#who's Trump working for and what is his goal?

[centrally-unplanned]

Anyway I wanted to write something a little more serious about the politics of the day - a trend many noticed in the 2024 election, and its aftermath, is all of these notable non-politicians jumping onto the Trump ship. You have certainly noticed the big ones doing it, the Musk-types. What I have also seen is the middle-road types - the podcasts slotting the admin into their current healthcare fad, the policy bloggers being like "Dear Trump, this is how to truly reform the government - my pet idea" and offering support. A sort of opportunistic bandwagoning. This does happen every election to some extent, but it is notable that it happened way, way less when Biden was elected.

Some view this through the lens of fear, of Trump's open willingness to tax or prosecute those who don't bend the knee. That is part of it, for sure. But the other part is that Trump doesn't really believe in all that much - and that is actually a pretty big asset in politics. If you are a "Progress Studies" blogger or a union rep or a tech CEO, does Trump disagree with any of your key issues? He might not! You can just "convince" him, that is actually on the table, and he might take up your cause. And the Republican Party - not always, absolutely not always, but sometimes - will be browbeaten into going along with his whims even if they contradict their previous ideology. If you are ambitious and play your cards right, the structure of the Trump admin can very much reward people along the lines of these pet issues.

This is something the Democratic party could not do. All policy from the Biden admin came from a decade+ process of being discussed within the party. There were absolutely, 100%, "factions" jockeying for influence, but it was insiders, pre-established orgs along known lines, who were doing that jockeying. Is there any big policy that the Biden admin pursued that truly surprised you? That you were like, "woah, where the fuck did Biden get this idea from?" Not really, right? Because the admin was in so many ways an extension of the party.

Now this can be a real strength when your political parties are strong. When the locus of politics is within parties, then naturally they should be informing directions, and your goal as an admin is to court them. But that is pretty much the opposite of the current US political landscape - political parties have never been weaker. Voters hate political insiders, primaries are completely open and people who openly oppose the party sometimes sweep them, voters don't get their political opinion or w/e from politicians or party orgs. Parties are downstream of where more and more political influence comes from (though ofc they are by no means powerless, this is all trendlines). If you are one of these political outsider types, the Joe Rogans or Progress Studies bloggers or crypto coalitions or whatever, the Democratic party is just not going to work with you? You will be "heard", but if you want influence you gotta put your decade+ into the party first.

But Trump? You just gotta show up and kiss the ring. For talented people, this is actually a much better deal. It probably won't work, but the odds are still better than the alternative. And the biggest looming wrinkle is that this strategy is being hamstrung by Trump being a total idiot and backstabbing asshole - imagine how effective these strategies would be if someone competent was doing it. His left-field ideas are not only "annexing Greenland", but also doing it in the most hamfisted way imaginable. The core idea here isn't that crazy btw! Greenland is pushing for greater independence from Denmark, but gets a ton of subsidies so is loath to lose them if they go solo. You can see how an intelligent operator charting some soft power politics here could maybe make something happen, but Trump is a fucking nob and can't do that. So he is often a bad vessel for your niche ideas. But at least he shows up to the game!

People sometimes really want politics to be ideological. They want a coherent political party with a unitary philosophy to implement a cohesive agenda. I get this appeal, but this just isn't how US politics, or democratic politics more widely, works. It is an endless process of factional recruitment for one-off reforms, and otherwise managerial policy (in)competence. Ideology is not elected, a "mandate" does not run for office. Some individual people win and then they invent a mandate afterwards. Democracy does not reveal consensus, it manufactures it. And the US is moving more towards that direction, not less.

My fear is Democrats, in "widening the tent", will focus too much on that internal party process, on trying to make the Democratic Party "coherently" something that is more appealing to the median voter. Valuable work, to be sure, but the other side is you need to make it more appealing to people of influence or talent. As others have commented, it is kind of baffling how the Biden administration committed itself to a policy of green electrification and banning foreign car imports, and somehow made an enemy of America's biggest domestic green electric car manufacturer. You need to be, on the margins, less committed to any specific ideology at all, and instead open to actually winning support from diverse factions. Otherwise the other side will always be more appealing to anyone not of your ideology, because they kind of don't care about ideology. The Dems are already the "bigger tent" party, this should be their wheelhouse. They just need to update their tactics for the modern era.

[bimboficationblues]

hi. how will you describe an organization like hamas after banning the word terror? i am asking for a more longform version of that post.

have a nice day.

sitting in my nefarious chamber banning words and concepts

even within the already murky waters of political analysis and its reliance on “thick concepts” - ideas that are both descriptive and normatively charged - the word “terrorist” has very little analytical utility or explanatory power. this is because it is a political, juridical term first - a term with which to tar the enemies of particular states - and an analytical concept second.

as a legal term it does not even do an okay job of capturing some kind of bad phenomena like “murder” or “assault,” because it’s just “committing a regular crime but in a scary and/or political way” - a means for prosecutors to throw their weight around and for states to bludgeon certain enemies with. I mean this seems pretty intuitive based on what gets designated as terrorism and by who (Hamas or the Afghan Taliban being good examples, or compare the treatment of anti-Cop City or BLM protestors with the pro-Trump Capitol protestors).

as an analytical term (in political science, theory, everyday discourse, etc), it sets out already burdened with the above limitations. everybody wants to advance their pet definition of terrorism (“states can do terrorism” vs. “terrorism is only done by non-state actors” being the dispute of the moment) so as to encompass their political enemies and exclude their political allies.

this sort of nonsense is what Israel runs on (“when Hamas kills a bunch of our civilians and fighters in a heavily militarized area, it’s terrorism, but when we do it back on a massively increased scale against civilians, it’s a legitimate act of war”). in other words, terrorism is revealed as a term of moral rhetoric.

nothing is lost from shaking the word “terrorism” from our political language. in fact there’s a gain because instead of letting a term do all the work by acting as a shortcut to moral clarity, we have to actually engage with the specifics: the strategy, the goals, the underlying values, and the relationship between the three - the politics.

[anexperimentallife]

So you want leftist candidates? Here's how you get them:

First off, you have to understand that the far right didn't just wake up one day and say, "We should fuck up the country!" They have been OPENLY working for decades to fill literally every elected or appointed government position they could with Christian Dominionists and other right-wingers, and these folks show up to the polls EVERY SINGLE TIME.

When I was a kid in a far right church in the 1960s, they openly discussed how important is was to get their people into office who would help pass legislation to persecute/imprison/kill anyone who didn't follow their religion. If there's no one sufficiently right-wing running, they'll vote for whomever is closest, even if it gags them. And I cannot emphasize enough that they have long term goals that they are willing to take--and HAVE taken--generations to achieve.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade, for example, is a DIRECT RESULT of the decades-long effort by the far right to boost the most far-right-leaning candidates they could find. They've been talking for decades SPECIFICALLY about getting enough far right judges in SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade. And these SCOTUS appointments are for LIFE, so these judges get to set policy for your GRANDCHILDREN.

So yes, the overturning of Roe v. Wade was only made possible because Trump was able to appoint three SCOTUS judges, in addition to all the other federal judges he appointed. Amd they're talking about going after same-sex marriage, minority rights, etc.

(Hell, the judge in charge of his secret documents case is one that he appointed--she has indefinitely postponed that case,by the way.)

And you don't think local school board elections are important? Have you not seen the news about all the anti-queer policies, and all the book-bannings? This, also, has a generational effect.

Meanwhile the left refuses to turn up to the polls because none of the candidates are pure enough. So guess why things are getting worse?

If the Left turned out for the most left-leaning candidate at EVERY SINGLE ELECTION, whether local or state or whatever, including primaries, we'd start seeing more leftist candidates. Yes, that means that if there's a choice between two extreme right wing candidates, you vote for the least extreme one.

I know I keep emphasizing that this is not just about POTUS, but POTUS does figure in, of course (among other things, who do you think appoints judges for congress to approve?).

So swallow this pill: Anything shitty Biden is doing, the shitgibbon will do MORE of.

"Not gonna vote Biden because he supports genocide, so I'd rather the guy win who ALSO supports genocide, wants Russia to invade more countries, thinks it's fine if China retakes Taiwan, wants a nationwide abortion ban, removal of civil rights for minorities, wants to overturn same-sex marriage (which the right-leaning majority in SCOTUS are already talking about), to cut back the role of congress in checking executive actions (including workarounds to avoid the need for congressional confirmation for presidential appointees), to remove federal employee protections so federal personnel can be replaced with Trump loyalists, and so on! That'll teach those Dems a lesson! THEN they'll be sorry. And fuck everyone the bad guys hurt, because I'll still be PURE. So what if top GOP officials want to actually NUKE Gaza?"

