#donald trump blows chunks | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

antoine-roquentin · 4 years

Link

Last week, 30 chief executives of America’s top 100 largest companies hastily came together in an online dawn meeting to discuss President Donald Trump’s unsupported claims that the US election had been “stolen” from him. The executives were trying to figure out how to best leverage their personal and organisational influence to ensure a peaceful transition of power, a hallmark of the US political system. Some participants felt that worries of a potential coup were overblown. Others thought they weren’t. Most just wanted an end to election turmoil.

Within days, other groups, like the US Chamber of Commerce, were calling for Mr Trump to stop delaying the transition. Business, as always, hates uncertainty. Reading the news, I had conflicting feelings. On the one hand, I was glad that business leaders were thinking about the importance of liberal democracy in America and how to defend it.

I also couldn’t help but feel that some of the corporate concern was a bit “too little, too late”. Most big business trade groups had been supportive of the Trump administration when it was getting ready to pass what turned out to be the largest corporate tax cuts since the George W Bush era. I also worried that, even if people like me were glad that business elites were finally taking seriously the disruption to the election process and, moreover, were thinking about how to ensure a smooth transition, there were still over 72m people who voted for Mr Trump and some of them might not agree. I suspect that when those people read about a bunch of multinational CEOs getting together to throw around their political weight, a good chunk of them would likely think something along the lines of: “It’s true! There is a cabal of wealthy and powerful people running the country and they have influence that I don’t. They are the ones thwarting democracy.” Sadly, they wouldn’t be delusional to think so.

Anyone with a pulse knows that in the US today the system is rigged in favour of the wealthy and powerful. One particularly illuminating paper published this month by the Institute for New Economic Thinking quantifies the problem. Building on a persuasive 2014 data set, it shows that when opinion shifts among the wealthiest top 10 per cent of the US population, changes in policy become far more likely. Using AI and machine learning, INET academics Shawn McGuire and Charles Delahunt delved deep into the data. They found that considering the opinions of anyone outside that top 10 per cent was a far less accurate predictor of what happened to government policy.

The numbers showed that: “not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all”. This, of course, is how we ended up with Mr Trump as president. He wasn’t the cause but the symptom of a pendulum that had swung too far towards corporate concentration, and corruption in both politics and business. We have had decades of legislative tweaks to everything from tax policy to corporate governance and accounting standards that have favoured capital over labour.

Supreme Court decisions such as the Citizens United case have also dramatically increased the amount of money funnelled into political campaigning. This has left the nature of America’s political economy perilously close to an oligopoly. Look no further than the way in which Uber, Instacart, Lyft and other digital groups this month got their way with Californian labour law. Together they spent $200m to push through Proposition 22, a ballot initiative that exempts many gig workers from benefits. These companies may well now take their efforts to other US states.

As Karl Marx observed, it is only under threat from the masses that the owners of the means of production recognise their common interests. Corporate America got what it wanted from Mr Trump, namely tax cuts and deregulation. Big business in America now knows that there’s nothing more to be got from him. So they are eager for him to go, taking with him those disruptive tweets of which they were sometimes the target.

if you’re wondering, it was less than 24 hours between when the new york times reported that these CEOs were thinking of sending a letter to trump asking him to stop the chicanery or else they’d withdraw donations and when the GSA suddenly initiated a formal transition process. the media loves to blow up every stupid tribal political game for their viewers’ entertainment, but when business says jump, politics stops and says “how high?”

#where else can you get as karl marx observed except in the business press

146 notes · View notes

theliterateape · 3 years

Text

They Learned it from the Wolverines

by Don Hall

In his book From Sun Tzu to Xbox, Ed Halter wrote "The technologies that shape our culture have always been pushed forward by war".

I'd add to that popular culture pushes the same way.

In poll after poll of those tattered souls who still want desperately to believe that Donald Trump is still the president, a sizable chunk are from my generation: Gen X (1965-1980). Much like my surprise that Brett Kavanaugh and I are the same age and watched the same movies but only one of us is a rapist (that'd be him, btw), it is a shock to see so many of the latchkey kids of my youth turn to bizarre conspiracy theories about Democrats drinking the blood of children.

As I look around, while my generation is almost 20% of the population (which, despite contrary perspectives, is in-line with the rest of the batch), we are the generation most likely to embrace libertarian ideals as well as look to militia-esque ideology. We trust the military but despise the government. We are the least likely to buy-in to the mainstream media narratives and the most likely to embrace social distancing.

We also wholly believe that we are JukeBox Heroes and Triumphant Underdogs all while adopting a "Go Fuck Yourself" attitude to almost everyone else.

Where did we learn this? From the Wolverines.

I hadn't viewed 1984's Red Dawn, directed by ridiculously pro-military/anti-government shill John Milius, since, well, 1984 when I graduated high school. I decided to take another look these thirty-seven years later to see how that film may have cemented that Unabomber Paranoia into the Gen X mindset.

The movie starts out simply with a score that sounds suspiciously like Aaron Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man and shows us an idyllic small Colorado town. It pans to a statue of Theodore Roosevelt and sits on the plaque for a moment. It reads:

"The Rough Rider" Far better it is to dare mighty things than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat.

Truth be told, it's a better movie than I thought it would be but the lessons contained sum up every QAnon, Trump-supporting, quasi-patriot I can name:

Bumper sticker "They Can have my gun when they pry from my cold dead fingers" followed by a Cuban pulling the pistol from the owner's dead hand

Survivalists survive the camps by hunting and fishing and shooting a bow and arrow as well as guns.

US is attacked by Cubans and Nicaraguans = Spanish = South of the Fucking Border

C. Thomas Howell wearing a Star Wars ballcap, drinks deer's blood, and later does a movie entirely in blackface. He also becomes this film's Private Pyle.

Red Dawn really was the very first movie to get the PG-13 rating—a rating designed to make sure kids younger than eighteen can watch. Yet, this same film was unlike any R-rated movie in that it showed 134 acts of violence per hour. Indeed, at the time of its release, Red Dawn was the most violent motion picture that had ever been run in theaters, according to the National Coalition on Television Violence.

This is fucking NRA dream

Of course, we get Amanda Jones and pre-nose job Baby

Completely untrained kids beating Cuban/Russian paramilitary troops? Where do they get all the grenades and RPGs?

Powers Booth as a pilot shot down explains the invasion as "the two toughest kids in the playground eventually have to fight." He also explains that Europe is sitting this one out except for England. Our forces held them in the Heartland (Rockies to Mississippi) meaning the MidWest saved the hippies to the west and the liberal elites to the east.

One black person in the entire movie, the teacher who gets shot in the first reel.

Not one kid dies until five months in and then it's the quiet brown kid and Powers Booth.

Somehow, Milius paints a picture that the most powerful military force in history is the underdog. Extraordinary that, in this scenario, the Russians and Cubans are the United States to Patrick Swayze's Viet Cong. This time we root for the Gooks?

The politician and his son are the turncoats.

Swayze watches Baby die in this one without even a dance. He does blow her up with a grenade. I think Jerry Orbach might've had issue with that.

