

The Defeat-Harris, Get-Trump Politics of Protest

Make no mistake, that’s the ultimate logic of the pro-Palestinian activists at the DNC.

By David Frum

(Interesting article from The Atlantic below. The author makes some points that might seem a bit harsh, but I think they are worth making.)

One month ago, an NBC News headline reported:

Protesters made a tiny footprint at the RNC in Milwaukee.

Other than a modest daytime march on Monday afternoon, the first day of the Republican National Convention, there were virtually no protests over the event’s four days and nights.

Obviously, the story from the Democratic National Convention in Chicago is already proving different.

This is part of a pattern. Gather any large number of Democrats together, in almost any city or state, whether at rallies, fundraisers, or presidential appearances, and pro-Palestinian protesters will try to wreck the event. These actions have been building to threats of outright violence. Pro-Trump and Republican events, meanwhile, are almost always left in peace.

Of the two big parties, the Democrats are more emotionally sympathetic to Palestinian suffering. The Biden administration is working to negotiate the cease-fire that the pro-Palestinian camp claims to want. The administration has provided hundreds of millions of dollars of humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza. President Joe Biden’s terms for ending the fighting in Gaza envision a rapid movement to full Palestinian statehood.

By contrast, former President Donald Trump uses Palestinian as an insult. His administration moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. In 2016, Trump campaigned on a complete shutdown of travel by Muslims into the United States; Trump now speaks of deporting campus anti-Israel protesters. He has pledged to block Gaza refugees from entering the United States.

Trump wants to tell the story that he and his party will enforce public order. He alleges that Democrats cannot or will not protect Americans against chaos spread by extremist elements. The pro-Palestinian movement works every day to create images that support Trump’s argument. As a visibly annoyed Vice President Kamala Harris asked protesters in Detroit earlier this month: Do they want to elect Donald Trump?

Not all pro-Palestinian demonstrators are thinking about the election. Many seem driven by moral outrage or ideological passion. But for those who are thinking strategically, the answer is obvious: Yes, they want to elect Trump. Of course they want to elect Trump. Electing Trump is their best—and maybe only—hope.

To understand why, cast your mind back a quarter century.

In the election of 2000, Vice President Al Gore faced Texas Governor George W. Bush. Gore probably would have won in a straight two-way contest. But that same year, the progressive advocate Ralph Nader entered the race as a third-party challenger—and he pulled just enough of the vote to tip the Electoral College and the presidency toward Bush.

Nader later professed regret for running as a third-party candidate. But at the time, Nader understood exactly what he was doing. Defeating Gore and electing Bush was the intended and declared purpose of Nader’s candidacy. Nader detailed his logic in many speeches, including this one to the summer-2000 convention of the NAACP:

If you ever wondered why the right wing and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party has so much more power over that party than the progressive wing, it’s because the right wing and the corporate wing have somewhere to go: It’s called the Republican Party. And so they’re catered to and they’re regaled—like the Democratic Leadership Council, they’re catered to and they’re regaled.

But if you look at the progressive wing … they have nowhere to go.

And you know when you’re told that you have nowhere to go, you get taken for granted. And when you get taken for granted, you get taken.

To paraphrase his argument even more bluntly: If progressives caused the Democrats to lose the presidency in the election of 2000, then Democrats would take progressives more seriously in all the elections that followed.

Nader’s logic was not altogether wrong. In many ways, the post-2000 Democratic Party has shifted well to the left of where the party was in the 1980s and ’90s. But catering to the party’s left has cost Democrats winnable races, and with them, key priorities: The Iraq War and 20 years of inaction on climate change head the list of progressive disappointments since the 2000 election, and the list extends from there. Whether or not the shift was worth the price, Nader was neither ignorant nor deceived. He identified his goal and willingly accepted the risks for himself and his movement.

So it is now with the pro-Palestinian demonstrators of 2024.

They start with a fundamental political problem: Their cause is not popular. Solid majorities of Americans accept Israel’s war in Gaza as valid and fiercely condemn the Hamas terrorist attacks as unacceptable. The exact margin varies from poll to poll depending on how the question is asked, but when presented with a binary choice between Israel and the Palestinians, Americans prefer Israel by a factor of at least two to one.

