Kamala Harris held a joyful, boisterous rally last night in Atlanta. What a contrast to old sad sack Grandpa Trump! The enthusiastic crowd filled a 10,000-seat auditorium, cheering as she directly challenged Trump.
Vice President Kamala Harris taunted former President Donald Trump to meet her on a debate stage before the November election while she campaigned in Atlanta on Tuesday night.
“He won’t debate, but he and his running mate sure seem to have a lot to say about me,” Harris said. “Well, Donald, I do hope you’ll reconsider to meet me on the debate stage because, as the saying goes, if you got something to say, say it to my face.”
A debate between Trump and Mr. Biden was planned for Sept. 10 before the president dropped out of the race. On Monday, Trump told Fox News he wanted to debate but that he could also “make a case for not doing it.”
Harris portrayed herself as the underdog in the race against Trump but said the “momentum in this race is shifting and there are signs that Donald Trump is feeling it.”
It’s Harris’ first visit to Georgia since President Biden ended his reelection campaign. Her campaign is trying to keep the battleground state in play. Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee, noted the importance of the state moments into her speech.
“I am very clear: The path to the White House runs right through this state,” Harris said. “You all helped us win in 2020 and we are going to do it again in 2024.” [….]
Harris also laid out some priorities for her potential administration, including bringing back a bipartisan border bill that Trump lobbied Republican members of Congress to sink, taking on price gouging, and capping “unfair rent increases” and prescription drug costs….
More than 10,000 people attended the event, according to the campaign, which said it was her largest rally to date.
Three weeks ago, the political commentariat was writing off Georgia and talking of narrow pathways for Joe Biden to hold the White House. Georgia was a desert. On Tuesday evening, an Atlanta crowd greeted Kamala Harris like she backed up a truck full of sweet tea to that desert.
It’s probably too early – nine days since the president’s withdrawal and the vice-president’s ascension – to know if sentiment in Georgia had shifted enough to justify jubilation. But the crowd in Atlanta treated the new presumptive presidential nominee as a reason to celebrate after months of her quieter campaigning in the city as the vice-presidential nominee.
“As many of you know, before I was elected vice-president … I was an elected attorney general and an elected district attorney,” Harris said after taking the stand. “Hear me when I say, I know Donald Trump’s type, and I have been dealing with people like him my entire career.” [….]
Harris addressed a crowd of 10,000 who filled the Georgia State Convocation Center, with people waiting outside for a seat. She touted her prosecution record and referenced Trump’s criminal convictions and the findings of fraud in his businesses.
“As an attorney general, I held big Wall Street banks accountable for fraud. Donald Trump was found guilty of fraud,” Harris said. “In this campaign, I will proudly put my record against his any day, including on the issue of immigration.”
Harris spoke of walking underground tunnels at the California border and prosecuting traffickers, and pledged to bring back the border security bill that was tanked in Congress by Republicans to preserve the issue in the campaign.
Referencing a Migos song – popular as an Atlanta group – she said: “He does not walk it as he talks it.” [….]
Harris is expected back in the state next week, and will debut her running mate on a seven-stop swing state tour, according to details confirmed by her campaign. Politico reported Harris will hold the first rally in Philadelphia on Tuesday. Harris said she as of today had not picked the candidate.
For the last two years, Harris has been Joe Biden’s chief campaign surrogate in Georgia, making deliberate connections with campaign organizers and Black community leaders, a weapon in the Democratic arsenal that Republicans have not been able to match.
Harris is planning to announce her running mate soon, and they will appear together at a rally in Philadelphia on Tuesday. People are speculating that the location indicates her pick will be Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. We’ll find out soon.
Vice President Kamala Harris is expected to announce her running mate by Tuesday, when she will hold her first rally with her pick in Philadelphia.
The two will barnstorm cities in seven swing states in four days. In addition to Philadelphia, they’ll hit western Wisconsin, Detroit, Raleigh, Savannah, Phoenix and Las Vegas.
The stops will mark the first major campaign swing the presumptive ticket will make since Harris became the all-but-certain Democratic presidential nominee following President Joe Biden’s sudden departure from the race. The tour also underscores that the campaign believes the electoral map has expanded since Biden passed the baton to Harris.
The details of Harris and her running mate’s schedule were first shared with POLITICO by the campaign.
Harris’ decision to kick off her tour in the biggest city in Pennsylvania is sure to set off speculation about her vice presidential pick. One of the top contenders being vetted by Harris’ team is Josh Shapiro, the governor of the swing state.
If Harris chooses Shapiro as her running mate, Philadelphia would make an obvious place to roll out the news, given that he hails from the area’s suburbs. But it’s also a diverse, vote-rich city that every presidential nominee must tend to thanks to the state’s 19 electoral votes, and it’s possible Harris’ plans don’t signal anything beyond that.
A Harris campaign aide cautioned against reading too much into the first city chosen for the tour.
Harris said a decision about her No. 2 spot on ticket has not been finalized. Asked by reporters on Tuesday if she has selected her running mate, she said “not yet.”
Harris is planning to interview potential vice presidential nominees in the upcoming days, said people familiar with the vetting process and granted anonymity to speak freely. Other names in the mix include Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
Personally, I like Tim Waltz, but Minnesota will be in the Democratic column either way. Pennsylvania may be more problematic.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz thinks the leaders of the modern Republican Party — especially but not exclusively former President Donald Trump and Sen. JD Vance of Ohio — are extremely “weird.” He has been saying so for months, but ever since Vice President Kamala Harris emerged as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, he has become one of her most effective messengers, doing the dirty work of attacking the Republicans so Harris can focus on a positive message — “Freedom.”
It has become easy to imagine Walz as the next Democratic nominee for vice president, one of a handful of politicians who have emerged as front-runners for the honor. If it happens, I’ll be thrilled. I’m a Minnesotan and have watched Walz since he started running for governor in the 2018 election. Before that, he was just a “downstate” congressman and not so much on my radar.
But much to my surprise, I’ve become fully “Walz-pilled,” not so much because of the viral clips, but because when he has had the opportunity, he has done everything he can to make Minnesota a better place for everyone.
Frankly, I’m surprised at my own enthusiasm, because I wasn’t a Walz supporter when he ran for governor in 2018. This is inside baseball for Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor politics (not technically the Democratic Party), but Walz came into the race as the more electable, more conservative major candidate for governor. He seemed fine but boring, and it felt like in the coming blue wave anti-Trump election cycle, Minnesota could do better.