It's a fucking video game, a libertarian fantasy. With a lot of mascara on the dudes. I mean, the makeup artist loved mascara on the dudes.

We Gen Xers grew up watching the rogue agents solve the problems that the government couldn't: Maverick, Martin Riggs, John Rambo, John McClane, Jack Burton, Frank Dux, and anyone portayed by Chuck Norris.

We also were left mostly to our own devices ("I don't care where you go, just be back before it gets dark out.") and thus, lived our own versions of The Lord of the Flies every day. War was put into our heads by movies sponsored by the Pentagon and Milius was granted access to former Reagan Secretary of State Alexander Haig who advised on the script.

Once I rewatched the movie, I think I understand a little better the odd old dudes with misspelled signs and home-made body armor. They all think they're Patrick Swayze fighting an invading horde in the mountains outside of a tiny, All-American town in Colorado with exactly one black person.

Of course they're morons. I just wish they weren't GenX morons, you know?

#Red Dawn (1984)

3 notes · View notes

obamaismyspiritanimal-blog · 3 years

Text

Very much still processing that being depressed and moddy and tired and feeling like shit everytime you look in a mirror was not only the norm for middle school book nerd smart tumblr friendly kids, but also like expected?????

Who/what the fuck took over this hell site and said--donald trump impression not necessary--"im going to make all the teenagers who already hate themselves think its cool to hate themselves so that they keep hating themselves"

Agggrrg because our generation is still on this fucking bullshit we got feed about "the romantic depressed artist" and, quite honestly, we will be fighting it for the rest of our lives the same way we have to remind our well meaning grandparents to not call people Oriental, use the R word, or hold prejudices against minorities. Because EVEN WHEN YOU WANT OUT ITS STILL A STRUGGLE TO BREAK OUT OF WHAT YOUVE BEEN TAUGHT BY PEOPLE YOU RESPECT AND ADMIRE.

I mean, fuck. Understanding global warming and international politics and economics and interpreting all of that to see the end is near blows ass chunks. But I hope y'all can still look in a mirror and be pleasantly surprised by what's staring back at you because yeah, life's short, too short to spend formative years hoping for more mental illness and pain to make your angsty blog posts mean something.

#rant #middle school #guys plz #take care of urselves babes #get help #self love #ok ill stop now

5 notes · View notes

newstfionline · 3 years

Text

Tuesday, May 11, 2021

Schools Are Open, but Many Families Remain Hesitant to Return (NYT) Pauline Rojas’s high school in San Antonio is open. But like many of her classmates, she has not returned, and has little interest in doing so. During the coronavirus pandemic, she started working 20 to 40 hours per week at Raising Cane’s, a fast-food restaurant, and has used the money to help pay her family’s internet bill, buy clothes and save for a car. Ms. Rojas, 18, has no doubt that a year of online school, squeezed between work shifts that end at midnight, has affected her learning. Still, she has embraced her new role as a breadwinner, sharing responsibilities with her mother who works at a hardware store. Only a small slice of American schools remain fully closed: 12 percent of elementary and middle schools, according to a federal survey, as well as a minority of high schools. But the percentage of students learning fully remotely is much greater: more than a third of fourth and eighth graders, and an even larger group of high school students. A majority of Black, Hispanic and Asian-American students remain out of school. For every child and parent who has leaped at the opportunity to return to the classroom, others changed their lives over the past year in ways that make going back to school difficult. The consequences are likely to reverberate through the education system for years, especially if states and districts continue to give students the choice to attend school remotely.

Job report anxiety (1440) The US economy added 266,000 new jobs in April, according to government estimates released Friday, far below analysts’ estimates of 1 million. Unemployment also ticked up slightly, from 6.0% to 6.1%. The country has roughly 8.2 million fewer jobs than it had before the pandemic. The figures caught many off guard, with analysts banking on rising vaccine rates and the reopening of many state economies around the country to boost hiring. Some argue a stimulus-provided boost in unemployment benefits, roughly equal to a $15-per-hour wage, has kept workers from returning. Others have argued many low-wage jobs are undesirable amid the pandemic, while highlighting separate issues making it difficult to return to work, such as lack of child care.

Cyberattack on US pipeline is linked to criminal gang (AP) The cyberextortion attempt that has forced the shutdown of a vital U.S. pipeline was carried out by a criminal gang known as DarkSide that cultivates a Robin Hood image of stealing from corporations and giving a cut to charity, two people close to the investigation said Sunday. The shutdown, meanwhile, stretched into its third day, with the Biden administration loosening regulations for the transport of petroleum products on highways as part of an “all-hands-on-deck” effort to avoid disruptions in the fuel supply. Experts said that gasoline prices are unlikely to be affected if the pipeline is back to normal in the next few days but that the incident—the worst cyberattack to date on critical U.S. infrastructure—should serve as a wake-up call to companies about the vulnerabilities they face. The pipeline, operated by Georgia-based Colonial Pipeline, carries gasoline and other fuel from Texas to the Northeast. It delivers roughly 45% of fuel consumed on the East Coast, according to the company.

U.S. and Iran Want to Restore the Nuclear Deal. They Disagree Deeply on What That Means. (NYT) President Biden and Iran’s leaders say they share a common goal: They both want to re-enter the nuclear deal that President Donald J. Trump scrapped three years ago, restoring the bargain that Iran would keep sharp limits on its production of nuclear fuel in return for a lifting of sanctions that have choked its economy. But after five weeks of shadow boxing in Vienna hotel rooms—where the two sides pass notes through European intermediaries—it has become clear that the old deal, strictly defined, does not work for either of them anymore, at least in the long run. The Iranians are demanding that they be allowed to keep the advanced nuclear-fuel production equipment they installed after Mr. Trump abandoned the pact, and integration with the world financial system beyond what they achieved under the 2015 agreement. The Biden administration, for its part, says that restoring the old deal is just a steppingstone. It must be followed immediately by an agreement on limiting missiles and support of terrorism—and making it impossible for Iran to produce enough fuel for a bomb for decades. The Iranians say no way. Iran and the United States “are really negotiating different deals,” said Vali R. Nasr, a former American official who is now at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. “It’s why the talks are so slow.” The Americans see the restoration of the old deal as a first step to something far bigger. The Iranians refuse to even discuss a larger agreement.

‘Cautious hugging’ and pints: UK PM Johnson to ease England’s lockdown (Reuters) British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will set out on Monday the next phase of lockdown easing in England, giving the green light to “cautious hugging” and allowing pubs to serve customers pints inside after months of strict measures. The country is in the process of gradually lifting its latest lockdown over a period of months, in line with a four-step plan unveiled in February, after a rapid vaccine rollout helped drive down COVID-19 cases and deaths. Under Step 3, from May 17 people will be allowed to meet up indoors for the first time in months, in groups of up to six people or two full households together. Pubs, cafes and restaurants will be able to host customers indoors, also for the first time in months and subject to certain rules. Other indoor entertainment like cinemas and sports venues will also be able to resume activity.