The brute fact of those numbers makes it very difficult for pro-Palestinian activists to win elections. In this cycle, despite all the emotion stirred by the Gaza war, two of Israel’s fiercest critics in Congress lost their primaries to pro-Israel challengers.

From the point of view of any practical politician: If a cause is so unpopular that it cannot help its friends, why listen to its advocates?

The only answer to that question, again from the practical point of view, is the message of the protesters in Chicago: Maybe we can’t help you if you do listen to us, but we can hurt you if you don’t!

Think of it another way. Since the bloody attack by Hamas on October 7 and the Israeli response, pro-Palestinian protesters have marched and agitated all over the United States. They have occupied college campuses. They have impeded access to Jewish schools, businesses, and places of worship. They have posted impassioned words and images on social media.

Yet all of their militant action has barely budged U.S. policy. Arms, intelligence, and economic assistance continue to flow from the United States to Israel. U.S. military forces cooperate with Israel against Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Yemen. Although the U.S. has imposed restraint on some Israeli operations, Israel has mostly been allowed to fight its own war in its own way.

These were President Biden’s decisions, not Vice President Harris’s. But she was the second-highest-ranking member of the administration. If Biden’s deputy inherits Biden’s office, the message is clear: His administration’s record of support for Israel carried no meaningful political price. All of those street demonstrations and campus occupations will have amounted to so much empty noise. All of those articles arguing that Gaza explained Biden’s troubles with young voters would be exposed as ideological wishcasting.

If Harris wins, the pro-Palestinian movement will have lost.

If Harris loses, however, pro-Palestinian protesters can claim that they were responsible for her defeat. That claim might not be true—in fact it probably would not be true—but try disproving it. The pro-Palestinian movement would have at least some basis to argue: You lost because you alienated us.

If Harris wins, she may want to do something about the pro-Palestinian cause—for humanitarian reasons, for reasons of diplomacy and geopolitics, for reasons of Democratic-constituency management in particular congressional districts. But she won’t have to do it. She’ll know that the protesters tried to beat her, and they failed.

If Harris loses, however, future Democratic candidates will tread more carefully on Israeli-Palestinian terrain. Even if they privately doubt that the party’s position on Gaza explains anything truly important, they will be worried by advisers and donors who will believe it or who will want to believe it.

But what about Trump? Why aren’t the pro-Palestinian demonstrators in Chicago more fearful of Trump’s possible return to the presidency?

Although the pro-Palestine cause attracts support from progressives, it is not exactly a progressive cause. Americans associate progressivism with secularism, feminism, and gay-rights advocacy, among other causes. The Palestinian national movement, especially now that Hamas has effectively replaced the Palestine Liberation Organization as leader of “the resistance,” has become markedly religious, patriarchal, and socially reactionary. But it is also a movement fiercely opposed to American global hegemony—and that is its “anti-imperialist” appeal to Western progressives.

If you oppose American global hegemony, Trump is your candidate (as a long list of anti-American dictators have already figured out). Trump fiercely opposes the alliances and trade agreements that magnify American power and make the U.S. the center of a huge network of democratic, market-oriented countries. Trump’s “America First” bluster is actually a pathway to American isolation and weakness that will further remove American power from the world.

If you wish America ill, of course you wish Trump well. The far left and far right of U.S. politics may disagree on much, but they agree on that.

The protesters in the streets of Chicago are not acting aimlessly or randomly. The people on the receiving end of their protests would benefit from equal clarity. The protesters want chaos and even violence in order to defeat Harris and elect Trump. They are not ill-informed or excessively idealistic or sadly misled. They are not overzealous allies. They are purposeful adversaries.

The Chicago-convention delegates should recognize that truth, and act accordingly.

[meandmybigmouth]

[macwantspeace]

Moldy cheese. So, while all the republicans try to spin this, the former guy sinks it. Y'know that a shark was 10 yards away! “It was very clear what I meant,” Trump told Fox News’s Aishah Hasnie. “I said, we’re very concerned with crime. I love Milwaukee, I have great friends in Milwaukee, but it’s, as you know, the crime numbers are terrible. We have to be very careful.”