In the 2022 elections, Democrats won a trifecta, taking full control of state government, but with a Senate majority of only one seat. DFL leaders never hesitated, taking advantage of a large budget surplus to quickly enact a wide range of progressive policies across the board that changed our state for the better.
I’m less interested in the identity politics surrounding Walz, though I recognize that as a Midwestern white dad, a veteran, a former social studies teacher and football coach and a dad from a small rural town, he has a background very distinguishable from Harris’.
But there’s an advantage to this. He can argue, as he did on MSNBC, that the genuine problems facing small-town white Americans are the fault of plutocrats — the Trumps of the world, venture capitalists like JD Vance and their backers. Because the problem isn’t just that they are weird creeps, but that they’re genuinely making lives worse for more people.
Walz believes Democratic policies make lives better. At the end of the 2023 legislative session, Walz gave the memorable quote “Minnesota is showing the country you don’t win elections to bank political capital — you win elections to burn political capital and improve lives.”
As we’ve noted previously, Trump has been going around saying threatening things about voting. At rallies, he has told supporters he doesn’t need their votes, because he already has plenty of votes. He has also told “christians” they need to vote just this time, and after that they’ll never have to vote again. What does he mean? I think he means he’ll be a dictator and then he will abolish elections. Republicans claim he’s just “joking.” Yesterday, Fox News’s Laura Ingraham asked him to explain.
Fox News host Laura Ingraham repeatedly prodded former President Trump on Monday over his comments at a conservative Christian summit, where he told attendees they won’t have to vote anymore after November.
Trump did little to push back on the backlash over his remarks, as some Democrats have suggested the former president was saying there would be no more elections if he won. Instead, Trump repeatedly argued his comments were because Christians do not vote in large numbers, and he offhandedly questioned Jewish voters who support Democrats.
“That statement is very simple. I said, ‘Vote for me, you’re not going to have to do it ever again.’ It’s true, because we have to get the vote out. Christians are not known as a big voting group,” Trump said.
“This time, vote. I’ll straighten out the country, you won’t have to vote anymore. I won’t need your vote. You can go back to not voting,” he added.
“You meant you won’t have to vote for you because you have four years in office. Is that what you meant?” Ingraham asked.
When Trump did not directly answer, Ingraham pointed out that some liberals were interpreting Trump’s original remarks to mean there would not be another election. Trump said he had not heard that criticism previously, and he repeated his argument that Christians tend not to vote in large numbers….
“’Don’t worry about the future,’” he continued. “’You have to vote on Nov. 5. After that, you don’t have to worry about voting anymore. I don’t care, because we’re going to fix it. The country will be fixed … We won’t even need your vote anymore because, frankly, we will have such love.’”
Last Friday, Donald Trump told an audience of Christian conservatives to “get out and vote, just this time. You won’t have to do it any more. Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote any more, my beautiful Christians.”
Selling the idea to US citizens that their next vote will be their last one just doesn’t seem like a winning proposition to me, but what do I know? I’m not running to be elected dictator on day one of my second presidency.
That campaign pledge is of course what the former president told Sean Hannity last December. Hannity posed a question to Trump, who weeks earlier had called his political opponents “vermin”. “You are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Hannity asked.
“Except for day one,” Trump responded. “I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.”
Democrats rang all the alarm bells then, as they are ringing them now, responsibly warning us of our impending authoritarian future under Trump. And Trump’s supporters? They just thought he was kidding. “Of course he’s joking,” one attendee who’s been to more than a dozen Trump events told the Washington Post last December. “You can’t be a dictator with a constitutional republic.”
Whether this attendee is right isn’t the point. The issue is how one side hears jackboots marching just over the hill, ready to trample on our democracy. And the other side hears only guffaws.
And this disconnect continues, day by day, week by week, month by month. After Trump’s comments on Friday, the prominent Democrat and California representative Adam Schiff stated: “Democracy is on the ballot, and if we are to save it, we must vote against authoritarianism.” Meanwhile, on CNN’s State of the Union, Senator Tom Cotton dismissed any worry about Trump’s call to end voting by 2028 by saying that Trump was “obviously making a joke”.
I don’t find Trump’s jokes funny, but what’s really missing from this conversation is how much Trump’s so-called sense of humor draws from the information strategies of the contemporary far right, and how much the Democrats end up playing right into his hands.
Bayoumi’s reasoning is interesting, considering the Democrats’ attacks on Trump and Vance for being weird.
Today’s right wing… “weaponizes irony to attract and radicalize potential supporters”, according to media studies scholar Viveca Greene. She argues that today’s far right uses irony and humor “to challenge progressive ideologies and institutions”, and in so doing, the right is able “to create a toxic counter public”.
Greene is mostly concerned with the alt-right – that is to say, the more extreme elements of the right wing – but Trump’s signature contribution to this discourse is to mainstream alt-right communication strategies on to a national stage. And a kind of plausible deniability plays an enormous role in this rhetorical ecosystem.
Did Trump just call for democracy to end in the next election cycle? Oh, come on. He’s just being funny! (But yes, he did.) Did Trump guarantee to root out the “radical left thugs” that “live like vermin” in our country? That’s hilarious! (He said he will.) Did Trump promise that he will be president for three terms? Stop! My sides are aching! (You bet he did.) Will Trump “terminate” the US constitution if he’s elected? So funny! It’s like he’s saying: “You’re fired!” to a piece of paper! (It’s on the record.)
Bayoumi suggests that making fun of Trump and his threats might work better.
Wouldn’t it be smarter to draw attention to Trump’s ridiculousness rather than his threats? Isn’t there some cliche out there about choosing honey over vinegar? Can the Democrats rediscover the extraordinary political power of satire before it’s too late? The demands on humor on a national stage have never been greater, and that’s no laughing matter.
And that is just what Tim Walz started by calling Republican ideas weird. This week, the Harris campaign and many other Democrats took up that argument and it’s working! Let’s hope they keep coming up with more ways to make fun of Trump. He hates being laughed at, especially by women.
The attacks on Project 2025 are working too. Trump has tried very hard to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation project, but it’s not working because so many former Trump administration people are working on it. Not only that, JD Vance wrote the introduction to the Project 2025 book!
As he entered the final stretch of the 2024 presidential race, Donald Trump spent much of this month trying to disown the highly Trumpy, Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025 — to the point that he even got his fans to boo the initiative during a recent campaign rally. His protracted freakout over the conservative project — to which he has multiple direct ties, and which is only as extreme as it is largely because of his influence — is driven almost entirely by Trump’s fear over one thing.