That's fucking kindergartner thinking.

Yes, Biden is a piece of shit, but I am not waxing at all hyperbolic when I say that a second orange shitgibbon term, with a far-right-majority SCOTUS--especially if the GOP manages majorities in both houses of congress--may be the end of what little is left of Democracy in the US. Not gonna argue about it, because I don't waste my time with petulant children.

Look at the GOP's plans for a Republican administration, and tell me you think it sounds better than another term of Biden. Hell, they've even set up online trainings and loyalty tests to narrow down potential federal hires to those who will commit to follow Trump without question.

I repeat: If you want more leftist candidates, if you want more worker power, if you want billionaires taxed, if you want to protect minorities and the queer community, you have to adopt the strategy that the right has used, educate yourself about what candidates stand for, and show up EVERY SINGLE TIME. Again, that includes primaries.

So many of us on the left would rather sit in the basement dreaming of some magical revolution that's going to fix everything, giving ourselves and others purity tests, and proudly announcing that we're... boycotting democracy by not voting(?), "because none of the candidates are a good choice."

Yeah, the left refusing to vote--or only voting in presidential elections--while the right turns up every time is exactly how we got here.

And you have to support the most left-leaning candidate even if it makes you gag, and even if "most left-leaning" means "not as openly fascist." This is the ONLY way you can be assured of candidates getting further to the left in the future. (Note that this means learning about your local candidates.)

"But voting won't fix--" I never said it was going to fix everything. There's no rule that if you vote, you can't volunteer with Food Not Bombs, or run for school board, or demonstrate, or circulate petitions. It takes more than voting, but voting has to be PART of our strategy.

You also have to accept that it may take decades to change course, and that you're not going to like every candidate you have to vote for.

The right didn't just magically get the orange shitgibbon into office overnight. It took decades of work. And if we want decent human beings in charge, we have to be willing to do the same.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The GOP is not the party of workers

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/13/occupy-the-democrats/#manchin-synematic-universe

The GOP says it's the "party of the working class" and indeed, they have promoted numerous policies that attack select groups within the American ruling class. But just because the party of unlimited power for billionaires is attacking a few of their own, it doesn't make them friends to the working people.

The best way to understand the GOP's relationship to worker is through "boss politics" – that's where one group of elites consolidates its power by crushing rival elites. All elites are bad for working people, so any attack on any elite is, in some narrow sense, "pro-worker." What's more, all elites cheat the system, so any attack on any elite is, again, "pro-fairness."

In other words, if you want to prosecute a company for hurting workers, customers, neighbors and the environment, you have a target-rich environment. But just because you crush a corrupt enterprise that's hurting workers, it doesn't mean you did it for the workers, and – most importantly – it doesn't mean that you will take workers' side next time.

Autocrats do this all the time. Xi Jinping engaged in a massive purge of corrupt officials, who were indeed corrupt – but he only targeted the corrupt officials that made up his rivals' power-base. His own corrupt officials were unscathed:

https://web.archive.org/web/20181222163946/https://peterlorentzen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Lorentzen-Lu-Crackdown-Nov-2018-Posted-Version.pdf

Putin did this, too. Russia's oligarchs are, to a one, monsters. When Putin defenestrates a rival – confiscates their fortune and sends them to prison – he acts against a genuinely corrupt criminal and brings some small measure of justice to that criminal's victims. But he only does this to the criminals who don't support him:

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/03/29/1088886554/how-putin-conquered-russias-oligarchy

The Trump camp – notably JD Vance and Josh Hawley – have vowed to keep up the work of the FTC under Lina Khan, the generationally brilliant FTC Chair who accomplished more in four years than her predecessors have in 40. Trump just announced that he would replace Khan with Andrew Ferguson, who sounds like an LLM's bad approximation of Khan, promising to deal with "woke Big Tech" but also to end the FTC's "war on mergers." Ferguson may well plow ahead with the giant, important tech antitrust cases that Khan brought, but he'll do so because this is good grievance politics for Trump's base, and not because Trump or Ferguson are committed to protecting the American people from corporate predation itself:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/12/the-enemy-of-your-enemy/#is-your-enemy

Writing in his newsletter today, Hamilton Nolan describes all the ways that the GOP plans to destroy workers' lives while claiming to be a workers' party, and also all the ways the Dems failed to protect workers and so allowed the GOP to outlandishly claim to be for workers:

https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/you-cant-rebrand-a-class-war

For example, if Ferguson limits his merger enforcement to "woke Big Tech" companies while ending the "war on mergers," he won't stop the next Albertson's/Kroger merger, a giant supermarket consolidation that just collapsed because Khan's FTC fought it. The Albertson's/Kroger merger had two goals: raising food prices and slashing workers' wages, primarily by eliminating union jobs. Fighting "woke Big Tech" while waving through mergers between giant companies seeking to price-gouge and screw workers does not make you the party of the little guy, even if smashing Big Tech is the right thing to do.

Trump's hatred of Big Tech is highly selective. He's not proposing to do anything about Elon Musk, of course, except to make Musk even richer. Musk's net worth has hit $447b because the market is buying stock in his companies, which stand to make billions from cozy, no-bid federal contracts. Musk is a billionaire welfare queen who hates workers and unions and has a long rap-sheet of cheating, maiming and tormenting his workforce. A pro-worker Trump administration could add labor conditions to every federal contract, disqualifying businesses that cheat workers and union-bust from getting government contracts.

Instead, Trump is getting set to blow up the NLRB, an agency that Reagan put into a coma 40 years ago, until the Sanders/Warren wing of the party forced Biden to install some genuinely excellent people, like general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, who – like Khan – did more for workers in four years than her predecessors did in 40. Abruzzo and her colleagues could have remained in office for years to come, if Democratic Senators had been able to confirm board member Lauren McFerran (or if two of those "pro-labor" Republican Senators had voted for her). Instead, Joe Manchin and Kirsten Synema rushed to the Senate chamber at the last minute in order to vote McFerran down and give Trump total control over the NLRB:

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/11/schumer-nlrb-vote-manchin-sinema

This latest installment in the Manchin Synematic Universe is a reminder that the GOP's ability to rebrand as the party of workers is largely the fault of Democrats, whose corporate wing has been at war with workers since the Clinton years (NAFTA, welfare reform, etc). Today, that same corporate wing claims that the reason Dems were wiped out in the 2024 election is that they were too left, insisting that the path to victory in the midterms and 2028 is to fuck workers even worse and suck up to big business even more.

We have to take the party back from billionaires. No Dem presidential candidate should ever again have "proxies" who campaign to fire anti-corporate watchdogs like Lina Khan. The path to a successful Democratic Party runs through worker power, and the only reliable path to worker power runs through unions.

Nolan's written frequently about how bad many union leaders are today. It's not just that union leaders are sitting on historically unprecedented piles of cash while doing less organizing than ever, at a moment when unions are more popular than they've been in a century with workers clamoring to join unions, even as union membership declines. It's also that union leaders have actually endorsed Trump – even as the rank and file get ready to strike:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yz_Z08KwKgFt3QvnV8nEETSgTXM5eZw5ujT4BmQXEWk/edit?link_id=0&can_id=9481ac35a2682a1d6047230e43d76be8&source=email-invitation-to-cover-amazon-labor-union-contract-fight-rally-cookout-on-monday-october-14-2024-2&email_referrer=email_2559107&email_subject=invitation-to-cover-jfk8-workers-authorize-amazon-labor-union-ibt-local-1-to-call-ulp-strike&tab=t.0

The GOP is going to do everything it can to help a tiny number of billionaires defeat hundreds of millions of workers in the class war. A future Democratic Party victory will come from taking a side in that class war – the workers' side. As Nolan writes:

If billionaires are destroying our country in order to serve their own self-interest, the reasonable thing to do is not to try to quibble over a 15% or a 21% corporate tax rate. The reasonable thing to do is to eradicate the existence of billionaires. If everyone knows our health care system is a broken monstrosity, the reasonable thing to do is not to tinker around the edges. The reasonable thing to do is to advocate Medicare for All. If there is a class war—and there is—and one party is being run completely by the upper class, the reasonable thing is for the other party to operate in the interests of the other, much larger, much needier class. That is quite rational and ethical and obvious in addition to being politically wise.