But that wasn’t all. Instead, Trump seems to feel it was obvious that he meant multiple things by the short insult.

“I was referring to, also, the election, the ballots, the way it went down, it was very bad in Milwaukee. Very, very bad,” Trump continued. “And the people understand that and they agree with me. Everybody agrees. No, that was a fake story that came out.”

“Yeah. Milwaukee has a problem with crime, as do most Democrat-run cities,” he said. “Most Democrat-run cities, almost all of them have problems. But they also have a problem with votes. And election integrity. And that’s what we want to make sure we get straight.” Well then. I hope you understand. He did not say Milwaukee is horrible. He said that all the things about Milwaukee are horrible. Glad we could clear that up.

[tomorrowusa]

Milwaukee is host of the upcoming Republican National Convention. It is also the largest city in a state which has voted for the winner in the last four presidential elections.

Despite this, convicted felon Donald Trump went out of his way to insult Milwaukee at a meeting he had with his House Republican stooges.

Former President Trump told House Republicans in a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill Thursday that Milwaukee, the site of the Republican National Convention, is a "horrible city," a GOP lawmaker told Axios. Why it matters: Trump often paints Democratic-led cities as overrun by crime and undocumented immigrants. He has previously alleged — without evidence — that Milwaukee was a hub of voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Trump is a sore loser whose fictitious narrative of a "stolen election" assigns blame to everybody and everything except himself and his incompetence for his 2020 loss. And Milwaukee is part of the cast of characters he villainizes for his loss to Biden.

As with Trump's other accusations of massive vote fraud, there's no evidence to back him up. He's basically just talking out of his ass when he rants histrionically about his loss.

Trump's insult to Milwaukee is yet another sign of his ongoing mental deterioration. Even if he had a valid reason to do so, castigating a city in a must-win state where your party is holding a convention is something only a drunk or a deranged nutjob would do.

A total meltdown by Trump could happen before the election. So Milwaukee should have emergency mental health professionals on standby to treat Trump if that happens during the convention in July.

NOTE: Some of Trump's lickspittles claim that the convicted felon and adjudicated sex offender was actually referring to Milwaukee's crime rate. But according to the Fox News affiliate in Milwaukee, crime is down in the city.

2024 Milwaukee crime data; homicides down 39% in 1st quarter of year

Milwaukee residents should return the the burn and chase Trump out of town next month.

[shreksnuts]

sex denialism - should we fear it?

a specter is haunting the public sphere - the specter of sex denialism.

if you’ve been keeping up with the kardashians - or just with what’s been going on in the media lately - you may have stumbled upon a brand new term: “sex denialism”. some people love it, some hate it, some are afraid of it - and it seems to have caused quite the outrage in the scientific community - but you may be wondering to yourself: what is “sex denialism” even about?

well, if you’re looking for an explanation, look no further! this brand new hot-button issue revolves around a question that, on its face, seems quite simple: do people have sex or do they not? as you will see, however, answering this question has proven rather complicated.

it’s in our favorite tv shows, on the billboards we drive by, even in our children’s textbooks - but is sex really real? prompted by a dec 1 post on e. musk’s infamous platform, twitter, which called the phenomenon into question, people around the world have been discussing the possibility of sex being all just a great big lie - an adult fairytale, if you will.

the tweet was controversial, gaining many supporters as well as many opponents. it was retweeted by public figures as prominent as stephen king - though his stance on the topic remains unclear. there were also many dissenting voices, with people allegedly flooding the original poster’s inbox with insults (namely “virgin”) but also deep, thought-provoking questions like “if sex isn’t real, how were you born?”

we have asked experts to weigh in on the matter. richard goberpober, a biology professor at the university of milwaukee, assured us that “sex is definitely real. it is the only way some organisms, like humans, can reproduce”, and “look, i’m not saying everyone has a lot of it, but our species would go extinct without it.” however, there doesn’t seem to be a clear consensus on the matter in the scientific community. robert albert, a geologist who has dedicated the better part of his life to the study of magic crystals, went on record saying “when you really think about it, sex [...] is nothing more than another instrument in the hands of the feminists, who seek to establish matriarchy by using the promise [of sex] against us. in all my 45 years of life, i’ve [...] never seen it happen.”