When the twice-impeached ex-president and convicted felon took to social media in early July to make the (patently absurd) claim that “I know nothing about Project 2025 [and] I have no idea who is behind it,” he added, “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” He did not specify what “things” he meant.
But according to two sources with direct knowledge of the matter, shortly before he posted that brief message, Trump had been privately — and very bitterly — complaining about the abortion policies laid out in the lengthy Project 2025 manifesto, and trashing the Project 2025-linked “lunatics” who keep demanding unpopular abortion bans and restrictions. Among the policy proposals in Project 2025’s policy roadmap are plans to end federal approval for abortion pills, use federal agencies for expanded “abortion surveillance,” restrict access to emergency contraception, end the federal requirement that hospitals provide medically necessary emergency abortion care, and revive a 150-year-old law that could serve as a de facto national abortion ban.
For what it’s worth, some of the people who helped author Project 2025’s abortion provisions were appointed under Trump to influential federal posts during his first stint in the White House — including Roger Severino, who headed the HHS’ Office of Civil Rights under Trump, and Gene Hamilton, who worked in Trump’s Justice Department and Homeland Security Department.
Trump, now the 2024 GOP presidential nominee, vented that the abortion policies could badly damage his chances at retaking the White House, even at a point in the election cycle when Trump was riding high on strong polling numbers against President Joe Biden. (In the time since, Biden has dropped out of the 2024 contest, with Vice President Kamala Harris now the presumptive Democratic nominee.)
Of course, it was Trump himself who made the hard-right, ambiently unpopular abortion policies embedded in Project 2025 possible at all, as it was Trump’s Supreme Court nominees who were necessary to destroy Roe v. Wade in the first place.
The Trump campaign forced the architect of the ultraconservative Project 2025 manifesto out of his job on Tuesday as it sought political cover from a controversy dogging Republicans, the Daily Beast can report exclusively.
Trump campaign manager Chris LaCivita “put the screws” to mastermind Paul Dans in an effort to force him out and shut down the right-wing shop behind Proejct 2025, a sprawling blueprint that sought to overhaul the federal government and implement an array of far-right policies for a potential second Trump administration, a well-placed source told the Daily Beast.
The president of Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that employed Dans and conceived of the controversial handbook, fired back on X, formerly Twitter, that Project 2025 is going nowhere.
“Project 2025 will continue our efforts to build a personnel apparatus for policymakers of all levels—federal, state, and local,” Heritage President Kevin Roberts said, adding that he was “extremely grateful” for Dans’ work on the policy platform and his “dedication to saving America.” [….]
His departure hinted that Heritage was shutting down its work on the initiative more than a year after Project 2025 produced its cornerstone 900-page policy mandate that came to define the MAGA movement. The manifesto attracted widespread criticism in recent weeks over its extremist proposals that would demand fealty from federal workers, promote Christian nationalism and overhaul policies from abortion to civil liberties and climate and restructure the departments of Justice and Defense, among other agencies.
As the project backfired politically, Trump sought to distance himself from the group despite its naked ties to his first administration, with Project leadership boasting a number of senior Trump aides and close advisers.
Of course everyone with half a brain knows that Project 2025 is still the plan for a second Trump administration.
Trump’s campaign staff are worried about his expected sexist and racist attacks on Kamala Harris.
As Republicans begin developing lines of attack against Vice President Kamala Harris, many on Team Trump worry that those on their side—including Trump himself—will make disparaging comments about Harris’s identity, alienating key voters.
On Tuesday, The Washington Postreported that Trump’s allies believe attacks on Harris’s political record are more effective than personal insults, but “they also worry that Trump and some of his more extreme supporters will be unable to refrain from deploying sexist and racially fraught language, which they fear will hurt him with crucial voting blocs.”
A source “familiar with the Trump campaign’s thinking” who spoke with the Post “on the condition of anonymity to share candid views,” seemed to think that it’s all but inevitable that Trump will make problematic comments toward Harris. “We hope he doesn’t act like a crazy racist and sexist person, but we can’t control him,” the source said. “There are probably dog whistles and racist and sexist tropes he’ll stumble into. His campaign is going to try to keep him out of that rhetoric, but it’s going to be difficult.”
This isn’t the first time that Republicans have fretted about the bigotry in their own ranks affecting their electoral prospects. Last week, Politico reported that leading House Republicans had to tell “lawmakers to focus on criticizing [Harris’s] record without reference to her race and gender,” following “a series of comments by their members that focused on Harris’ race as well as claims she is a ‘DEI’ pick.”
Over the weekend, several Republican lawmakers and Black Trump supporters told Reuters they worried about “demeaning racist and sexist attacks” and “whether the onslaught could harm Republicans at the ballot box.”
Good luck trying to control him. He can’t control himself.
[W]hether somebody has children or doesn’t have children isn’t a reflection of their values, their patriotism, or their commitment to the nation.
So why won’t J.D. Vance shut up about children? The man is child-obsessed. CNN published an article Tuesday, “It’s not just ‘cat ladies’: J.D. Vance has a history of disparaging people without kids.” The piece highlights Vance’s obsession with the childless dating as far back as 2020.
One series of fundraising emails that authors Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck uncovered include lines like, “We’ve allowed ourselves to be dominated by childless sociopaths—they’re invested in NOTHING because they’re not invested in this country’s children.”
What?!?
Those without children are sociopaths? Dolly Parton is a sociopath? Lindsey Graham isn’t invested in the country? Elon Musk, father of God knows how many, is somehow preferable as a person to Taylor Swift? Why? Who the hell is J.D. Vance to make these kinds of broad, grotesque statements? [….]
The childless are people without children. That’s it. Why must any other inference be drawn, unless you’re just a creepy fuck who wears too much eyeliner at all the wrong events?
And it’s not as if the childless are somehow an aberration. A Pew Research Study published just a few days ago reveals that 47 percent of Americans under the age of 50 do not have children. If almost half of the country is sociopathic, as Vance believes, we’ve got bigger problems than the current election cycle.
But, of course, the narrative that childless people are somehow sinister is absurd on its face. Jesus didn’t have any kids. Neither does the Pope. I don’t know if either of them had/have cats, which is J.D. Vance’s one-two whammy of degeneracy, but I’d be hard-pressed to make the argument that Jesus F. Christ didn’t care about the future.