Village Caught in Czech-Russia Spy Case Just Wants Things to Stop Blowing Up (NYT) VLACHOVICE-VRBETICE, Czech Republic—For nearly a century, local residents have wondered at the strange comings and goings at a sealed-off camp ringed by barbed wire and dotted with keep out signs on the edge of their village. The armies of Czechoslovakia, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and the Czech Republic all made use over the decades of the 840-acre property, deterring trespassers with guard dogs and armed patrols. When the professional soldiers pulled out in 2006, the secretive activities became even more shadowy. Dozens of weapons depots hidden among the trees were taken over by arms dealers, a company reprocessing missile fuel and other private businesses. Then, in October 2014, came the biggest mystery of all. An enormous explosion ripped through depot No. 16, knocking farmers in nearby fields to the ground and sending dangerous debris raining down on the surrounding area. Initially, the blast—and a second round of explosions two months later—were blamed on the mishandling of weapons stored on the site. But last month the Czech government said that what had happened was a military-style sabotage operation by Russian intelligence operatives. The villagers, more focused on local property values than geopolitics, just want things to stop blowing up.

Thousands suspended at Myanmar universities as junta targets education (Reuters) More than 11,000 academics and other university staff opposed to Myanmar’s ruling junta have been suspended after going on strike in protest against military rule, a teachers’ group told Reuters. The suspensions come as the resumption of universities after a year closed due to the coronavirus epidemic prompts a new confrontation between the army and the staff and students who are calling for boycotts over the Feb. 1 coup. A professor on a fellowship in the United States said she was told she would have to declare opposition to the strikes or lose her job. Her university authorities had told her every scholar would be tracked down and forced to choose, she told Reuters. As of Monday, more than 11,100 academic and other staff had been suspended from colleges and universities offering degrees, an official of the Myanmar Teachers’ Federation told Reuters, declining to be identified for fear of reprisals.

US trashes unwanted gear in Afghanistan, sells as scrap (AP) The twisted remains of several all-terrain vehicles leaned precariously inside Baba Mir’s sprawling scrapyard, alongside smashed shards that were once generators, tank tracks that have been dismantled into chunks of metal, and mountains of tents reduced to sliced up fabric. It’s all U.S. military equipment. The Americans are dismantling their portion of nearby Bagram Air Base, their largest remaining outpost in Afghanistan, and anything that they are not taking home or giving to the Afghan military, they destroy as completely as possible. They do so as a security measure, to ensure equipment doesn’t fall into militant hands. But to Mir and the dozens of other scrap sellers around Bagram, it’s an infuriating waste. “What they are doing is a betrayal of Afghans. They should leave,” said Mir. “Like they have destroyed this vehicle, they have destroyed us.” The bitterness of the scrapyard owners is somewhat self-interested: they’re angry in part because they could have profited more selling intact equipment. But it’s been a common theme for the past two traumatic and destructive decades where actions the U.S. touted as necessary or beneficial only disillusioned Afghans who felt the repercussions.

153 Palestinians in hospital after Jerusalem holy site clash (AP/Reuters) Israeli police firing tear gas, stun grenades and rubber-coated bullets clashed with Palestinian stone-throwers at a flashpoint Jerusalem holy site on Monday, the latest in a series of confrontations that is pushing the contested city to the brink of eruption. More than a dozen tear gas canisters and stun grenades landed in the Al-Aqsa mosque, Islam’s third holiest site, said an Associated Press photographer at the scene. Monday’s confrontation was the latest in the sacred compound after days of mounting tensions between Palestinians and Israeli troops in the Old City of Jerusalem, the emotional ground zero of the conflict. Hundreds of Palestinians and about two dozen police officers have been hurt over the past few days. The site, known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary, is also considered the holiest site in Judaism. The compound has been the trigger for rounds of Israel-Palestinian violence in the past. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Israel a “terror state” for “mercilessly and unethically attacking Muslims in Jerusalem.”

Gaza militants, children among 24 dead as Israel hits Hamas (AP) Israel unleashed new airstrikes on Gaza early Tuesday, hitting the high-rise home of a Hamas field commander and two border tunnels dug by militants, as Hamas and other armed groups fired dozens of rockets toward Israel. It was an escalation sparked by weeks of tensions in contested Jerusalem. Since sundown Monday when the cross-border fighting erupted, 24 Palestinians—including nine children—were killed in Gaza, most by airstrikes, Gaza health officials said. The Israeli military said 15 of the dead were militants. During the same period, Gaza militants fired more than 200 rockets toward Israel, injuring six Israeli civilians in a direct hit on an apartment building. This was preceded by hours of clashes Monday between Palestinians and Israeli security forces, mainly in Jerusalem but also across the West Bank. More than 700 Palestinians were hurt, including nearly 500 who were treated at hospitals. In a sign of widening unrest, hundreds of residents of Arab communities across Israel staged overnight demonstrations against the situation in Jerusalem, one of the largest protests by Palestinian citizens in Israel in recent years.

Chad’s rebel battle (Reuters) Chad’s military junta has claimed victory over the rebel group it has been fighting in recent months. The military staged a parade through the capital N’Djamena on Sunday to underline their control, but their triumph has been questioned by their enemies. A Front for Change and Concord in Chad (FACT) spokesman said the rebel group was not aware that fighting was at an end and told Reuters it “will comment when it has reliable and credible information.” Chad’s military declared FACT “annihilated” as recently as April 24, only for fighting to flare up again.