the celebrity community is equally split on the issue. for example, a day after the twitter “sex-astrophe”, danny devito came out to confirm that “[he] love[s] sex”, further claiming, “i have it every day. just ask my wife.” despite not being asked to comment on the situation, former president d. trump took to his social media platform, truthsocial, on dec 3, to express his opinion. in the post, he wrote: “the democrats are now claiming that #sex is not real. of course sex is real. i have sex every day. and it is good sex. the very best in the world.”

we have reached out to millionaire taylor swift for comment on the issue. “sex? i have never seen hole,” she responded evasively, then added, “and stop asking me about it, or my lawyer will be in touch.” we have also reached out to stephen king on twitter, however, he declined to comment.

much to the shock of his fans, sex education star ncuti gatwa came out in support of the controversial tweet in his new interview for teen vogue. while the show he has previously starred in promotes the idea that sex exists, he is apparently of the opposite opinion. “even my parents told me about it, but i’ve come to realize that it’s probably not real,” he claimed, further insinuating that, “it could be a lot like santa, you know, or the tooth fairy. except grown adults believe in this stuff.” when pressed on why exactly he believes sex is not real, he explained, “a lot of people think i have, but i’ve actually never had it. it just... doesn’t seem natural. i mean, i use mine to urinate. and you’re telling me i should be putting it in some sort of vortex? what if it gets lost in there?” the interviewer has since commented that gatwa appeared distraught by the possibility. when asked whether he would continue to star in the popular show, he declined to answer.

ultimately, this topic has proven to be quite divisive, splitting society into two different camps: sex believers and sex deniers. which one are you?

[scottiestoybox]

Jon Stewart Debunks GOP’s City Crime Narrative | The Daily Show

Trump called the RNC host city of Milwaukee a horrible place and is now trying to pass the insult off as a concern about crime. Jon Stewart digs into the Right’s fearmongering obsession: crime in big cities. Republicans want you to believe that “lawless” Democrats are to blame, but when it comes to Democrat-run city crime, it turns out the guns are coming from red states. #DailyShow #Crime…

[occupyhades]

Backstabber Watch

Focused on the Cult of Belial: the cult of the devil.

The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good. Proverbs 15:3 (ESV)

For the LORD is God, and he created the heavens and earth and put everything in place. He made the world to be lived in, not to be a place of empty chaos. “I am the LORD,” he says, “and there is no other." Isaiah 45:18 (NLT)

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom. For judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment. What good is it, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith, but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? James 2:12-14 (BSB)

If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. Titus 3:10 (NLT)

This is what the LORD says: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5 (NIV)  

A wicked person listens to deceitful lips; a liar pays attention to a destructive tongue. Proverbs 17:4 (NIV) 

You must not swear falsely by My name and so profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:12 (BSB)

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave anyone unpunished who takes His name in vain. Exodus 20:7 (BSB)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

David Moye at HuffPost:

Residents of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, are probably cheesed off at Donald Trump after he called the site of next month’s Republican National Convention a “horrible city.” The convention begins July 15, but the former president reportedly insulted the Midwestern city during a meeting on Thursday with House and Senate Republicans, according to journalist Jake Sherman. “Milwaukee, where we are having our convention, is a horrible city,” is how Trump reportedly expressed his displeasure to the GOP members of Congress.

Trump’s reported diss of Milwaukee comes amid speculation that he might not attend the GOP convention in person and instead hold convention-related events from Mar-a-Lago. Wisconsin Republicans tried to defend Trump’s honor after Sherman’s initial tweet but didn’t seem to agree on the proper spin. Dan Shafer, a Wisconsin-based political reporter, noted at least three different excuses for the comments were suggested. One Cheese State Republican claimed Trump was griping about the city’s crime rate, while another claimed he was worried about election fraud, and a third said the former president never said the words.

Trump adviser Steven Cheung also claimed the reported Milwaukee insult was about “how terrible crime and voter fraud are.”

Donald Trump trashed Milwaukee, Wisconsin as a “horrible city”, which serves as the home of the 2024 RNC.

Trump’s crass insult towards Milwaukee could very well cost him the state if it’s close in the elections.