As stupid as the argument may be, I think it speaks to something more subtle about the Republican Party. Under the leadership of Donald Trump (and before, but I’ll confine this piece to the current Republican Party), the GOP has become a shell company for investors attempting to strip-mine the nation of its value, and grab as much as they possibly can for themselves. Why do you think Trump supports Putin so much? Because Putin has already implemented this model in Russia to great success—for Putin….
In this Hobbesian model of America, the contest between the political parties is a blood sport in which to the victors go all the spoils. The “spoils” can be financial and/or cultural, but it’s a fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-American view of political power. And it very much involves children because children give them the moral license to conduct their snatch-and-grab.
Reducing expenditures on social programs, which Republicans support, will certainly hurt other people’s children but will lower public expenditures for themselves and their children. It is for the children that they wreak havoc on the American experiment and call it pro-family. Book bans, school vouchers, anti-LGBTQ legislation, anti-abortion legislation. All of it “for the children.”
No. Fuck you.
Read the rest at The Daily Beast.
That’s it for me today. What’s on your mind?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
I usually go down to the Quarter to see the Krewe of Boo this time of year. I had grades to do and there were some unwelcome visitors there this weekend. I can’t take any more of the Magats so I stayed home.
We got a visit from the hate group “Proud Boys” who seemed to stage a deliberate breakdown of their vehicle in front of Jackson Square so they could set up a really offensive float called “The Trump Bridge.” Of course, they did not have the appropriate paperwork, even selling those terrible red Magat hats illegally from the truck bed. All activities were without licenses so quite illegal. The NOPD watched them but did nothing.
With the exception of a few lone bars that I really didn’t know existed down there anyway, they were refused service and forced to drink in the streets. All in all, the entire city did a great job of ignoring them.
Several “watchers” from progressive groups spent time documenting and following them in the hopes of catching any of their usual hateful antics. We do have a local chapter of them and recently, a Plaquemines Parish Deputy Sheriff lost his job for his association with them
The Proud Boys say they’re not a hate group and that they’re not a part of the alt-right, the catch-all euphemism for various groups of Nazis, white nationalists and white supremacists. The founder of the Proud Boys criticized the eruption of violence in Charlottesville, but a prominent member of that organization had organized the “Unite the Right” rally and later tweeted that “Heather Heyer was a fat, disgusting Communist. Communists killed 94 million. Looks like it was payback time.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the founder of the Proud Boys says he expelled the writer of that tweet from his group “once his racist views became known.” To hear that founder tell it, the Proud Boys is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic group of Western chauvinists who part ways with the alt-right on “the JQ,” that is, “the Jewish question.”
In its website’s HateWatch feature, the SPLC notes that the founder of the Proud Boys “denies any connection between his group and the far right, dismissing the fact that they show up to the same events, take fashion cues from each other, read the same books, sympathize with each other’s viewpoints — including, at times, anti-Semitism — and joust in the shadows of the same windmills.”
Green, the Plaquemines deputy, scrubbed his Facebook feed of his Proud Boys posts, but not before they’d been screen shot and sent to his employer. His Facebook profile described him as “Deputy Sheriff, Father, Proud Boy.” His profile photo showed him in his law enforcement uniform with the words “The West Is The Best” superimposed on the picture.
Also in his Facebook feed, there had been posted a video in which Green appears to recite the Proud Boys oath, “I’m Brian Green and I’m a proud western chauvinist who refuses to apologize for creating the modern world.”
There is nothing positive about chauvinism of any kind. Furthermore, it’s safe to say that nobody reciting the Proud Boys oath had anything to do with the creation of this modern world. That oath makes as much sense as me refusing to apologize for having created blues music, jazz and rock-and-roll when all those things were here when I was born.
I do have a few reports from friends that I will put up here just so you have some first hand accounts as well as they pictures and videos taken. I’m going to leave their names off because I don’t want to accidentally dox them to the wrong people.
So can we talk about the fact that the NOLA Proudboys (an SPLC-recognized violent white supremacist hate group) managed to have the “Trump Unity Bridge” (basically a giant mobile hate-campaign) ‘break down’ conveniently right in front of Jackson Square before the Krewe of Boo parade this evening– a halloween parade largely attended by families and kids. The police didn’t even tow that junk off of Decatur, and instead let them set up shop right along the parade route where they (illegally) sold MAGA hats to the crowd, yelled racial slurs at kids and passers by, threatened a few people who took their picture, tried to provoke violence, paraded around in blackface masks, oh and I’m told finally punched a woman and beat somebody with a flagpole shortly after I left. If you find that state of affairs as disappointing as I do, please call or write the Mayor’s office and tell her that you expect better in the so-called “city of yes” . . . that oughtn’t to mean ‘yes’ to every kind of white supremacist intimidation and depravity, especially anywhere that children are concerned. 504-658-4900, mayor@nola.gov
The founder of the far-right group the Proud Boys said on Friday that he was arranging the surrender of several members whom the police are seeking in connection with a violent brawl outside a Republican club in Manhattan last weekend.
At the same time, a senior official said the police had opened a broad criminal inquiry into the group’s activities.
Gavin McInnes, 48, a polemical far-right speaker who started the Proud Boys in 2016, said several suspects would turn themselves in. By late Friday afternoon, two of the nine men sought by the police had been arrested. A police official said a lawyer representing at least four of the suspects had called the 19th Precinct on Friday to work out the details of their surrender.
Though it was unclear how many might face charges, Mr. McInnes said the rest would soon be in custody. “They are going to be in the Tombs,” he said.
They fought with anti-fascist demonstrators on Oct. 12 shortly after Mr. McInnes gave a speech at the Metropolitan Republican Club, a bastion of establishment conservatism on the Upper East Side.
President Donald Trump revealed Saturday the United States intends to withdraw from a 31-year-old nuclear weapons agreement with Russia, delivering a severe blow to the arms control regime that helped preserve peace since the Cold War.
“We’re going to terminate the agreement and we’re going to pull out,” Trump told reporters after a rally in Elko, Nevada, without indicating what the next steps might be.
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, first signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev in December 1987, was the first and only nuclear arms control agreement that ever eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons. The treaty forced the superpowers to scrap more than 2,600 missiles with ranges 310 to 3,420 miles — weapons considered destabilizing to the European continent because of their capability to launch a nuclear strike from anywhere without early warning.
President Trump’s announcement that the United States would withdraw from a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia drew sharp criticism Sunday from one of the men who signed it, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, who called the decision reckless and not the work of “a great mind.”
In making his announcement Saturday, Mr. Trump cited Russian violations of the pact, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which was signed in Washington in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev.