#headlines #news

1 note · View note

schraubd · 5 years

Text

Working Through Two New Polls on Antisemitism and BDS

Two very interesting surveys have just dropped on the subject of BDS and antisemitism in America. The first is the AJC's survey of American Jews on the subject of antisemitism in America. The second, a "Critical Issues" poll out of the University of Maryland, surveys all Americans on various Middle East policy related questions, including BDS. Both have some intriguing findings that are worth discussing. Start with the AJC poll. There's a lot of great stuff to unpack in here on how American Jews assess the lay of the antisemitic land. For one, it finally gives me some data on what American Jews think about BDS. Unlike Americans writ large, who've barely heard of BDS (we'll get into that more in the other poll), Jews have definitely heard about the BDS movement (76% are at least a little familiar with it, and 62% of "somewhat" or "very" familiar). There isn't a direct "do you support BDS" question, but they do ask about BDS and antisemitism. 35% say BDS is "mostly" antisemitic, 47% say it has "some antisemitic supporters", and 14% say it is simply "not antisemitic". Of course, that middle response is vague -- it could mean anything from "BDS is not inherently antisemitic, but it's got a significant antisemitism problem" to "BDS is mostly fine, but sure, obviously it has some antisemitic supporters." Nonetheless, paired with some of the other responses -- such as the 84%(!) who view the statement "Israel has no right to exist" as antisemitic -- I think it is fair to infer that the majority of American Jews are, to say the least, not BDS fans. In terms of broad assessments on antisemitism in America, things don't like great: 88% of Jews say it is a "very" or "somewhat" serious problem and 84% say it has increased in severity over the past five years. The silver lining is that most Jews have not been victimized by either physical or verbal antisemitic attack and most Jews are not avoiding Jewish spaces or advertising their Jewish status out of fear of antisemitic attacks. But perhaps the more interesting data comes in terms of where American Jews think antisemitism is coming from, and who is mostly responsible for it. It's no surprise that most Jews are Democrats, most Jews lean liberal, and most Jews have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump (by a 22/76 margin -- whoof!). It might be a little more surprising -- at least given how the issue has been covered by both the Jewish and non-Jewish press -- how Jews assess the threat of antisemitism and the response to it on an ideological level. Jews strongly disapprove of how Donald Trump is handling the threat of antisemitism in the United States -- literally, 62% "strongly disapprove", the overall approve/disapprove spread is 24/73. In terms of where the threat of antisemitism is strongest in America, the answer is "the extreme right" -- 49% of respondents say it is a "very serious" threat, compared to 15% for "the extreme left" and 27% for "extremism in the name of Islam". Add in the "moderately serious" threat respondents and the extreme right gets 78%, the extreme left 36%, and Islamic extremism 54%. But that's dealing with "extremists". What about mainstream political parties? Here we see something that I think should blow some doors off. Asked to assess the Democratic and Republican parties' responsibility for contemporary antisemitism on a 1 - 10 scale (where 1 is "no responsibility" and 10 is "total" responsibility), Democrats saw 75% of respondents give them a grade of 5 or below (i.e., the bottom half of the scale), versus 22% at 6 or higher (the mode response was a "1" -- no responsibility -- the second most common response was a "2"). For Republicans, by contrast, just 38% of respondents gave them a 5 or below score, while 61% scored them above a 6. Their mode response was an "8", the second most common response a "10". The way it's been covered in the press, one would think that Jews are fearful of left antisemitism and furious at the Democratic Party for not tamping down on it. In reality, the consensus position in the Jewish community is that the most dangerous antisemitism remains far-right antisemitism, and that in terms of political responsibility the Republican Party is a far more dangerous actor than the Democratic Party is. That consensus has the added advantage of reflecting reality -- it's obviously true that right-wing antisemitism (the sort that gets Jews killed) in America is more dangerous than other varieties, and it's obviously true that the GOP has been nothing short of abysmal in policing itself and reining in its antisemitic conspiracy mongers (thinking instead that its Israel policies entitle it to a nice fat "get-out-of-antisemitism-free" card). Now the question is whether Jewish institutions and the Jewish media (or -- dare to dream -- the mainstream media) will follow the lead on this, and start reallocating attention and emphasis accordingly. Now let's move to the Critical Issues poll. It covers a bunch of ground on Mid-East policy, but it is in particular one of the first I've seen to try and gauge American attitudes towards BDS, so let's focus on that. Perhaps the most striking finding is being slightly misreported -- the Jerusalem Post says it found that 48% of Democrats support BDS. But that's not right -- the true number is probably around half that. The survey first asked how much people had heard about BDS -- and for a majority of respondents (including 55% of Democrats), the answer was "nothing". They hadn't heard of BDS at all. The next-most common response was "a little" (29%), while "a good amount" and "a great deal" combined for just 20%. Only those who had heard at least "a little" about BDS were then asked whether they supported it or not. Overall, 26% of respondents supported it ("strongly" or "somewhat"), while 47% opposed it, and 26% were neutral. For Democrats, that split was 48% support (14% "strongly", 34% "somewhat"), 37% neutral, and 15% opposed. So that's where the 48% figure comes from -- but again, it excludes the majority of Democrats who've never heard about BDS at all. Add them in (and assume they'll be at "neither support nor oppose"), and the percentage of Democrats supporting BDS probably falls into the mid-20s. Now obviously, that's itself noteworthy. But it's hard to know what to make of it, especially given that most of those who have heard about BDS still have only heard "a little" about it. That in itself is worth pointing out -- for all the indigestion this issue is causing the Jewish community, it's barely made an imprint on the polity writ large: 80% of all Americans have heard little or nothing about it. It's hardly some sort of generational wave that's caught the attention of the nation. Still, it would have been interesting to know if those who had heard more were more or less likely to support the campaign -- my guess is actually it would yield greater polarization (those who've heard a lot about BDS would be more likely to either strongly support or strongly oppose it). But -- probably because the number of respondents who've heard more than "a little" about BDS is so small -- we don't have data at that level of granularity. In any event: What does seem to be the case is that there is a sizable -- though still minority -- chunk of Democratic voters who (a) haven't heard that much about BDS and (b) say they support it "somewhat" (recall the "somewhats" vastly outstripped the "stronglys"). My suspicion is that this represents a set of voters who (a) are pretty pissed off at Israel and Netanyahu right now, and don't feel particularly inclined to think it is pursuing an end to the occupation in good faith, and (b) view BDS vaguely as a means of exerting pressure on Israel to change course, or if not that, at least signal that they don't endorse its current tack. In practice this probably means only supporting more "moderate" forms of BDS (if you even want to call it that) -- sanctions against settlements yes, full-fledged academic boycotts no -- and as I've written before that is actually a predictable consequence of BDS going "mainstream": it will lose some of its harder edges (much to the consternation of its founding, more radical core). Basically, these are people who are looking for ways to signal "what Israel is doing is not okay", and while I strongly doubt they are ride-or-die on BDS, absent other avenues for expressing that sentiment they'll at least be open to some form of "BDS" -- albeit probably not the more radical iterations of it that, say, characterize the PACBI guidelines. The challenge for pro-Israel Democrats isn't, I think, that the 2020 Democratic electorate is going to demand that the US treat Israel as a pariah state. The challenge is that these voters are looking for ways to vent their frustration at Israel, and are going to want their candidates to speak in terms of sticks as well as carrots with respect to how Israel is engaged with. We're already seeing a bit of that -- and it's frankly a healthy move. The survey asks a few more message-based questions about BDS (again, only to those who've heard at least a "little" about it), leading questions of the "is it antisemitism or is it legitimate" variety. I'm very much not a fan of the wording of those questions, and don't think they tell us much other than effective messaging frames to make people more positively disposed towards BDS (including that "Opposing Israeli policy does not equal anti-Semitism" is the salt of Israel discourse -- there's no recipe that isn't tastier with at least a sprinkle of it, so why not just toss it on everything?). The final question the survey asks on this topic returns back to all respondents (not just those who've heard of BDS) and asks about "laws that penalize people who boycott Israel". One can quibble again about the verbiage here (the laws in question impose no criminal penalties, they just bar government contractors from also boycotting Israel -- but then, wouldn't many naturally view that as "penalty", albeit a non-criminal one?), but the numbers are nonetheless striking: 72% of respondents (including 62% of Republicans) oppose such laws. So that's probably something worth keeping in mind (again, might I recommend replacing those laws with general prohibitions on nationality-based discrimination? I bet that would poll much better). via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/340Hop9

#anti-semitism #boycott #Israel #Jews #polls

54 notes · View notes

tessatechaitea · 5 years

Text

Team Titans #17

Team Titans is an anagram of Fuck Donald Trump.