Nolan's remedy for the Democratic Party is simple and straightforward, if not easy:

The answer is spend every last dollar we have to organize and organize and strike and strike. Women are workers. Immigrants are workers. The poor are workers. A party that is banning abortion and violently deporting immigrants and economically assaulting the poor is not a friend to the labor movement, ever. (An opposition party that cannot rouse itself to participate on the correct side of the ongoing class war is not our friend, either—the difference is that the fascists will always try to actively destroy unions, while the Democrats will just not do enough to help us, a distinction that is important to understand.)

Cosigned.

[sepdet]

Try to imagine Trump going to campaign HQ to reassure those working to get him elected with a speech like this after one of his unwelcome surprises.

Of course, that's impossible. This classy speech is all about "we" — the team, and the American people — although of course it's got a few "I's" in there to contrast herself with Trump and sketch out goals.

First five minutes: Squaring the circle of saluting Biden graciously, thanking and reassuring his election team, and moving forward

05:40 - rundown of major accomplishments of President Biden's administration

8:45 Harris lays out how she sees this election and I'm actually gonna transcribe it despite my arthritis because YES YES YES. (It's not very long.)

"It is my great honor to go out and EARN this nomination, and to win.

"So in the days and weeks ahead, I together with you will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic party, to unite our nation, and to win this election.

"You know, as many of you know, before I was elected as Vice President, before I was elected as United States Senator, I was the elected Attorney General of California, and before that I was a courtroom prosecutor. In those roles, I took on perpetrators of all kinds. [chuckles start around the room, she smiles.] Predators who abused women. Fraudsters who ripped off consumers. Cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So hear me when I say: I know Donald Trump's type.

"And in this campaign I will proudly — I will proudly put my record against his. As a young prosecutor, when I was in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, I specialized in cases involving sexual abuse. Donald Trump was found liable by a jury for committing sexual abuse. As Attorney General of California I took on one of our country's largest for-profit colleges and put it out of business. Donald Trump ran a for-profit college, Trump University, that was forced to pay $25 million to the students it scammed. As District Attorney, to go after polluters, I created one of the first environmental justice units in our nation. Donald Trump stood in Mar-o-lago and told Big Oil lobbyists he would do their bidding for a $1 billion campaign contribution. During the foreclosure crisis, I took on the big Wall Street banks and won $20 billion for California families, holding those banks accountable for fraud. Donald Trump was just found guilty of 34 counts of fraud.

"But make no mistake — all that being said, this campaign is not just about us versus Donald Trump. There is more to this campaign than that. Our campaign has always been about two different versions of what we see as the future of our country, two different visions for the future of our country. One focused on the future, the other focused on the past.

"Donald Trump wants to take our country backward, to a time before many of our fellow Americans had full freedoms and rights.

"But we believe in a brighter future that makes room for all Americans. We believe in a future where every person has the opportunity not just to get by, but to get ahead. [Calls of "That's right!"] We believe in a future where no child has to grow up in poverty, where every person can buy a home, start a family and build wealth, and where every person has access to paid family leave and affordable child care. That's the future we see! [Applause.] Together we fight to build a nation where every person has affordable healthcare, where every worker is paid fairly, and where every senior can retire with dignity.

"All of this is to say that building up the middle class will be a defining goal of my presidency. Because we here know that when our middle class is strong, America is strong. And we know that's not the future Donald Trump is fighting for. He and his extreme Project 2025 will weaken the middle class and bring us backward — please do note that — back to the failed trickle-down policies that gave huge tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations and made working families pay the cost, back to policies that put Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block, back to policies that treat healthcare as only a privilege for the wealthy, instead of what we all know it should be, which is a right for every American.

"America has tried these economic policies before. They do not lead to prosperity. They lead to inequity and economic injustice. And we are NOT GOING BACK. We are not going back. (You're not taking us back.)

"Our fight for the future is also a fight for freedom. Generations of Americans before us have led the fight for freedom from our founders to our framers, to the abolitionists and the suffragettes, to the Freedom Riders and farm workers. And now I say, team, the baton is in our hands. We, who believe in the sacred freedom to vote. We, who are committed to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. We, who believe in the freedom to live safe from gun violence, and that's why we will work to pass universal background checks, red flag laws, and an assault weapons ban. We, who will fight for reproductive freedom, knowing if Trump gets the chance, he will sign a national abortion ban to outlaw abortion in every. single. state—but we are not going to let that happen.

"It is this team here that is going to help in this November to elect a majority of members of the United States Congress who agreethe government should not be telling a woman what to do with her body. And when Congress passes a law to restore reproductive freedoms, as President of the United States I will sign it into law! [cheers, someone shouts "we the people!"] "Indeed, we the people.

"So ultimately, to all the friends here I say: in this election we know we each face a question. What kind of country do we want to live in? A country of freedom, compassion and rule of law, ["Yes!"] or a country of chaos, fear, and hate? [Boos] You all are here because you as leaders know we each — including our neighbors and our friends and our family — we each as Americans have the power to answer that question. That's the beauty of it, the power of the people. We each have the ability to answer that question.

"So in the next 106 days—" looks around the room smiling at various people, "We have work to do. We have doors to knock on, we have people to talk to, we have phone calls to make, and we have an election to win. …" [a few final crowd -whipping-up platitudes like "Do we believe in freedom"]

------

Note: Yes, I know, she spoke about rights for all Americans without getting into any specifics besides reproductive and voting rights, because those two are core values of the Democratic party and the ones most Americans agree with. Unifying a party and coalition building starts by finding common ground. The approach Harris is taking will pull away some old-school moderate Republicans who are reluctant to leave their party even as it changes beyond recognition, but who really don't like Trump. Many of them have been poisoned more or less by Fox News, so they need to see she's not a crazy crazy liberal.

[tlbodine]

Tips for Talking to Conservative Friends & Family

In the wake of the election, with the holidays around the corner, some of you may be wondering how to deal with friends, family members, coworkers, etc. who voted for Trump and/or who espouse his policies.

This guide is by no means meant to be authoritative and won't work in every circumstance. I accept no responsibility for what happens if you use any scripts and it goes horribly awry. But I did want to share some of my personal experience in this vein, as someone with a great deal of conservative people in my life whom I generally love and respect and would like to maintain a civil relationship with (and, hopefully, bring them back to center if not my side). I've had decent luck with these strategies in the past.

First: Only engage if it is safe to do so.

Do not get into political discussions that might endanger your job, your living situation, your access to care, or your physical and emotional safety. However, do engage if you are able to do so safely and your doing so might help someone in a more vulnerable position. What the fuck is privilege for if not using it to protect people?

Second: Identify your goal.

Do you want to de-escalate a situation so someone can get out of immediate danger? Do you want to establish a boundary? Or do you want to actually attempt to convert someone over to your side? Each goal has different tactics. Be realistic with yourself about what you're going to accomplish. If you do not have a close relationship with the person, you are extremely unlikely to change their mind about anything, and it's frankly not worth the effort. Let someone who is close to them do that work. De-escalate, set a boundary if possible, and gtfo.

But if you do have a close relationship -- if this person generally likes and respects you -- then you might have a shot at challenging their views.

We're going to assume a scenario where you're dealing with people you know and who you can generally count on not to be immediately aggressive. Somebody else will be better-equipped to talk about strategies for dealing with protests and people on the street etc.

De-Escalation & Setting Boundaries

This is your first line of defense against family members acting shitty. If someone tries to start a debate, makes an off-color joke or comment, or is otherwise behaving inappropriately, try:

Let's not talk about this over dinner.

I don't think this is appropriate conversation right now.

That's an awful thing to say.

I don't understand that joke, can you explain why it's funny?

I'm sorry, I won't listen to any more of this (leave the room)

That's not okay.

What you want to do here is make an appeal to correct standards of behavior. You want them to feel ashamed for acting out of line. In order to make this work, it is essential that you:

Remain calm and keep an even, light-but-firm tone of voice. It needs to be clear that you're not joking around, but you also cannot sound upset. (Yes, this is really hard. I'm sorry.) Practice your very best "I'm not angry, just disappointed" tone for maximum effect. If you can manage it, eye contact and a neutral or even slightly concerned or sad expression will make it even better.

Avoid insulting or attacking them. Do not say things like, "Stop being an asshole" or "I can't believe you're acting like this" no matter how much you want to. Do not say "That's racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic." These types of replies, no matter how accurate, will make them defensive, and defensive people shut down and stop listening. If you come off as angry, that gives THEM permission to be angry right back. But if you come off as the normal one, them getting angry makes them look like a dick.

Do not laugh. Avoid the urge to chuckle nervously or joke it off. It WILL feel uncomfortable. It WILL be awkward as fuck. That's the point. They are misbehaving by violating a standard of appropriate behavior, and you are setting down a boundary. The awkwardness will fade and, frankly, they'll often start behaving better pretty much immediately.