Mr. Gorbachev, who is now 87 years old, cast Mr. Trump’s decision as a threat to peace.
In an interview with the Interfax news agency, Mr. Gorbachev called Mr. Trump’s rollback of the disarmament agreement “very strange.” He added: “Do they really not understand in Washington what this can lead to?”
The last Soviet leader, who is perceived more warmly in the West than inside Russia, has already watched his domestic reform agendas supporting democracy and greater freedom of the press unravel in recent years. Nuclear disarmament also defined his legacy.
In the middle of the 20th century, America was home to liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. The most important fault-lines in Congress weren’t partisan but regional; on many issues, southern Democrats and western Republicans united in battle against northern (and typically, liberal and/or labor-aligned) members of their respective caucuses. On economics, the two parties’ agendas were distinct, but far less disparate than they are today. On civil rights and immigration, the divisions within each side of the aisle were more important than those between them.
This utter dearth of partisan polarization undermined democratic accountability. A liberal could vote for Democratic candidates in New York, and unwittingly empower arch-segregationists in the Senate; many voters had no clear heuristic telling them which party would best represent their interests and ideological goals, nor which one was to blame for Congress’s failure to advance such aims.
In response, the American Political Science Association (APSA) released a report in 1950 that called on Republicans and Democrats to heighten their contradictions, arguing that “popular government in a nation of 150 million people requires political parties which provide the electorate with a proper range of choices between alternatives of action.”
Sixty-eight years later, we’ve done just as the APSA advised.
Today’s party system offers voters a wide — and clearly labeled — range of alternatives. While myriad policy debates remain stifled by bipartisan consensus (the proper size and role of the U.S. military, for example), it is nevertheless the case that Democrats and Republicans now provide the electorate with stark choices on health care, taxation, social spending, immigration, racial justice, abortion, environmental regulation, labor rights, and myriad other issues. It has rarely, if ever, been more clear what — and whom — each party in the U.S. stands for.
And rarely, if ever, has “popular government” been a worse misnomer for what transpires in our nation’s state and federal capitals.
In 2018, polarization still looms large in the discourse on our democracy’s failings. But these days, it’s seen less as an elixir than a cancer. In fact, some pundits and political scientists regard it as the root of all the Trump era’s evils. In this new telling, our republic may be suffering from a variety of disfiguring illnesses, but all trace back to the damage that hyperpartisanship did to its immune system: Our president may be a kleptocratic conspiracy theorist who oozes contempt for America’s highest ideals (and ignorance of high-school civics) — but only because conservative voters came to despise the Democratic Party more than they loathe self-proclaimed pussy-grabbers. Congress might be barely able to fund its own paychecks, let alone find consensus solutions to policy challenges — but voters only tolerate such gridlock because they’ve come to see compromise as a synonym for their side’s defeat. And Americans might be losing confidence in public institutions, the integrity of their nation’s elections, and the value of democracy itself — but this is largely because so many of them have decided that one of their nation’s two political parties poses an existential threat to their bedrock ideals.
I was happy to see Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum pull ahead in the polls. Evidently, the group of old white fogies at The Villages fear him. Being an old fogie myself, I wonder why they hate their Medicare and Social Security so much, but then, I don’t think in terms of black people taking things away from me. I think in terms of Republicans doing that.
President Donald Trump’s loyalists here at Florida’s premier retirement community fear Andrew Gillum.
It has nothing to do with his race, they insist, when asked about the 39-year-old Democrat who could become the state’s first African-American governor. Instead, The Villages’ deeply conservative residents are convinced a Gillum victory would trigger an era of high crime, higher taxes and moral failing.
“He’ll kill everything that’s good about Florida,” says Talmadge Strickland, a 66-year-old retired firefighter wearing a “Trump 2020″ baseball cap at a rally for Gillum’s opponent. “He will hurt us; he will physically hurt us with his socialist mentality.”
In an era defined by deep political partisanship, there’s perhaps no state where the divide runs deeper than Florida, which is in the grip of a fierce culture clash over guns, race, climate change and the president. Gillum sits at the center of the melee, his campaign a proxy for the larger fight between Democrats and President Donald Trump’s GOP.
Gillum’s fate is inexorably linked to fellow Democrats whose success could determine control of Congress. That’s especially true for three-term Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, who could benefit from Gillum’s appeal among young voters and minorities.
As early voting begins in Florida this week, that link is tenuous.
“New voters and infrequent voters are everything to us winning,” Gillum told The Associated Press when asked about his impact on Nelson’s race. “I think they will vote for both of us, and that will be to his benefit.”
Young people and minorities are traditionally among the least reliable voters, particularly in midterm elections. Meanwhile, white voters in place like The Villages are lining up behind his opponent, former Republican Rep. Ron DeSantis.
The electorate in Florida this year is especially unpredictable due to an unusual collision of events: a massive hurricane, the nation’s deadliest high school shooting and Gillum’s historic candidacy.
President Trump and Republicans have adopted a closing electoral strategy that depicts the Democratic Party and “angry” leftist protests against Trumpian rule as the only real reigning threat to our country’s civic fabric and the rule of law. A new Republican National Committee video juxtaposes footage of leading mainstream Democratic figures with that of angry protesters, while decrying “the left” as an “unhinged mob.”
As absurd as this conflation is on its face, it has smuggled itself into the mainstream debate, where it is getting a quasi-respectful hearing, in the form of a public argument over whether Democrats are “going low,” or tacitly egging on their voters to violence, or, by adopting the smashmouth media tactics of Michael Avenatti, succumbing to “Avenatti-ism.”
But much of the resulting debate over all this is hollow, because it is not putting these basic realities front and center: Trump, more than any leading U.S. figure in recent memory, has actively tried to stoke civil conflict on as many fronts as possible. He has concertedly subverted the rule of law, not just to shield himself from accountability, but, more to the point for present purposes, with the deliberate purpose of exciting his minority base — and enraging millions on the other side of the cultural divide — in a manner that is thoroughly corrupt to its core.
Here in New Orleans we like our food, our parades, our holidays, and our music. Most of us like our beer and bongs and whatever libations that goes along with watching the Saints or celebrating 300 years here. Yet, every time we have one of those celebrations we get angry white people doing disrespectful things. We get Westborough Baptist during our Southern Decadence celebration of the GLBT community here. We get big ol’ sign carrying christians telling us that we’re all about as sinful as you can get during Carnivale. Now, we get the Proud Boys and their ugly little float during Mardi Gras and our annual celebration of Halloween. None of them are loving of people or fun. They are here to buzz saw any one that isn’t like them.