The joke in the caption relies on regular readers knowing that I keep doing anagrams of the title except this time the anagram isn't an anagram at all! I know some people probably didn't even have to double check, especially the really observant ones who instinctively knew that "Team Titans" did not contain an "F". But the other point of that caption is to make readers who both enjoy Donald Trump and the stupid shit I write about comic books suddenly realize that they don't like what I write at all. In half a second, they'll realize how stupidly wrong they were about their opinions of this blog. In a half second after that, they'll admit that they've always thought I was a dumb asshole who has never written anything clever in his entire life. A few seconds after that, they'll probably be jerking off to another Hillary Clinton rant by Sean Hannity. We all have to face the consequences of our beliefs and actions. One of the consequences of supporting the modern GOP lampreys attached to the tits and ass fat of Donald Trump is that you don't get to enjoy myriad entertainments. Pretty much all you've got is Last Man Standing and reruns of Home Improvement. Of course, you could try to ignore what you've now learned because I probably won't mention it again for quite some time. But it's also possible I might pull at your victim status trigger again by the next paragraph! Speaking of triggers, the NRA can eat their own filthy asshole. Unless they like doing that! They seem like the kind of organization that would like doing that! And I don't mind kink-shaming people who love to eat their own filthy assholes because the Venn Diagram of people who can eat their own assholes and people who love to eat filthy assholes is nonexistent.

This whole nineties Teen Titans thing went off the rails a tiny bit when they introduced a rapist version of Nightwing with a nipple ring.

Is it weird that I have an unrepentant love for Lobo and a slightly repentant love for Deathstork but I feel like I'd be crossing a line having any kind of love for Deathwing? I get why people love Lobo because he's over the top and his space jeans craft a nice package in his nether area. Plus the chains! So penis stiffening! And Deathstork was cool enough to have gotten an underage girl he fucked killed without the entire comic book community feeling disgusted by him. I think his old age helped. Deathstork is like a beloved grandfather who tells such incredible stories from his youth that nobody minds that 23% of them are racist. But if somebody told me Deathwing was their favorite character, I'd be frightened. Although I guess they could mitigate that fright by explaining they like the Rebirth Deathwing and then I'd just be, "Oh, sorry. I didn't know you were gay. Cool!" That probably came across as me using gay as a synonym for lame but it was meant to express my feelings that Rebirth Deathwing should be a gay icon, if he isn't already. Like the Babadook. In that picture above, Deathwing is coming out of a clockmaker's closet (so maybe he's a gay icon too?), probably to rape the clockmaker (Oh yeah! He's totally rapey, so probably not a gay icon!). Now I'm wondering why Superman doesn't stop more rapes? Or why he doesn't commit himself to stopping all rapes? He could end rape forever with his powers! I guess he just doesn't have the commitment to end rape. You know how fast rape would have been stopped if Bruce Wayne's parents had been raped in that alley? Considering how many murders still happen in Gotham City even though Batman has dedicated his life to stopping injustice, I'm guessing it wouldn't have been fast at all. Batman is a huge failure. Meanwhile back at the Long Ranch, Nightrider (as opposed to Deathrider, his rapey twin), recovers from being shot by the neighbor. Granted, the neighbor also tracked down the wounded vampire to rescue him. He didn't realize he was shooting a living, feeling creature. He just thought he was killing a stupid bat! I hope no bats read this blog! They might think I'm being insensitive to bats! And, I mean, I am! But I don't want them to know that! They might start sending me memes of their creepy little faces saying things like, "Bats have rights too!" and "Bats cry more than most human males!" and "Today is the worst day of the rest of your terrible life, motherfucker!" That last one would make a good motivational poster for the lunchroom at most offices.

Wait. Is "vampire" a derogatory term?!

I just watched a Kids React video on YouTube about whether or not "hell" was a curse word. Sydney took the opportunity to say as many near curse words as she thought she could get away with. I'm pretty sure if I were young or hip or with it (which I obviously am not as noted by my usage of "hip" and "with it"), I would now use the word stan somehow. Why is there a Kids React for "How to Cure a Hangover"? What the fuck is wrong with the Fine Brothers?! Here are some more great ideas for your dumb Internet show: "Kids React to Joe Pesci's Death Scene in Goodfellas" "Kids React to Satanic Rituals" "Kids React to Seeing Their Parents Murdered" "Kids React to Goat Testicles" "Kids React to Their First Blow Job" I should stop listing these because I could do it all day and also I think some of them would actually work. The "How to Cure a Hangover" video isn't actually a Kids React; it's an advice episode featuring all ages of reactors. The first question they must give advice for is "How do I get someone to kiss me on New Year's Eve?" According to a lot of the answers, nobody seemed to give much of a shit about consent in 2016. Although my stan Sydney is all, "Get your parents to kiss you!" Oh my God she owns the world. The next question Sydney answers is "How do I touch a rainbow?" She says to get the biggest ladder in the world so she might be kind of dumb. I mean, a ladder doesn't have to be that big to touch a rainbow! Although she is just a kid so I'll let her slide on this answer. I suppose it's more important that she gives a cute answer than a correct one. For "How do I cure a hangover?", Sydney says, "Why are you asking me this question?" After which, I'm assuming, she walked off camera and kicked both Fine Brothers in the balls at the same time. Okay, back to Team Titans! The neighbor tries to apologize by explaining that he wouldn't have tried to murder the bat if he'd known it wasn't a disgusting bat. Terry Long, the worst character in a comic book full of terrible characters (and I'm including Deathwing here!), blames the victim and Terra's angst meter tops out. She goes into a blind Tumblr rage without any regard to the neighbor's apology, explaining how Nightrider was only acting on his true nature. The row disturbs Donna's baby which becomes the worst issue of the night.

"Whith"? I've never noticed Donna's weird accent before this issue! I also love how she thrusts her baby at the others to show that they've upset it.

While the majority of the team take Nightrider to STAR Labs for treatment (can't they just let him suck the baby a little bit?), Mirage and Terra stay behind to protect Terry and the baby. Well, Terra stays behind to protect them. Mirage still suffers from the trauma of being raped while none of the others seem to give a shit. She's decided to run away and have her baby somewhere else. Hopefully she won't have the baby in the town where Deathwing grew up because you know what that would mean, right?! Ugh, I can't even type it! Mirage was raped by her own time traveling son! Okay, it wasn't that hard to type after all.

Out in the yard, four elementals are approaching to kill Terra: an elemental of glaciers, an elemental of shit, an elemental of men's farts, and an elemental of lady's farts.

Over at STAR Labs, Doctor Velcro determines Nightrider's life can't be saved because he's already dead. He's a vampire! And Doctor Velcro knows because he's a not just a vampire specialist but a vampire himself! He's one of the Creature Commandos! His prescription to keep Nightrider alive is human blood. At this declaration, the rest of the Team Titans begin acting like Nightrider is a goner. So their first thought is that he's going to die if he doesn't drink human blood? Not one of them is all, "Drink from my veins, buddy! As much as you need! Well, maybe not too much! You know, just a taste! But there are like eight of us, so you can probably get your fill by sampling us all!" Fucking jerks.

The 90s had some pretty fucking nihilistic AIDS public service adverts.