Follow through on your consequences. If you say, "Dad, if you continue to bring up Trump, I will not call you anymore," you have to stick to it. Holding firm to your boundaries is HARD AS FUCK but if you don't do it then all you do is teach them that they can wear you down. Think of it like training a dog. Consistency is key.

You're not going to change anybody's closely-held beliefs with this strategy, but you WILL make a case for what is allowable around you. If you model this behavior, and encourage and embolden other people you know to do the same, you might be surprised. A lot of times, people's inappropriate behavior is a boundary-testing mechanism -- they tell the racist joke because they want to see if they can get away with it -- and if you shut them down, they often just...stop. Or at least retreat into their little hole to talk to fellow gremlins instead of you.

Challenging Views, Changing Minds

Okay. You actually want to engage them in conversation. You want to challenge their views and help them change their opinion. How do you do that?

Again, it's essential that you remain calm. If you can't have this discussion without getting heated, it's not the time to have the discussion. If they start to get heated, be prepared to de-escalate and walk away: "I cannot continue this conversation with you right now. Let's talk again some other time when we've cooled off."

But if you can keep calm, here is what actually works (sometimes):

Listen to them. No, really. Hear them out.

Help them feel heard by empathizing with them. Repeat back your understanding of what they said and how that must feel.

Remind them that for other people, THEY are feeling xyz emotion, too.

Ask them questions. Instead of telling them they're wrong, ask questions that will lead them to draw that conclusion themselves.

Make appeals to emotion rather than starting with facts and logic. You'll know what kind of emotion to draw on because you've been listening to them and empathizing. Hint: almost always, bigotry (at the personal level) is rooted in fear.

If this is going well, THEN you can start citing some sources, statistics, and facts.

Invite them to share THEIR sources with you.

Thank them for doing such a good job at being calm and discussing this with you, reaffirm your close relationship, and encourage them to come talk to you about this at any time. It's very possible that you are the only person they might feel safe bringing this stuff up to now and you want to keep that channel of communication open.

Very often (not always, or often), conservative-leaning individuals are people who lack the education or knowledge that left-leaning people do. They may be accustomed to being insulted, yelled at, and made to feel stupid. They are conditioned to believe that folks on the left are smug, holier-than-thou, stuck-up assholes. Whatever you can do to poke a hole in that perception will simultaneously make it easier to talk to them AND cause them to question that rhetoric the next time they encounter it.

This tactic won't always work. It probably won't work at all the first conversation. It's something you'll have to chip away at over time. But sometimes, it's worth it.

And if it's not? Well. As they say.

[traegorn]

With Trump’s plan to steal the election by having 100,000 voter deniers to keep certain votes from making it combined with no actual Palestinian speakers being on the DNC panel and so many ppl who aren’t gonna vote at all, I’m starting to panic and lose hope again. Idk what to do..

The Democratic party is split on how to handle Israel, so they were always going to avoid the topic at the DNC. Events like that are run by committee and everyone trying to find a compromise.

Trump can deploy whatever attorneys he wants, it won't work.

And the way you stop worrying is just make sure you vote, and convince the people you know who say they aren't voting to vote for Harris.

Trump wants you scared and hopeless, but the fact is the polls are no longer in his favor. We can't get complacent -- we still need to work to win this -- but we are doing better than we were a few months ago. We are far from behind, and victory is more than possible.

Eyes forward, don't look away from our goals, and we can do this.

Hell, when Harris had a rally in my town (Eau Claire, WI) recently it shut the main roads down. The base is energized as fuck right now.

So take a breath, enjoy the remaining summer nights, and get ready to vote November 5th.

[gulfiya007]

On lukola fandom

Here’s some venting about the lukola fandom, and its ways, and consequences, from an ordinary polin, Bridgerton and Luke fan.

Starting from the way Luke’s loved ones and friends are treated by its adherents. Especially his girlfriend. The hate towards her is visceral. The whole phenomenon of bullying and stalking someone just for existing and posting on their SM account from time to time probably needs to be studied by social studies scholars and parasocial relationship specialists, cause it’s new heights apparently.

So, what if she’s proud of Luke as her boyfriend and wants to show it? What if she wants to mark her territory sometimes, to which she has a right btw? What if she trolls haters and delusional IRL shippers occasionally? Hers is probably the most relatable behavior. I myself, as an introvert millennial who doesn’t run one single SM account and cringe from the exhibitionist nature of current SM posting practices, still recognize that there’s nothing unusual about that kind of posting per se. Why was Luke’s former gf, Jade, allowed to post him all the time (which is totally alright btw), but Antonia hinting at having, say, a dinner with Luke is shady, attention-seeking, desperate, needy and despicable?

It's not that I care particularly about her. In fact, I couldn’t care less if she’s replaced by Luke with some other woman in a couple of months or if she is his future wife and mother to his kids. I still believe, regardless of her status in the relationship, she deserves basic respect and decent treatment as a human being that we know pretty much nothing about. She does not deserve the vilification and demonization that she gets.

Luke too, has a right to privacy and respect for his personal choices that are nobody’s business. He owes no one anything in terms of disclosing his dating life and confirming his relationships. If for someone, Luke bringing the girl to almost all his travels and events with himself, is not a proof or statement in and of itself about her being his girlfriend, then that’s on them. No amount of intentional misreading and skewed takes on photos will trump this simple fact.

Also please don’t bring up virtue signaling and other cancel culture stupidities, such as moral judgements passed on Luke and his close ones for political or other values purportedly held by them, of which we in fact know zilch. It’s clear that this is just another useful tool in a shipping crusade.

Nicola too, deserves, for a change, to have her numerous statements taken seriously. Let alone, privacy. She’s being stalked by her so-called fans to insanity. I am sure she, to put it mildly, is uncomfortable about her “queen” and “goddess” status among the cultists, and being a projection vessel for a myriad of sad women. Cause she knows very well this type of passionate idolatry is an inch away from hate, and the plus sign switches to a minus sign the minute she does something not to their liking, a wrong brand or person supported, or not enough disciplining of Luke is exercised. The most delusional thing about lukolas is them truly believing themselves to be Nic’s or Luke’s fans.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter. That IRL shipping is bad, period. Some lukola bloggers on tumblr, TT and IG half-heartedly try to reign in and admonish the more unhinged segment of the fandom by telling them to behave and not bring their bul..t to the actors' feet. However, this is what the lukola discourse platforms, by simply existing, still do - breed crazy fan behavior. Because the problem lies in the belief system itself. No amount of reservations, house-keeping and discipline by lukola discourse 'leaders' will do away with the tenets and premises of this religion that seep through and twist every discussion and speculation about the figures involved (Luke, Nic, etc). Since every reasoning should work towards a certain end goal, all means and distortions are good to achieve it. Finding faults with Luke's character and behavior and demanding a 'redemption' from him, hating and criticizing Luke's friends and family, attributing motivations to the actors and their loved ones that best suit theories, online stalking etc. A myth about Luke ever publicly stating he was single during promo, a ridiculous myth about Bridgerton cast and showrunners shipping lukola (news flash – nobody in the cast cares about their co-stars’ private lives, stop the kindergarten), or the “papgate” affecting in any way Luke’s job prospects. Myths upon myths that build the house of cards of the lukola dogma. I myself wouldn’t care a damn about this fandom if it really contained itself to its close corners and group chats, however, unsurprisingly, they spill over in a grand fashion and permeate all discourse.

You really believe the innocent delulu fangirling has no by-products? These are the staple manifestations of the lukola and of any IRL shipping fandom, and popular lukola theorists are pretty successful in justifying and reinforcing them. And it should not be surprising that some followers, the most zealous and stupid ones, take it too far and actually harass people and be annoying in SM.

As a Luke and polin fan, I am annoyed by this, but I am 100% sure this sh*t is affecting the actors, and you all can kiss goodbye to the chemistry between Luke and Nic naturally displayed during promo. I am sure polin will not be affected, for L and N are excellent actors and friends, but you all soon will look sadly back to S3 promo tour as magic that will never come back.

[mrs-stans]

Sebastian Stan, the interview: "If I met Trump I would ask him how he looks in the mirror"

The American dream, the unpredictability of Jeremy Strong, the instincts of an actor: twenty-five minutes of interview with the amazing protagonist of The Apprentice. At the cinema.