We used to have to endure them during small little windows of time, but now, they assault us daily on all forms of media and in every walk of life. I get weary of all that resentment, hate, and privilege rattling.
Why do they come here to piss on other people’s celebrations? Why do they have to have laws that cause other people to live their lives according to some other person’s idea of how life needs to be.
We have a few more weeks of these awful rallies and the even worse pictures and words of these poor excuses for human beings. I’m not sure where the 20 million voters that never show up are, but please, please, please, get rid of these Ugly Americans. Get them back under their rocks and out of our lives and sight.
But who is missing? It’s not only the women directors, the black screenwriters, the not-so-misogynist lead journalists in the mainstream.
It’s voters.
Voting is a form of speech, a way you say who you believe in, what kind of world you want to see. Having a voice doesn’t just mean literally being able to say things; it means having a role, having agency, being able to say things that have an impact whether it’s I witnessed this police brutality, or no I don’t want to have sex with you, or this is my vision of society.
As far as I can estimate, about 20 million voters were disenfranchised in the last election. Voter ID laws, the cross-check system, purging voter rolls, the undermining of the Voting Rights Act, making sure there were not enough polling stations or cutting back polling hours, harassing people when they showed up at those stations, taking the vote away from ex-felons—the means are many, and the consequences are that a lot of people have been denied their rights, so much so that it’s the other new Jim Crow. (There is no clear tally of how many voters are missing, and it’s also complicated by the fact that some populations—more than six million Americans with felony convictions, for example—are prevented outright from voting, some face obstacles and harassment—via voter ID laws, for example—that thin out their numbers.)
Politics is how we tell the stories we live by, how we decide if we value the health and well-being of children or not, the autonomy of women’s bodies and equality of our lives, or not, if we protect the Dreamers who came here as small children, or not, if we act on climate change, or not. Voting is far from the only way, but is a key way we decide on what story to base our actions on. We choose a story about who and what matters; we act on that story to rearrange the world around it—and then there are tax cuts to billionaires and children kicked off healthcare, or there are climate agreements and millions of acres of federal land protected and support for universities. We live inside what, during postmodernism’s heyday, we’d call master narratives—so there’s always a question of who’s telling the story, who is in charge of the narrative, and what happens if that changes.
Sometimes when journalists like Ari Berman at Mother Jones—the best voice on this issue—write about the suppression of the votes, people assume they’re saying Hillary Clinton should have won the last presidential election. If you changed who had access to the ballot in 2016, that might be the outcome, but the story is so much bigger than that, and the potential outcomes are so much more radical than that. The Republican Party has maintained a toehold on national power by systematically, strategically, increasingly suppressing the votes of people of color over decades. They are a minority party. They could never win a fair election nationally with their current platform of white grievance and misogyny and favors for the one percent, so they’ve set about to have unfair elections. (And they have also gerrymandered the daylights out of a lot of states to hang onto majorities at the state and national level; in 2012, they took the majority of seats in the lower house of Congress with a minority of overall votes.)
Imagine that those 20 million votes were not suppressed. The Republican Party would be defunct or be unrecognizably different from what it is today. But the Democratic Party would be different too. Imagine that the Democratic Party had to answer to more young people, more poor people, more nonwhite people, more people who believe in strengthening human rights and social service safety nets, economic justice, stronger action on climate change. Imagine a country where Democrats weren’t competing for moderate-to-conservative voters because the electorate was far more progressive—as it would be if all those people who lost their voting rights actually had them (and yeah, more younger people showed up). It wouldn’t change something as small as the outcome of the 2016 election. It would mean different political parties with different platforms and different candidates, different news coverage, different outcomes. It would change the story. It would change who gets to tell the story.
By voting, we can remove the tyranny of the shrinking minority before they completely set the game up so that we never can.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
The NFL domestic violence news is even worse this morning than it seemed yesterday. It turns out the child that Minnesota Vikings star Adrian Peterson beat up is only four years old. And TMZ has published photos of some of the wounds.
The report had been that the child was hit with a “switch,” but according to TMZ, it was a belt. A four year old child! Peterson should never be allowed to see his children again without a very large social worker present. TMZ live updates:
4:12 PM PT — According to the police report, Peterson allegedly sent text messages to the child’s mother saying he “felt bad” because he struck the kid in the testicles.
“Got him in the nuts once I noticed. But I felt so bad, n I’m all tearing that butt up when needed!” the text said.
Peterson allegedly sent a follow up text saying, “Never do I go overboard! But all my kids will know, hey daddy has he biggest heart but don’t play no games when it comes to acting right.”
4:10 PM PT — According to the police report, the child told authorities he had also been hit by a belt and there were “a lot of belts in daddy’s closet.”
The child also said AP had put leaves in his mouth when he was being struck and that his pants were down.
3:50 PM PT — The Vikings have deactivated Peterson for Sunday’s game….
3:00 PM PT — The police report on the case includes photos of cuts on the boy’s thigh and hands. He also had bruises on his lower back and buttocks, and according to the report … Peterson admitted punishing him.
Photos of injuries to Adrian Peterson’s son.
The child may have been confused about the weapon he was attacked with, because police report that it was a tree branch (AKA a “switch.”) The child’s mother told police that several of the wounds were still bleeding when the child arrived at home in Minnesota.
Peterson will not be playing against the New England Patriots today, but why hasn’t he been suspended by the team and the league? He was arrested and charged back in May!
This might be the worst week in the history of the NFL, with another despicable act by a privileged player taking Roger Goodell’s league to an unfathomable low.
Could it get any worse than the elevator video that surfaced Monday of Ray Rice knocking out Janay Palmer with a vicious punch to the face? Apparently it can with the indictment Friday of Vikings superstar running back Adrian Peterson, one of the faces of the NFL, for injuring his 4-year-old son by spanking him with a tree branch in May after removing the leaves. A warrant has been issued for Peterson’s arrest.
Goodell can begin to make up for his mishandling of the Rice case by immediately suspending Peterson for the season and then throwing him out of the league. Peterson’s attorney, Rusty Hardin, issued a
statement saying Peterson used the same type of discipline on his son that he experienced as a child growing up in East Texas, as if that condones pulling the boy’s pants down and inflicting cuts and bruises doctors found all over the little boy’s body.
It’s barbaric.