As Terra protects New York as a Team Titan by defending herself against elementals that want to kill her, the rest of the Team Titans defend New York by battling a bunch of electric beings in thongs that want to kidnap Killowat. I laugh in your face, Councilwoman Alderman! Look at all the good these Titans are doing for the city! The energy beings easily kidnap Killowat because he only had the majority of the Team Titans and Battalion defending him. Terra, all alone, just barely manages not to die in her battle right before a newly human Prester Jon (back from the Terminus Agenda!) manages to save her.

This might be my favorite panel from 1994. In case you couldn't tell by his idiotic hands or his stupid baby, that's Terry Long under the clock.

The person who kidnapped Killowat turns out to be the clockmaker's old beau, the one that taught her to work on futuristic Titans' communicators. He was a member of the Team Titans named Lazarium but he seems to have been a spy working for Lord Chaos. The leader of the Team Titans (identity still unknown!) sent him and his team back in time to die. But he survived and now he owns a good chunk of the media world. His name might as well be Rupert Murdoch because he has a media empire that's trying to turn the world against heroes and he has his own sexual harassment problems in his organization, seeing as how Deathwing works for him. Team Titans #17 Rating: It took seventeen issues but I'm finally interested in this comic book! The Lazarium story arc has momentum and ties in to the overall history of the team, hopefully finally separating them from the Titans book for a bit. I know it still relies on garbage time travel theories but it also threatens to expose Killowat as a huge racist piece of shit! That should be exciting! It's also slightly heavy on implied rape which I didn't mean to add as one of the reasons I'm enjoying the book but just as a simple fact to say, "Look. This was a comic book from 1994! Rape was an important plot point to raise tension and pull on the emotional heartstrings of an audience that didn't quite understand how writers were just using rape as a lazy way of creating drama and emotional tenstion!" What I'm trying to say is: B+! Good work, everybody!

#Team Titans #DC Comics #Teen Titans #Comic Book Review

1 note · View note

orbemnews · 3 years

Link

Biden's agenda hinges on new Senate push for bipartisan deals amid distrust between the parties “If somebody tells you in their inaugural speech they’re for bipartisanship, and they go out and do everything but, it doesn’t engender trust,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who says he’s been invited to a White House meeting on infrastructure next week. Plus Democrats lack enough support within their own caucus to eliminate the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold altogether, putting even more pressure to find a bipartisan way forward in the next several weeks or risk seeing chunks of the Biden agenda falter in the narrowly divided Congress. “This month is our opportunity to show that we can actually legislate in a bipartisan way,” said Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat who occupies Biden’s old US Senate seat in Delaware. Yet liberals are eager to see results and say that if bipartisan talks peter out, Democrats must achieve their goals by whatever means necessary — including potentially using the budget process up to six times in this Congress — with or without GOP support. “Whether it’s one piece of legislation or six pieces of legislation, is a less concern to me as to whether it goes done,” Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont. “What matters is it gets done and we can address the crises facing working families.” On some major issues, such as voting rights, there are no serious bipartisan talks occurring. It’s a sign that a sweeping Democratic proposal to increase voting access and overhaul the election process is almost certain to be blocked by Republicans as soon as next month. At a closed-door lunch on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told his caucus that he would give time for bipartisan talks to play out — but that Democrats would go a different route if negotiations stall, attendees said. “Schumer also cautioned that Senate Dems do not have the luxury of time,” a person in the room said. Gun talks intensify but face uphill climb Behind the scenes, bipartisan talks are beginning to pick up pace on some key issues. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, two Connecticut Democrats, have been quietly working the phones to court Republicans to see if there’s any support on gun violence legislation that could garner 60 votes in the Senate. Democrats hope this month will yield progress before trying to bring a bill to the floor next month, though they’ll need the backing of 10 Republicans to do that. Between the two Democrats, they’ve spoken to roughly half the 50-member Senate GOP Conference. They readily acknowledge that they will have to pare back the House-passed bill that would mandate background checks on firearm sales on commercial and private transactions, given the stiff opposition from GOP senators and skepticism from moderate Democrats to requiring checks on private transfers. Yet, it’s still a tall order to cut a deal even on a narrow measure — such as forcing all gun purchasers through the internet and at gun shows to undergo background checks, similar to a long-stalled proposal by Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, a Republican. Still, senators are discussing ways to bolster the background check system, while seeking to find consensus on proposals to empower states and local authorities to remove firearms from those deemed mentally ill — known as red-flag laws. And while both Murphy and Blumenthal say they’re more optimistic than before that a deal could be reached in the weeks ahead, they plainly recognize the challenges ahead. Blumenthal said talks are going “better than I would have expected, much more productively than any other time.” But he added: “Realistically, it’s still very much an uphill effort, in part because Republicans are so spooked right now by Donald Trump and his base and the complete irrationality, almost paranoia, of that base when it comes to guns, the slippery slope becomes a cliff. If they take one step, it’s like the world ends.” Murphy said he’s spent recent weeks “cajoling” his Republican colleagues to support anti-gun violence legislation, and says he’s ready to compromise on “something that’s less than what the House passed.” But what that bipartisan plan looks like remains unclear. Indiana Sen. Mike Braun, a Republican who spoke with Murphy, said the focus should be on “keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.” But Braun said focusing on expanding background checks first means “you’re starting in the wrong place” and called on senators to instead “first focus on why some laws aren’t working.” Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, said: “These people would pass background checks, which is why I proposed the red flag grants to incentivize more states,” a reference to grants to state and local governments that implement laws that allow the temporary removal of guns from people deemed at high risk of harming themselves or others. And the distrust looms large. Senate Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota was skeptical when asked if there’d be an appetite for a bipartisan deal on background checks. “Most of the proposals the Dems come up with have something to do with making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get access to firearms,” Thune told CNN. Bipartisan group weighs police reform compromise Amid the attention around the Derek Chauvin trial on charges of murdering George Floyd last year in Minneapolis, the White House has shifted its focus to getting legislation through Congress, abandoning a Biden campaign pledge to create a commission on the issue. After the House passed a bill in March named after Floyd, without a single Republican supporter, there are now active conversations about a bipartisan Senate version of a police reform bill. Those involved in the bipartisan discussions include Rep. Karen Bass, a California Democrat and lead author of the House bill, Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, whose version of police reform was blocked by a Democratic filibuster last summer. Scott told CNN this week that he and Bass had just spoken, adding he believed progress was being made since they first started their conversations in recent weeks. Bass told CNN in March the group was working through “some of the thorny issues” in their discussions over a potential Senate bill. One of the thorniest issues is how to deal with the issue of qualified immunity, which protects police officers from civil litigation. Democrats have pushed to gut the protections, a proposal that Republicans have resisted. But Scott indicated that the sticking point could be resolved. Asked if he sees a potential compromise on qualified immunity, Scott told CNN: “We’ll find out soon.” He added: “I’m optimistic still.” Democrats might go it-alone on infrastructure In order to overcome the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, there needs to be a bipartisan consensus in the 50-50 Senate since most bills are unlikely to meet the strict rules of budget reconciliation, a process that allows legislation to pass on a simple majority basis and that was employed to enact the sweeping Covid relief law with no Republican support. The Senate’s parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, gave Democrats a boost last week when she ruled that it’s possible to use that process multiple times per fiscal year, meaning it could be employed six times in the current Congress — an unprecedented move. Schumer says he has not made a decision to go that route yet, as the White House has sought to engage Republicans on a potential bipartisan way forward on its $2 trillion-plus infrastructure-and-tax package. Yet in order for an infrastructure bill to pass the House by July 4, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants, Democratic leaders must make a decision soon about which route they want to pursue: A narrow bill that could win over Republicans, or a more sweeping measure that they could pass through the reconciliation process. On Wednesday, Schumer refused to say when he’d make that decision. But he made clear he wouldn’t let talks drag out. “We’re not going to repeat the mistake of 2009 and ’10 where for a year-and-a-half they negotiated and then nothing came of it,” Schumer said on CNN’s “New Day,” referring to the first two years under then-President Barack Obama when Democrats controlled all of Congress. “We’re not doing that.” But going the reconciliation route has its limits. For instance, MacDonough ruled this year that increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour is outside the bounds of the budget reconciliation process, dealing a blow to progressive Democrats. The ruling prompted bipartisan talks over the issue, with GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah and Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona putting together a middle-ground proposal to pitch to a group of 20 senators from both parties who are trying to craft compromises for the Senate to consider. And Manchin and some other moderate Democrats have resisted calls to use the reconciliation process on an infrastructure package, even though the prospects for a bipartisan deal seem slim — as Republicans reject Biden’s call to hike corporate taxes to help pay for the plan and seek a proposal with a much lower price tag. Manchin said bipartisan deals will happen, “but it might not happen at the scope some people want it to happen. You can’t do every social agenda and every pent-up issue that you might have.” But asked what he’d do if the bipartisan talks fall apart, Manchin demurred. “You just work a little harder until you massage it and make it happen,” Manchin told CNN. CNN’s Ted Barrett and Tara Subramaniam contributed to this report. Source link Orbem News #agenda #Bidens #Bipartisan #Bipartisandeals:Biden'sagendahingesonnewSenatepushamiddistrustbetweentheparties-CNNPolitics #deals #distrust #hinges #parties #Politics #Push #Senate