INTERVIEW by DAMIANO PANATTONI

While answering questions, Sebastian Stan approaches the webcam lens of the computer he is connected to. As if he were, in a certain sense, eliminating distances. Connected from a London hotel for our exclusive interview , he is in the midst of the promotional campaign for Ali Abbasi's The Apprentice , in which he plays none other than Donald Trump . A role, as they say, that is worth a career. An excellent performance by someone who could be considered one of the greatest contemporary actors.

The set, among other things, he shares with two other champions: Jeremy Strong in the role of fixer Roy Cohn, and Maria Bakalova who plays Ivana Trump. Sebastian Stan, for the entire twenty-four minutes of the interview (he was very generous, and that is not at all a common thing), thinks about the answers, takes a breath, weighs his voice. Like when he reflects on what the killer instinct of an actor is, given that in the film, the character of Trump himself, claims to have a deadly instinct "For me it is the truth, and how you make real what, instead, is not" .

The Apprentice: Interview with Sebastian Stan

Sebastian, how did you manage to immerse yourself so deeply in Trump’s body?

Well, I think when you play real people, fortunately there is a lot of information to draw from, and to look for inspiration. I think it almost becomes a real detective story to solve. You put things together and try to understand what drives a person, where these decisions come from. There is a technical aspect that has to be applied consistently over time. It really becomes second nature.

Ali Abbasi spoke to both her and Jeremy Strong separately before filming. What struck her most about the performance her co-star brought to the table?

The unpredictability I felt I had in what Jeremy brought to every day, and every take. As a result, I felt very alert, very alive on set. And I think I was immediately in awe. For me, it was a great parallel to the relationship we were exploring, as if I was Donald in that moment. At work, being surprised is key, that’s the best.

There is a heated political discussion in the United States around The Apprentice. Do you think that helps or hurts your film?

In the film we are talking about a man who has always believed that there is no such thing as bad publicity, and his participation in the debate only confirms that, obviously. But I think the goal was to talk about the film. And I say: even just trying to start a conversation in such a polarized environment is a victory. Everything about this film has been a victory for us, even in terms of it being almost banned from being released. Now we are talking about it and people can choose to go and see it. It is a victory, in a very scary time.

A challenge against censorship

Did you have any pressure while making it?

My experience so far has been just compliments on how good and brave I was. People felt a certain curiosity about what this film was trying to do. But I think I made a very clear choice once I decided that this is what I was going to do, that I wasn't going to let anyone or anything scare me or censor me or have an impact on how I approached the work.

How much weight did your judgment have on the character? Did you embrace reality or did you take refuge in representation?

I think there was a certain degree of actuality that you had to distance yourself from, just to get an objective point of view on the period and what was happening to these characters.

There is a very strong sequence, where Trump rapes Ivana. What was it like to shoot that?

We had an intimacy coordinator, and we followed the obvious approach, which is to make sure we were all on the same page, and how we were going to shoot the scene. Obviously, there is a certain trust, which is important between the actors. We felt that the scene, as brutal as it is, was still necessary not only for Trump's character, but also for what happened in Ivana's testimony under oath, where she talked about it.

Practical question: The sound design is amazing, capturing the chaos of New York, even though it was shot in Toronto. Was it difficult to shoot outside?

Locations are always important. We had an incredible team that did the production design and locations. We had Kasper Tuxen, the cinematographer who shot Apocalypse Now , with us . He saw the film twice and said it was the best New York film he had ever encountered!

The United States, Beyond Black and White: The Shades of a Complex Country

Trump wrote on Truth Social that the movie is false and classless. How did he react?

Unfortunately, it's not very surprising, but I'm glad he acknowledged the movie in some way, I think it shows that he really cares. If he does, it's good for us. I'm glad he did. I also want to thank him for thinking of me at 1:00 AM when he could be thinking of other more important things.

After The Apprentice, what more have you learned about the United States?

We need to continue to explore the idea of ​​the American dream, which on the one hand can be so rewarding and on the other hand can be very expensive. I think you have to look at the system in which this man, Trump, was born. You also have to look at Europe as a point of comparison. But it's not all black and white. The truth is much more gray and we have to analyze it from all angles.

I don't know if you've ever met Trump, but if you did, what would you say to him?

What would I ask him? Simple: How do you wake up and look in the mirror every day and lie to yourself so much? Tell me because I'm really curious. Do you feel anything other than self-hatred?

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

1939 MSG Nazi rally

+

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 27, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 28, 2024

I stand corrected. I thought this year’s October surprise was the reality that Trump’s mental state had slipped so badly he could not campaign in any coherent way. 

It turns out that the 2024 October surprise was the Trump campaign’s fascist rally at Madison Square Garden, a rally so extreme that Republicans running for office have been denouncing it all over social media tonight. 

There was never any question that this rally was going to be anything but an attempt to inflame Trump’s base. The plan for a rally at Madison Square Garden itself deliberately evoked its predecessor: a Nazi rally at the old Madison Square Garden on February 20, 1939. About 18,000 people showed up for that “true Americanism” event, held on a stage that featured a huge portrait of George Washington in his Continental Army uniform flanked by swastikas. 

Like that earlier event, Trump’s rally was supposed to demonstrate power and inspire his base to violence.  

Apparently in anticipation of the rally, Trump on Friday night replaced his signature blue suit and red tie with the black and gold of the neofascist Proud Boys. That extremist group was central to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and has been rebuilding to support Trump again in 2024. 

On Saturday the Trump campaign released a list of 29 people set to be on the stage at the rally. Notably, the list was all MAGA Republicans, including vice presidential nominee Ohio senator J.D. Vance, House speaker Mike Johnson (LA), Representative Elise Stefanik (NY), Representative Byron Donalds (FL), Trump backer Elon Musk, Trump ally Rudy Giuliani, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., right-wing host Tucker Carlson, Trump sons Don Jr. and Eric, and Eric’s wife, Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump. 

Libbey Dean of NewsNation noted that none of the seven Republicans running in New York’s competitive House races were on the list. When asked why not, according to Dean, Trump senior advisor Jason Miller said: “The demand, the request for people to speak, is quite extensive.” Asked if the campaign had turned down anyone who asked to speak, Miller said no.  

Meanwhile, the decision of the owners of the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post not to endorse Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris seems to have sparked a backlash. As Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer noted, “in a strange way the papers did perform a public service: showing American voters what life under a dictator would feel like.”

Early on October 26, the Washington Post itself went after Trump backer billionaire Elon Musk with a major story highlighting the information that Musk, an immigrant from South Africa, had worked illegally when he started his career in the U.S. Musk “did not have the legal right to work” in the U.S. when he started his first successful company. As part of the Trump campaign, Musk has emphasized his opposition to undocumented immigrants.

The New York Times has tended to downplay Trump’s outrageous statements, but on Saturday it ran a round-up of Trump’s threats in the center of the front page, above the fold. It noted that Trump has vowed to expand presidential power, prosecute his political opponents, and crack down on immigration with mass deportations and detention camps. It went on to list his determination to undermine the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), use the U.S. military against Mexican drug cartels “in potential violation of international law,” and use federal troops against U.S. citizens. It added that he plans to “upend trade” with sweeping new tariffs that will raise consumer prices, and to rein in regulatory agencies. 

“To help achieve these and other goals,” the paper concluded, “his advisers are vetting lawyers seen as more likely to embrace aggressive legal theories about the scope of his power.” 

On Sunday the front page of the New York Times opinion section read, in giant capital letters: “DONALD TRUMP/ SAYS HE WILL PROSECUTE HIS ENEMIES/ ORDER MASS DEPORTATIONS/ USE SOLDIERS AGAINST CITIZENS/ ABANDON ALLIES/ PLAY POLITICS WITH DISASTERS/ BELIEVE HIM.” And then, inside the section, the paper provided the receipts: Trump’s own words outlining his fascist plans. “BELIEVE HIM,” the paper said. 

On CNN’s State of the Union this morning, host Jake Tapper refused to permit Trump’s running mate, Ohio senator J.D. Vance, to gaslight viewers. Vance angrily denied that Trump has repeatedly called for using the U.S. military against Americans, but Tapper came with receipts that proved the very things Vance denied. 

Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden began in the early afternoon. The hateful performances of the early participants set the tone for the rally. Early on, comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, who goes by Kill Tony, delivered a steamingly racist set. He said, for example: “There’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico.” He went on: “And these Latinos, they love making babies too. Just know that. They do. They do. There’s no pulling out. They don’t do that. They come inside. Just like they did to our country.” Hinchcliffe also talked about Black people carving watermelons instead of pumpkins. 