It certainly is. Texas authorities should throw the book at Peterson. Get this, according to Myers, the punishment was for the four-year-old pushing another one of Peterson’s children away from a video game. For that, this small child was beaten with a tree branch. And Peterson doesn’t believe what he did was wrong! In my opinion, no one should ever hit a child. Period. Hitting a child isn’t effective in changing behavior in the first place, and in the second place, violence against children only perpetuates the generational cycle of violence. If we are ever to be a truly civilized society, we must work together to change the idea that it is okay to hit children.
Father and child, Cbabi Bayoc
According to Myers, Roger Goodell doesn’t have to wait for a conviction to discipline Peterson.
One of the circumstances that allows Goodell to punish Peterson is “conduct that imposes inherent danger to the safety and well-being of another person.”
The Vikings at least deserve credit for doing the right thing and deactivating Peterson for Sunday’s home opener against the Patriots, which pretty much eliminates any chance they had to win the game. They value common decency over winning. If Goodell doesn’t suspend Peterson, the Vikings should deactivate him every week.
Regardless of what he decides to do now that the photos and police report have been made public, it’s time for Goodell to step down.
Rant over for now.
I need to take a few deep, cleansing breaths . . . .
(CNN) — Two men, shocked at what they saw, describe an unarmed teenager with his hands up in the air as he’s gunned down by a police officer.
They were contractors doing construction work in Ferguson, Missouri, on the day Michael Brown was killed.
And the men, who asked not to be identified after CNN contacted them, said they were about 50 feet away from Officer Darren Wilson when he opened fire.
An exclusive video captures their reactions during the moments just after the shooting.
“He had his f**n hands up,” one of the men says in the video….
The men didn’t see the beginning of the altercation, but:
“The cop didn’t say get on the ground. He just kept shooting,” the man said.
That same witness described the gruesome scene, saying he saw Brown’s “brains come out of his head,” again stating, “his hands were up.”
The video shows the man raising his arms in the air — just as, he says, Brown was doing when he was shot.
The other contractor told CNN he saw Brown running away from a police car.
Brown “put his hands up,” the construction worker said, and “the officer was chasing him.”
The contractor says he saw Wilson fire a shot at Brown while his back was turned.
I wonder if the grand jury is hearing from any of the witness that the media has located?
Portrait of Alexander J. Cassatt and his son Robert Kelso Cassatt, by Mary Cassatt
FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — A few miles from the street where Michael Brown died is the grave of Dred Scott, a slave who went to the Supreme Court and tried, unsuccessfully, to be recognized as a free American citizen.
One hundred and fifty-seven years later, a white police officer’s fatal shooting of Brown — unarmed, black and 18 years old — raises fresh questions about the extent to which blacks in suburban towns are regarded as full partners by the officials and law enforcers elected largely by and responsive to small segments of the population.
Political participation is increasing on the national level for blacks and Hispanics. On the local level, voting continues to be struggle, as it is in this St. Louis suburb.
In the most recent city election in April, only 1,484 of Ferguson’s 12,096 registered voters cast ballots, easily re-electing the mayor. Next year voters can weigh in again on their municipal government through city council elections.
Nationally, only 1 in 4 four voters turns out for mayoral elections in the largest cities, according to a 2013 study of 340 mayoral elections in 144 cities from 1996 to 2012 by Thomas M. Holbrook and Aaron C. Weinschenk of the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee and the University of Wisconsin Green Bay.
Missouri does not ask about race or ethnicity on its voter registration forms. But roughly two-thirds of Ferguson’s residents are black. The police force is predominantly white. Five of Ferguson’s six city council members are white, as is the mayor. The grand jury investigating the Brown case has six white men, three white women, two black women and one black man.
Since late August Zoe Quinn, the developer of indie gaming’s critical hit Depression Quest, has been the target of a campaign that saw her Tumblr hacked, address posted online and terrifyingly plausible plans to cripple her laid out with cold-blooded straightforwardness….
In public the rationale for this was the allegation that Quinn lay at the centre of a network of corruption in videogaming that saw personal favours traded to elevate a network of her friends with controversial ideas about gaming above “true” gamers.
In private the rationale was simpler. Quinn was an example of a “social justice warrior”: a critic of games culture interested in opening the medium to audiences including women, queer people and people of colour. Her persecutors discussed how best to fulfil the aim of driving “SJWs” from gaming while maintaining the pretence that the campaign was about corruption.
One of the problems with using an anonymous platform to orchestrate your hate campaign is that you can never quite be sure who is listening. On 6 September, the inhabitants of a chatroom called #Burgersandfries learned this themselves.
The site was where a small collection of gamers linked to /v/, the videogame subforum of notorious image board 4chan, met to organise their “raids” on Quinn.
What they didn’t know was that Quinn was watching.
You probably need to read the whole story to understand the dynamics of this issue, so head over to The Guardian if you’re interested.
Father and child, Ben Shahn
Oscar Pistorius Verdict
I hate to keep posting so much about violence against women, but that is what is in the news this week. After the Oscar Pistorius verdict, ABC News spoke to Pistorius’ former girlfriend, Samantha Taylor: Oscar Pistorius’ Ex-Girlfriend: ‘It Could’ve Been Me’.
Taylor said she dated Pistorius before he began dating Steenkamp. At his murder trial, Taylor served as a valuable witness for the prosecution. She said parts of Pistorius’ story about what happened the night Steenkamp died did not ring true.
“There were things that didn’t match up to my experience staying at his house,” she said.
For example, while Pistorius claimed during his testimony the bedroom was pitch black so he didn’t see Steenkamp go to the bathroom, Taylor said Pistorius did not typically keep his room that dark.
“He usually slept with the curtains fairly open. He always had some light coming in,” said Taylor.
And although Pistorius did startle easily, Taylor said he would always ask her about any sudden noises and found it odd that he said he didn’t make physical contact with Steenkamp the night she was killed.
Taylor said she was just 17 years old when she first met the then 24-year-old Pistorius at a rugby match in 2010.
“When I met him, I actually didn’t know who he was,” Taylor said. “He was very charming. He is a really good guy, you know. He was very respectful, very kind.”
But over time, Taylor said Pistorius would get angry at her for little things, such as not taking her plate to the kitchen, and that he could be jealous and possessive.
“He used to often look through my phone, ask me who my friends were. I think he had that control over who’s in my life and who’s not,” she said. “I was his.”
According to Taylor, Pistorious always carried a gun, and once when she was in a car with him, he shot a gun out of the sunroof.
One of the moments where I'm outed as Gay Friendly and Pro Choice in Nebraska.