0 notes

dipulb3 · 3 years

Text

Biden's agenda hinges on new Senate push for bipartisan deals amid distrust between the parties

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/bidens-agenda-hinges-on-new-senate-push-for-bipartisan-deals-amid-distrust-between-the-parties/

Biden's agenda hinges on new Senate push for bipartisan deals amid distrust between the parties

“If somebody tells you in their inaugural speech they’re for bipartisanship, and they go out and do everything but, it doesn’t engender trust,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who says he’s been invited to a White House meeting on infrastructure next week.

Plus Democrats lack enough support within their own caucus to eliminate the filibuster’s 60-vote altogether, putting even more pressure to find a bipartisan way forward in the next several weeks or risk seeing chunks of the Biden agenda falter in the narrowly divided Congress.

“This month is our opportunity to show that we can actually legislate in a bipartisan way,” said Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat who occupies Biden’s old US Senate seat in Delaware.

Yet liberals are eager to see results and say that if bipartisan talks peter out, Democrats must achieve their goals by whatever means necessary — including potentially using the budget process up to six times in this Congress — with or without GOP support.

“Whether it’s one piece of legislation or six pieces of legislation, is a less concern to me as to whether it goes done,” Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont. “What matters is it gets done and we can address the crises facing working families.”

On some major issues, such as voting rights, there are no serious bipartisan talks occurring. It’s a sign that a sweeping Democratic proposal to increase voting access and overhaul the election process is almost certain to be blocked by Republicans as soon as next month.

At a closed-door lunch on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told his caucus that he would give time for bipartisan talks to play out — but that Democrats would go a different route if negotiations stall, attendees said.

“Schumer also cautioned that Senate Dems do not have the luxury of time,” a person in the room said.

Gun talks intensify but face uphill climb

Behind the scenes, bipartisan talks are beginning to pick up pace on some key issues.

Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, two Connecticut Democrats, have been quietly working the phones to court Republicans to see if there’s any support on gun violence legislation that could garner 60 votes in the Senate. Democrats hope this month will yield progress before trying to bring a bill to the floor next month, though they’ll need the backing of 10 Republicans to do that.

Between the two Democrats, they’ve spoken to roughly half the 50-member Senate GOP Conference. They readily acknowledge that they will have to pare back the House-passed bill that would mandate background checks on firearm sales on commercial and private transactions, given the stiff opposition from GOP senators and skepticism from moderate Democrats to requiring checks on private transfers.

Yet, it’s still a tall order to cut a deal even on a narrow measure — such as forcing all gun purchasers through the internet and at gun shows to undergo background checks, similar to a long-stalled proposal by Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, a Republican.

Still, senators are discussing ways to bolster the background check system, while seeking to find consensus on proposals to empower states and local authorities to remove firearms from those deemed mentally ill — known as red-flag laws.

And while both Murphy and Blumenthal say they’re more optimistic than before that a deal could be reached in the weeks ahead, they plainly recognize the challenges ahead.

Blumenthal said talks are going “better than I would have expected, much more productively than any other time.” But he added: “Realistically, it’s still very much an uphill effort, in part because Republicans are so spooked right now by Donald Trump and his base and the complete irrationality, almost paranoia, of that base when it comes to guns, the slippery slope becomes a cliff. If they take one step, it’s like the world ends.”

Murphy said he’s spent recent weeks “cajoling” his Republican colleagues to support anti-gun violence legislation, and says he’s ready to compromise on “something that’s less than what the House passed.”

But what that bipartisan plan looks like remains unclear.

Indiana Sen. Mike Braun, a Republican who spoke with Murphy, said the focus should be on “keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.”

But Braun said focusing on expanding background checks first means “you’re starting in the wrong place” and called on senators to instead “first focus on why some laws aren’t working.”

Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, said: “These people would pass background checks, which is why I proposed the red flag grants to incentivize more states,” a reference to grants to state and local governments that implement laws that allow the temporary removal of guns from people deemed at high risk of harming themselves or others.

And the distrust looms large.

Senate Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota was skeptical when asked if there’d be an appetite for a bipartisan deal on background checks.

“Most of the proposals the Dems come up with have something to do with making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get access to firearms,” Thune told Appradab.

Bipartisan group weighs police reform compromise

Amid the attention around the Derek Chauvin trial on charges of murdering George Floyd last year in Minneapolis, the White House has shifted its focus to getting legislation through Congress, abandoning a Biden campaign pledge to create a commission on the issue. After the House passed a bill in March named after Floyd, without a single Republican supporter, there are now active conversations about a bipartisan Senate version of a police reform bill.

Those involved in the bipartisan discussions include Rep. Karen Bass, a California Democrat and lead author of the House bill, Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, whose version of police reform was blocked by a Democratic filibuster last summer.

Scott told Appradab this week that he and Bass had just spoken, adding he believed progress was being made since they first started their conversations in recent weeks. Bass told Appradab in March the group was working through “some of the thorny issues” in their discussions over a potential Senate bill.