The speakers who followed Hinchcliffe called Vice President Kamala Harris “the Antichrist” and “the devil.” They called former secretary of state Hillary Clinton “a sick son of a b*tch,” and they railed against “f*cking illegals.” They insulted Latinos generally, Black Americans, Palestinians and Jews. Trump advisor Stephen Miller’s claim that “America is for Americans and Americans only” directly echoed the statement of Adolf Hitler that "Germany is for Germans and Germans only.” 

Trump took the stage about two hours late, prompting people to stream toward the exits before he finished speaking. He hit his usual highlights, notably undermining Vance’s argument from earlier in the day by saying that, indeed, he believes fellow Americans are “the enemy within.”  

But Trump perhaps gave away the game with his inflammatory language and with an aside, seemingly aimed at House speaker Johnson. “I think with our little secret we are gonna do really well with the House, right? Our little secret is having a big impact, he and I have a secret, we will tell you what it is when the race is over,” Trump said. 

It seems possible—probable, even—that Trump was alluding to putting in play the plan his people tried in 2020. That plan was to create enough chaos over the certification of electoral votes in the states to throw the election into the House of Representatives. There, each state delegation gets a single vote, so if the Republicans have control of more states than the Democrats, Trump could pull out a victory even if he had dramatically lost the popular vote.

Since he has made virtually no effort to win votes in 2024, this seems his likely plan. 

But to do that, he needs at least a plausibly close election, or at least to convince his supporters that the election has been stolen from him. Tonight’s rally badly hurt that plan. 

As Hinchcliffe was talking about Puerto Rico as a floating island of garbage, Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris was at a Puerto Rican restaurant in Philadelphia talking about her plan to spread her opportunity economy to Puerto Rico. She has called for strengthening Puerto Rico’s energy grid and making it easier to get permits to build there. 

After the “floating island of garbage” comment, Puerto Rican superstar musician Bad Bunny, who has more than 45 million followers on Instagram, posted Harris’s plan for Puerto Rico, and his spokesperson said he is endorsing Harris. 

Puerto Rican singer and actor Ricky Martin shared a clip from Hinchcliffe’s set with his 16 million followers. His caption read: “This is what they think of us.” Singer and actress Jennifer Lopez, who has 250 million Instagram followers, posted Harris’s plan. Later, singer-songwriter and actress Ariana Grande posted that she had voted for Harris. Grande has 376 million followers on Instagram. Singer Luis Fonsi, who has 16 million followers, also called out the “constant hate.”

The headlines were brutal. “MAGA speakers unleash ugly rhetoric at Trump's MSG rally,” read Axios. Politico wrote: “Trump’s New York homecoming sparks backlash over racist and vulgar remarks.” “Racist Remarks and Insults Mark Trump’s Madison Square Garden Rally,” the New York Times announced. “Speakers at Trump rally make racist comments, hurl insults,” read CNN.

But the biggest sign of the damage the rally did was the frantic backpedaling from Republicans in tight elections, who distanced themselves as fast as they could from the insults against Puerto Ricans, especially. The Trump campaign itself tried to distance itself from the “floating island of garbage” quotation, only to be met with comments pointing out that Hinchcliffe’s set had been vetted and uploaded to the teleprompters. 

As the clips spread like wildfire, political writer Charlotte Clymer pointed out that almost 6 million Puerto Ricans live in the states—about a million in Florida, half a million in Pennsylvania, 100,000 in Georgia, 100,000 in Michigan, 100,000 in North Carolina, 45,000 in Arizona, and 40,000 in Nevada—and that over half of them voted in 2020. 

In 1939, as about 18,000 American Nazis rallied inside Madison Square Garden, newspapers reported that a crowd of about 100,000 anti-Nazis gathered outside to protest. It took 1,700 police officers, the largest number of officers ever before detailed for a single event, to hold them back from storming the venue.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[centrally-unplanned]

I wanna get this one out before the election since I think that is going to "cast in stone" some takes when it shouldn't given how much of a coinflip it is; Biden really fumbled the ball in the second half of his presidency. I was very pro-Biden at the beginning, I thought he did a great job. I don't think the stimulus was a huge source of inflation and meanwhile the economy came back roaring; obviously not mainly due to him but he did a good job on renewing Jerome Powell (a Trump appointee!) to the Fed, controlling the Strategic Oil Reserve, and "getting out of the way" on a bunch of issues from trade to Covid policy. His environmental policy around the energy transition was stellar, I approve of CHIPS, etc. And in foreign policy he is never going to get the credit he deserves for ending the Afghanistan debacle, and meanwhile the US response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine was about as good as you could possibly expect it to be out the gate.

He actually proved the haters wrong on his promise to "get things done in Congress" using his expertise - he did in fact get bipartisan bills passed and work with centrists like Manchin to get party bills over the line. It was a solid showing; I thought he was clearly better than Obama & Clinton.

But as time went on the wheels really came off. You can almost see the "ideas" running out, like once they had done the Covid drawdown and BBB/IRA, and the midterms made congress more unfavorable, "what's next?" left a void. There was a bunch of bad "party handout" stuff that is completely at odds with how things work today. Foolish moves like the student debt relief - unpopular, unwise in an inflationary environment, a handout to the wealthy, and dubiously legal - or all the kowtowing to the worst unions in the US that still resulting in declining labor vote share! A lack of follow-through on the bills showed the admin's lack of policy chops; the IRA is severely hampered by the lack of permitting reform for energy projects, but the admin applied virtually no pressure to making that happen because, eh, not their vibe I guess? The huge holes in procurement that Ukraine war exposed has been met with very tepid responses as well, just a sort of "throw money at it" default that has fixed little.

Israel is of course peak inertia. I am a realist, I understand fully that there is no world where the US responds to a terrorist attack on an ally by cutting them off - and I think the Biden admin has had its wins in this category, the amount of aid entering Gaza is certainly higher due to US pressure. But it is just embarrassing how obviously Biden himself treated Netanyahu and co as like, credible partners, when they just aren't? Again, Trump would just happily support them doing w/e no matter how many the killed, it wouldn't be embarrassing for him to watch that happen. For Biden, with his stated goals, it is weakness. He could have easily done better.

And we can't ignore the responsibility to the next generation - it is your job as President to set up your successor for victory. Immigration is a classic policy example of that dropped ball - a fear of seeming "Trump-like" in the face of an unsympathetic electorate and an admin itself not actually committed to massive increases in admitted asylum cases. It would be one thing if it was Biden's hill to die on, but it wasn't; just years of muddle before finally doing in ~2024 what they could have done in ~2021, too late to move the needle on the backlash.

Which leads us to the elephant in the room, as all things must. He did end his nomination in the end, again I don't think he is some awful president. But he took a lot of heavy pressure to get there. And the weirdest thing is...he is the one who scheduled a debate before the convention? That isn't normal! It was very obviously a test, to show he was fit - and he failed it. And then refused to admit it. What if George Clooney didn't aim for his head in the press at the 11th hour? What if Nancy Pelosi didn't bring out the big guns? Would he have not bowed down to reality?

And while I have been quite impressed by Harris's campaign so far, and not having a primary has been an advantage, it has still been very rushed. Orgs take time to emerge, you can't actually just snap your fingers and get 30 interviews booked or a docket of vetted VPs. I think Tim Walz a mistake, personally! Not a big one, but a weak choice when someone like Josh Shapiro is right there and "pivot to the center" is your stated strategy. But it is hard to blame her when she probably threw it together in a few weeks while also doing 20 stump speeches a month and debate prepping and all that! I can't say that specific decision would change, but others would. Hell, time could have helped - her favourables in a ton of categories have slowly been ticking up, if she was the candidate since January things could be different. We will never know of course, but the more distance from Biden the better.

I think in 2023 and 2024 it is in fact very hard to find any solid wins for the Biden administration. I can think of a few but they outnumbered handily by the missteps. And I think that, if Kamala wins, a lot of this is going to be papered over. All the political missteps will be like "eh, who cares! We won, right?" But that is not how effective strategy works. For one, if Kamala wins it is only because Trump is the opponent; a normie Republican would probably have trounced her. But more importantly your strategy should pretty much never be "eh whatever" to maximizing your electoral odds. Every action should either be A: this will keep us winning, or B: this won't but it will make the world a better place and so it is where we are spending our points. Biden has had a lot of "neither option" these past two years; too many, in my opinion, to be considered a good president anymore.

But I will give him decent at least, it is a tough job!

[directactionforhope]

Pictured: President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office on March 25, 2019, the day Trump signed a U.S. declaration recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, reversing more than a half-century of U.S. policy.

Article

"Former president Donald Trump promised to crush pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses, telling a roomful of donors — a group that he joked included “98 percent of my Jewish friends” — that he would expel student demonstrators from the United States, according to participants in the roundtable event with him in New York.