Each year, I go to vote and am struck by the number of votes I cast that basically represent the least of evils. What is it about our system that continually produces an entire line up of candidates that makes me want to choose none of the above? Well, that’s a some what rhetorical question because my answer is that we have two demons in the process right now. The more salient question is how do we exorcise the demons?
The first reason we get terrible candidates is purity pledges forced by special interest groups. I’ve got my personal example on hand again for you. You have no idea what it’s like to be a Republican trying to run for an office and be pro-choice or gay friendly. You find out really quickly that there are people living within blocks of your house that are worse than the Taliban. There’s a huge chance that they are sitting in the pews of churches near you and your children go to school with them. They just look normal and sane until they’ve determined you’re their enemy and apostate on some near and dear creed which they feel the need force on us all. Then, you start living through Invasion of the Body Snatchers and you see that Donald Sutherland look in their eyes, hear their screeches, and show up on the bad end of that accusatory finger.
This sort’ve goose step ideological mentality ensures only the worst of the worst come through or people that refuse to stand up for what they believe least they get on the receiving end of a bloody awful witch hunt. When I ran for office I was told over and over again that it would really make my life a bit easier if I’d give up my principles and not try to buck the crazy base on that one issue. Believe me, that base is crazy. They will say and do anything to stop you and I mean that literally to the most extreme degree. Now there are tax pledges, anti-GLBT civil rights pledges, pro “only my definition of marriage” pledges, “guns and no butter” pledges and all others sorts of pledges you have to sign to pass muster. Purity tests do not bring normal people into a process. Normal people have nuances and subtleties and recognize that life has them too.
The second reason is the money. It takes a lot to buy yourself a seat in a statehouse, a mansion, or any where near Capital Hill. This also puts you in the position of having to listen a little more closely to the people that fund you instead of the people that vote for you. This gives some advantages to incumbents. You almost have to wait for their inevitable sex scandal to get a foot in the door. Well, that or they piss off one of those wild eyed special interest groups who go on a holy crusade. Most incumbents have inoculated themselves against these things unless a new group of single minded crusaders–like the tea party–rises to the occasion. Look at the Tea Party. That is basically an insurgency funded by the Koch Brothers who specialize in unleashing demons that wreck our government so they can become more rich and powerful. They foist crazies and money on the process.
I guess I’m talking about this because there’s yet another poll that says a pox on both your houses. Regular voters sending poxes never seem to work as well as the poxes cast by multibillion dollar corporations and holy war crusaders, I guess. Polls continually say the majority of people in this country think that neither part is actually good for the country or its economy right now.
A CNN/ORC International Poll released Tuesday indicates that 56 percent of Americans say the congressional Republicans’ policies will move the country in the wrong direction, with 53 percent of the public saying the same about policies of the Democrats in Congress.
“Men and women agree that the GOP policies are a bust, but women are split on the Democratic policies while men continue to dislike them. There is a generation gap as well, with younger Americans tending to favor the Democrats’ policies and older Americans more in the GOP camp,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
The survey was conducted Friday through Sunday, during the congressional standoff between Democrats and Republicans over disaster relief funding threatened to possibly force a federal government shutdown. An agreement preventing a government shutdown was reached late Monday night.
According to the poll, a majority of Americans don’t like either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party and the favorable ratings for the tea party movement are even lower.
My father has adopted the standpoint of voting all incumbents out. My problem with that strategy is that it brings in the worst of the purity politicians who don’t comprise and still wind up with full coffers. The other thing is that when you prove you’re a good water bearer for the party, they’ll gerrymander a district for you that’s like kryptonite to even the most super of challengers. Again, some part of the system will protect you. Either a group like the values crusaders or the biggest industry in your state will let you do the worst job in the world as long as you go along with their strict and narrow agenda.
Here’s a good example on a potential presidential candidate I really can’t stand. The gray flannel suit crowd of the Republican party likes Chris Christie for some odd reason. They’re pleading him to jump into the race. Already, there’s a list out of why he won’t pass the purity tests even though he seems like a fairly conventional republican candidate to me. Evidently, he’s got the Perry problem on immigrants and worse than that, he’s shown a little laxity on the Guns and no Butter republican mantra.
HANNITY: Are there any issues where you are, quote, moderate to left as a Republican?
CHRISTIE: Listen, I favor some of the gun-control measures we have in New Jersey.
HANNITY: Bad idea.
CHRISTIE: Listen, we have a densely-populated state, and there’s a big hand gun problem in New Jersey. Now, I don’t support all the things that the governor supports by a long stretch. But I think on guns — certain gun control issues, looking at it from a law-enforcement perspective, seeing how many police officers were killed, we have an illegal gun problem in New Jersey.
So, Christie has a purity problem in key areas that may stop him from getting through a primary. His name may not make it onto one of those little polling cards of marching orders they hand out in churches and corporate offices. Now, I’m not fond of Tony Christie Soprano, but you have to give him credit for being a little out of the box on a few items in a party that demands purity. Notice how Hannity slams him for his pragmatic stance on guns in NJ.
When I finally noticed I was continually voting democrat out of the lesser of two evils strategy, I switched parties when I got down here to New Orleans. (Now, I’m an independent.) Democrats seem to be willing to vote for any one that says the right things and does the complete opposite when in office. I don’t find that particularly admirable either. There’s a certain amount of consistency in goosestepping ideologues that you just don’t see in people that are forced to continually vote for the lesser of evils. I am truly tired of voting for the candidate that I perceive will damage the country the least. That strategy explains like 98% of my votes since I turned 18.
This brings me back around to the question of how do we change this? How do we get the people that benefit from organizations that can megafund them to put down the crack pipes? How do we stop these single issue crusaders from continually sending us their zombies? What’s a voter to do? My voting strategy next year is looking to be stay home because no matter how I try, I’m still voting for evil. I shouldn’t have to vote for evil even when it’s a lesser evil.
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
The Sky Dancing banner headline uses a snippet from a work by artist Tashi Mannox called 'Rainbow Study'. The work is described as a" study of typical Tibetan rainbow clouds, that feature in Thanka painting, temple decoration and silk brocades". dakinikat was immediately drawn to the image when trying to find stylized Tibetan Clouds to represent Sky Dancing. It is probably because Tashi's practice is similar to her own. His updated take on the clouds that fill the collection of traditional thankas is quite special.
You can find his work at his website by clicking on his logo below. He is also a calligraphy artist that uses important vajrayana syllables. We encourage you to visit his on line studio.
Recent Comments