“One thing I do is, any student that protests, I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to behave,” Trump said on May 14, according to donors at the event.

When one of the donors complained that many of the students and professors protesting on campuses could one day hold positions of power in the United States, Trump called the demonstrators part of a “radical revolution” that he vowed to defeat. He praised the New York Police Department for clearing the campus at Columbia University and said other cities needed to follow suit, saying “it has to be stopped now.”

“Well, if you get me elected, and you should really be doing this, if you get me reelected, we’re going to set that movement back 25 or 30 years,” he said, according to the donors, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail a private event.

Trump has waffled publicly about whether Israel should continue its war in Gaza, saying “get it over with … get back to peace and stop killing people.” Major Republican donors have lobbied him in recent months to take a stronger stance backing Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The private New York meeting offers new insight into his current thinking. Speaking to wealthy donors behind closed doors, Trump said that he supports Israel’s right to continue “its war on terror” and boasted of his White House policies toward Israel...

Trump has offered few policy specifics about how he would treat Israel in a second term. He cast doubt on the viability of an independent Palestinian state in a recent Time magazine interview, saying he was “not sure a two-state solution anymore is gonna work,” adding: “there may not be another idea.” A two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the end goal of U.S. policy under Democratic and Republican presidents for decades...

Trump took a different tone [than his public comments] in the meeting with donors. Instead of saying it was time to wrap up the war, he said he supported Israel’s right to continue its attack on Gaza.

“But I’m one of the only people that says that now. And a lot of people don’t even know what October 7th is,” Trump said.

Trump repeatedly listed for the donors everything he believed he had done for Israel in the White House. He moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, bucking decades of U.S. policy. He recognized the Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria in 1967, as an integral part of Israel after what he said was a five-minute conversation with David Friedman, his ambassador there.

He also polled the room if they liked Friedman.

“So I did Golan Heights. You know that’s worth $2 trillion, they said, that piece, if you put it in real estate terms. But it’s worth more than that. It is,” Trump said, according to donors present.

Israel, Trump argued, needs his help. Street demonstrations for Israel get smaller crowds than his rallies, he said. In Washington, and particularly in Congress, “Israel is losing its power,” he added. “It’s incredible.” ...

Trump and Netanyahu’s relationship will “continue to prosper and flourish” if they’re both in office at the same time again, Matthew Brooks, chief executive of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said in an interview.

“He’s giving the Israelis a blank check to go in and do what they need to do to destroy Hamas and eliminate the threat in Gaza from Hamas. And what he’s also saying, which is actually true, he said ‘but do it quickly’ because time is not Israel’s ally right now,” Brooks said."

-via The Washington Post, May 27, 2024

--

Reminder that just because the status quo is fucking bad, that doesn't change the fact that under Trump, it would be fucking worse.

[qqueenofhades]

One of my biggest annoyances is leftists and communists beinging up Biden’s tweets during the 2020 campaign of things he said he would do, and being like “see?? he didn’t deliver on anything and this is why you shouldn’t vote for the Dems again” Like, for all the understanding they seem to have of communist or marxist or whatever theory, the idea that the President is not a king and can’t do whatever he wants without Congress’s approval is lost on them?? He still believes in those things but if Congress won’t pass the legislation what is he supposed to do? EOs won’t solve all our problems.

Yeah. Not even to mention, the claim that "Biden hasn't done/delivered anything!!!" is a big fat lie, as people keep pointing out the things he has done, with a razor-thin House majority (until 2022) and two "Democratic" senators who torpedoed everything and one of whom has now literally left the party (Manchin and Sinema). So while Online Leftists obviously don't understand the difference between "achieving all of his campaign goals" and "achieving some," for the last frikkin time, Biden has done a lot of good things in very bad circumstances!!!!!! Using "he didn't do everything!!!!" as an excuse to not vote and so enable the open and unrepentant fascists is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard!!!!

Like. Take the debt deal. As in other things, Biden clearly learned from Obama's mistake (which was believing that the Republicans would ever negotiate in good faith about anything, and/or would reciprocate in kind if Biden made concessions). McCarthy whined for WEEKS that Biden wasn't listening and wasn't talking to him and wasn't entertaining his ridiculous proposals (22% cuts in ALL discretionary/non-military spending, including Social Security, Medicare, etc etc, while preserving the giant Trump tax cuts for the rich.) No matter that a full one-quarter of the national debt ($7.8 trillion of $31 trillion) was racked up under Trump and the debt ceiling involves paying bills that have already been spent. No sir, those Damn Free-Spending Democrats wanted to use your money on icky things like ~social welfare!! It was mean and it was hypocritical and it was blindingly obvious, and Biden just completely ignored it. He didn't try to negotiate in good faith with that, because there was no way it would work. He just let them whine.

Then, when it came down to it, Biden went in and got a deal that preserves pretty much all of the Democrats' major legislative priorities and expansions from the last two years. The only real change is raising the work requirement age for childless adults on SNAP food assistance from 49 to 54, but this has also been accompanied by a corresponding expansion of the definition "homeless" to make more people eligible, some for the first time ever. There's not going to be any major new spending for the next two years, but that wasn't happening anyway since the GOP controls the House and wouldn't agree to anything Biden put in the budget (and plus, none of the money that has already been allocated through the American Rescue Plan and other federal assistance is getting taken away). But more importantly, it raises the debt ceiling for the next TWO years and it won't come up again until after 2024. That is HUGE: the GOP really, REALLY wanted to hold the economy hostage again prior to the next presidential election. But Biden basically went in and told McCarthy to stfu and got what he wanted. Qevin was even forced, after months of "Sleepy Joe" GOP propaganda, to call Biden "very smart and very tough" in the negotiations. Soooo.

Anyway, this is what I mean: this isn't as sexy and/or as utterly fucking useless as spouting lukewarm rebaked "Marxist" propaganda on the Twittermachine about how Biden hasn't done anything, but it's the actual nitty-gritty work of government and flat-out beating the Republicans. They got absolutely shit-all that they wanted, because Biden didn't fall for their same old, same old dirty tricks and disingenuous squealing. He went in, got the job done, and will get way less credit for it than he deserves, from anyone. Dunno about you, but I like that guy. I plan to vote for him again.

[gusty-wind]

INTERVIEW OF KASH PATEL ABOUT THE FBI'S TREASON AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP THE RUSSIAGATE!

Listen to Kash Patel eloquently explain exactly how the FBI was framing Trump for treason in the Russia Gate scandal. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone more knowledgeable about the inner workings of the FBI crime scene than Kash. They were duping the world into believing Trump was a Russian asset when it was Clinton and Obama who were actually funding and organizing the scheme from the shadows. But they left a money trail. The upper echelon of the FBI was acting as a hand of the deep state and usurping the will of the people. This must all be exposed and we the people want justice! Kash knows exactly where the bodies are buried. In-Depth Clips here:

1: "The FBI met with Igor Denchenko…for three years while he was a confidential human source for the FBI. They could have been asking all these questions. But as I've said from the beginning the FBI is smart enough to know questions they don't want answers to because they didn't want their investigation to be shut down. And that's what they did. They struck page Comey All those people failed on purpose to answer to set forth specific questions because they knew the answers would kill the Russia investigation because they would have no credibility, for their source verification process, and they would have no fundamental facts upon which to go to the Pfizer Court That was their end goal They engineered a crime and worked in reverse. And then they went out there as we'll talk about and offered a bounty to people with information. It is a shocking abuse of the law."

2) "Remember when we broke the news that the DNC and Hillary Clinton had paid for the Steele Dossier? To me, this news is as important and as signify as that. Because now you have not the political party paying for the dossier, you have the United States government and our tax dollars being offered for what...Can you, Christopher Steele, corroborate any of the information we're looking for and we'll pay you a million dollars. Shocking. That is the exact reverse of how you run sources at the FBI."

3: Kash Patel says that the FBI, Clinton and the deep state are the real "insurrectionists" after the Durham Report revealed they were all in on it. "The FBI has become the police state. America does not have a single tier system of justice. Our judiciary and the FBI are corrupt gangsters and they've put it on full display. (They were) committing insurrection acts by trying to overthrow a duly elected President and subvert Democracy and ruining his administration. The Steele Dossier was the basic road map to how they kept doing it version after version all the way up to Hunter Biden's laptop."

4: "They are afraid that President Trump is going to come in and actually use the law to prosecute those who broke it. Whether they are in government, private sector, civilians, and yes, even if they are in the media if they participated in a conspiracy to rig elections and break the law you will be prosecuted.. The entire quote says we will use the constitutional courts of law to go after those that broke the law including those in the media. I think they are threatened because we caught them in Russia Gate, we caught them with 51 intel letter, we caught them on Jan 6th, we are catching them in Hunter Biden/Joe Biden criminal activities, and American citizens are tired of it. And they know they are in on it. That's when criminals fret the most and that's why are they slinging baseless rhetoric and hyperbole."

[ywpd-translations]

Ride 779: “Their trump cards”

Pag 1

5: Smash through

Pag 2

1: your soul!!

Hurakan!!

Pag 3

4: What's that

Just now

Was it an hallucination!?

Pag 4

1: A gigantic bull appeared on the course!!

Pag 5

1: Around the back of Hakogaku's number 14!!

It's huge!!

What the hell is that!!

3: Did you know?

When you're being serious, your emotions come out from your back!!

Pag 6

2: People really all have their own thing!!

Pag 7

2: And he even tore his jersey!?

4: Seriously?

This is bad

Pag 8

1: Legs, give me just a little more, yon!!

2: 150m left!!

Pag 9

3: Buoooogh

7: Tch

Pag 10

1: It's not the moment to be fascinated!!

What am I doing!! I'm the one who told him to use his final technique

2: Match his timing

3: Don't misjudge

4: your goal!!

5: Final gear

6: Sixth stage!!

Pag 11

1: “Golden yellow”!!

Pag 12

1: Hooo

2: ruaaaagh

Are you watching? Aoyagi-san

This is what I spent a year working on

Pag 13

1: My special technique!!

2: Two people are accelerating!!

They're so fast!

Amazing!

What's that stretch!!

3: This is too crazy!!

Hooo

4: ruaaagh

What do you think, Aoyagi-san

If I could be greedy....

5: I'd ask for you to witness this moment, Aoyagi-san

Pag 14

4: The race is heating up as they get closer to the sprint line!! Two people are chasing one person!

Gooo..!!

Kaburagi-kuuu...n.!

Your voices are so loud

Pag 15

1: Go!! Surpass him!! Go, Kaburagi!! If you win I'll allow you to speak informally to me, without the “san”!!

Oooon!!

2: The two behind are getting closer!!

Gooo!!

3: Waaaa

4: You're so fast....

Aren't you amazing?

Pag 16

1: Kaburagi Issa

Ruaaaagh

You think I'll let you do whatever you want, Gunma!?

2: Buooogh

Will you give up, Mountain bike guy!!

Pag 17

1: We!!

Pag 18

1: Caught you!!

Pag 19

1: Buooraagh!!

Pag 20

1: They caught up!!

Both of them!!

Hakogaku, Sohoku, and Gunma are lined up!!

3: 100m left until the sprint line!!

[puckpocketed]

5/08/2023 - Berkly Catton captains Team Canada to gold at the Hlinka Gretzky Cup, leading the tournament with 8 goals and 2 assists in 10 games || 19/01/2024 Meet the Future - Berkly Catton named Team White's captain for the CHL/NHL Top Prospects Game || 5/07/2024 - Berkly Catton signs his ELC with the Seattle Kraken

Introduction, quotes/transcripts/bits and pieces under the cut!

I can't even begin to describe how jazzed I am that Berkly Catton got drafted to a team I already love. I wrote in my Sharks off-season roundup that I was hoping against hope Catton would drop to 14th overall (back before we had moved up to 11th) and the Sharks would snap him up, as unlikely as it was that they'd try to gather more firepower when we sorely needed defensive prospects. I'm so glad I got my wish one way or another <3

Krakenblr you will LOVE this dude. He's such a star. Such a character. Berkly Catton is so, SO fun to watch. You have no idea!!! I followed him in the months leading up to the draft because there was buzz that he might be available lower down because of the Height Issue (he is, tragically, 5'11 <- which makes him undraftable unfortch) + concerns with how his game will translate to the NHL level. He is an electrifying playmaker. He's so creative, throws in so many fakes, WILL break ankles, very good hands... ough <3 everything I personally love to see in a forward all rolled into one neat little package !!!

There's the suggestion that he's been "over-scouted," which really just means they've all been watching him so long they're probably overthinking things and looking for stuff to critique. I'm inclined to believe this take over the other one because I'm an optimist and he was one of my little guys going into the draft! I won't include more of that here, but there's plenty of material out there if you'd like to look for it.

Below are some of my favourite bits and pieces from media he's appeared in <3

“I don’t like to give it away (pause) but I look at guys before games,” Catton revealed. “What’s weird is going from midget to junior hockey is a big jump. Last year I was learning. This year I wanted to add stuff. My pregame stuff and to look at guys doing draws and seeing what works. That’s pre-scouting on my end. If a guy has a certain move, and you can trump it early, it gets in his head a little bit. That helped quite a bit.”

“I think I sometimes have a problem with passing the puck too much. I love seeing my teammates score and setting up for an open net. It’s one of my favourite things in hockey, if not my favourite,” Catton admitted. “That’s something I can work on. When I get a chance put it home kind of thing. I got better this year at it’s still something I’d like to improve. Honestly, I’m a pass first mentality guy I would say.”

- Berkly Catton’s video scouting has improved his overall game

You know, when I first read and saved this article I was like; this prospect who reviews VIDEO is gonna haunt me. That's my weakness btw, I'm freak4freak. If you tell me a hockey player is also deeply infatuated with the game to the point of reviewing tape in their free time that's IT for me. it's JOEVER. i have a type and i know it <3 also wowie a pass-first guy who gets really really happy when his teammates score??? crying. crying. Berkly Catton . tucking uou gently away <3 forever <3

From A Day in the Life: Berkly Catton & Conner Roulette

Fave movie is The Notebook (<- unrelated there's a . really funny comment on this video from a philly fan lamenting that Catton likes the Notebook - I assume because that's some uhhh how do the kids call it,, femme soyboy shit? lmao anyway stay LOSING toxic masculinity !!!)

The boys call him 'Berk' <3

He talks about Jack Hughes being a big influence on him (in other media, he gives Hughes as a player comp!) and going to hang out and work with the Hughes family in Michigan. I sense a thread of admiration here like it's such a sweet little crush LOL <3 I hope he notices you Berkly !!

he gives the player of the match hat to a coach/trainer (one of the two) it's lovely... ouhhh... good little fella so polite and so conscious of staff being the foundation of his success... mwah!!

From Berkly Catton Talks Hockey Sense, His Start In Hockey & More | Game Tape With Tony

His father and grandfather built him a rink in his backyard, very sweet.

1OA in the WHL draft!

Anime main character levels of training-arc... my guy shot thousands of pucks over the summer in his backyard and then came back suddenly able to score goals. <- this is where the DIY goalie made of wood and blocker pads comes in. lol. lmao. are u even real.

sorry. sorry. OLEN ZELLWEGER MENTION. <- one of my personal favourite little guys (undersized puck moving defensemen my BELOVED) "Kind of a funny story [...] I pretty much had a breakaway, when he just turned backwards and played it as a 1-on-1 somehow, and I was like 'wow, this guy's the real deal', so." I really liked how Catton easily recalled a specific person/moment when asked who challenged him the most in the WHL; I think it speaks to a thoughtfulness about the game - it would've been easy to just give a vague Oh Everyone Is Good answer here and I like that he didn't!

There's a section where he talks about how he got so good at stick lifting, such an interesting perspective I never considered - he played in situations and against people where he couldn't just throw his body around to win, so he had to learn to get the puck in other ways. KEVIN KORCHINSKI MENTION <- another one of my little guys <3

mentions his dad being a big influence on his 'patience'. parents are so funny to me. ur watching your sons juniors matches? and Ohhhhh Chris Catton was a hockey player too . it all makes sense. Berkly Catton product of jockdad like so many before him <3

I do love that throughout this interview, Catton defers to his linemates a lot. Always hyping them up and talking about how he owes his success to them. it could be construed as false humility, given Catton was the highest scoring draft-eligible in the league - but he really does go out of his way to emphasise how highly he regards them and how much of their on-ice success is owed to good chemistry built up over the entire season. It strikes me as genuine!! He's a good boy <3

Revealed he can solve a rubix cube at the end... wow... he just liek me fr...

PLEASE watch this on-ice interview where he's chatting after a game and then gets ABSOLUTELY WASTED by 5 water bottles and all the boys. he is clearly so so so beloved in that locker room waaaahhh <3

Anyway this isn't an exhaustive list but it IS a lot of the reasons why I really liked him pre-draft. welcome to the deep Berkly <3