One of the thorniest issues is how to deal with the issue of qualified immunity, which protects police officers from civil litigation. Democrats have pushed to gut the protections, a proposal that Republicans have resisted. But Scott indicated that the sticking point could be resolved.

Asked if he sees a potential compromise on qualified immunity, Scott told Appradab: “We’ll find out soon.” He added: “I’m optimistic still.”

Democrats might go it-alone on infrastructure

In order to overcome the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, there needs to be a bipartisan consensus in the 50-50 Senate since most bills are unlikely to meet the strict rules of budget reconciliation, a process that allows legislation to pass on a simple majority basis and that was employed to enact the sweeping Covid relief law with no Republican support.

The Senate’s parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, gave Democrats a boost last week when she ruled that it’s possible to use that process multiple times per fiscal year, meaning it could be employed six times in the current Congress — an unprecedented move.

Schumer says he has not made a decision to go that route yet, as the White House has sought to engage Republicans on a potential bipartisan way forward on its $2 trillion-plus infrastructure-and-tax package.

Yet in order for an infrastructure bill to pass the House by July 4, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants, Democratic leaders must make a decision soon about which route they want to pursue: A narrow bill that could win over Republicans, or a more sweeping measure that they could pass through the reconciliation process.

On Wednesday, Schumer refused to say when he’d make that decision. But he made clear he wouldn’t let talks drag out.

“We’re not going to repeat the mistake of 2009 and ’10 where for a year-and-a-half they negotiated and then nothing came of it,” Schumer said on Appradab’s “New Day,” referring to the first two years under then-President Barack Obama when Democrats controlled all of Congress. “We’re not doing that.”

But going the reconciliation route has its limits. For instance, MacDonough ruled this year that increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour is outside the bounds of the budget reconciliation process, dealing a blow to progressive Democrats.

The ruling prompted bipartisan talks over the issue, with GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah and Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona putting together a middle-ground proposal to pitch to a group of 20 senators from both parties who are trying to craft compromises for the Senate to consider.

And Manchin and some other moderate Democrats have resisted calls to use the reconciliation process on an infrastructure package, even though the prospects for a bipartisan deal seem slim — as Republicans reject Biden’s call to hike corporate taxes to help pay for the plan and seek a proposal with a much lower price tag.

Manchin said bipartisan deals will happen, “but it might not happen at the scope some people want it to happen. You can’t do every social agenda and every pent-up issue that you might have.”

But asked what he’d do if the bipartisan talks fall apart, Manchin demurred.

“You just work a little harder until you massage it and make it happen,” Manchin told Appradab.

Appradab’s Ted Barrett and Tara Subramaniam contributed to this report.

0 notes

chuck-glisson · 10 months

Text

Bubba, the Prison RUMP RANGER is going to "Destroy" Donald Trump's COLON!

0 notes

bl6ckr0s3 · 3 years

Text

Lord Is Good

I am so thankful for what the good Lord has blessed me so far. I just got my taxes done & I am getting a huge chunk in return thanks to the pandemic and my baby. This was an unexpected amount and I have never gotten back this much $$$ before. I had prayed to the Lord asking him to please help me with my financial situation and he has with the 3rd stimulus and this. I can actually have enough to save for myself and the baby and not waste all the money supporting a man anymore. The first time I had a lot of money saved up was $6k and this was before I met my ex-husband Brian. After I met him all of my money was gone supporting his stupid ass. I'm tired of meeting these loser men who either don't want to work hard or don't want to try to be better. You can't get through life holding mommy's hand for the rest of your life. That's why my son and his brothers will be grown up and fucking smart and will be successful in whatever they choose to do with their future careers. I feel like now I have that money returned to me, it's so weird the same amount of money I had saved before I met Brian and now it's coming back to me as an income tax refund. I will be able to keep up with my bills, but I'm not gonna blow it all on the bills either. I'm gonna try to save most of it and spend on only what I have to spend on. I also notice that over time is beginning to come back at my job and it's been a long time since Donald Trump's best man that he placed under the U.S. Postal Service in charge has removed a lot of our over time revenue. I'm seeing more money is coming back into the facility so that means I can start doing overtime again if I truly I wanna make my money and save extra. God is good.

I notice Ricky is still posting on his comedy page of Facebook. He was actually posting about his back and shoulder problems as well as his knees going out. I hope it's actually true because if it is, then maybe whatever I'm reflecting back at him for his negative actions is working. Apparently through Wendy's tarot reading and my sister's spiritual guides are saying that he's trying to find a job right now. If he has plenty of money to waste on tattoos for himself, he most certainly can afford to get off his ass and start working again. I hope that once I can retain full custody of my child, I can have my son with me more often. I only met Vanessa once and I don't know her all that well. She would be the only caretaker that Ricky would prefer to have for our baby, so fuck him. I have a right to do what I am comfortable with and Vanessa seems nice and she came to visit my apartment once, but I truly trust my baby more with my friend Brenda & her husband. If anything I think they are more loving and caring to my son then Vanessa and her husband ever would. Hopefully, I pray that I retain full custody of my baby just like Lissandra was able to gain full custody over Sid & Guy.

0 notes

donnerpartyofone · 6 years

Note

What questions do you hate getting? Like what asks really annoy you lol

there are so many ways to answer this! get ready for an extremely long answer!

like first of all, there have been many anon styles over the years that i really object to, but that i wouldn’t consider real “questions”:

- i’ve had people serially send me these elaborate “asks” that amount to some sort of incredibly dreary performance art. the person obviously thinks they’re so gonzo and that they have such an amazing command of the language, but the harder they try to be eccentric and brilliant, the more sophomoric and predictable they sound. i really hated those because they were so unfunny and pretentious, in spite of what the author obviously thought of himself. (i say “him” not only because i prejudicially think this is a very boy-on-the-internet behavior, but also because i think i know who was responsible for a lot of them) reading them was just exhausting and depressing.- i really don’t get the point of copypasta, in which i would include the practice of sending disembodied chunks of dialog from movies and tv. i guess the goal is supposed to be to make the recipient look like an asshole if they’re duped into thinking it’s a real message, but a) it doesn’t make you stupid if you don’t have everything on knowyourmeme memorized, and b) ...it’s always so, so obvious when someone is sending copypasta, even if it’s totally mundane. i can’t explain why, it’s just an instinct. somebody will send me some “weird”, “random” message, and it always has this kind of artificial smell on it. every time i get something like that, i just google the first line of it and find out immediately that it’s from, you know, ANCHORMAN 2 or something. sometimes i also get asks that are just copied from some other actual tumblr’s recent text posts, and those are equally obvious for whatever invisible reason, but somehow they’re even grosser to me. i have no idea what people get out of sending these things.- obviously it sucks to get deranged messages from alt right trolls who have decided for themselves that i’m obsessed with hillary clinton, or whatever else they’re excited about, and who think they can shame me by sending obscure, unverifiable, decontextualized chunks of “news” that could only have come from whatever nazi echo chamber they’re part of. but, i guess that’s just a fact of life now, on or off the internet.

i do also get these certain types of messages that are more like “real questions”, but they bother me because in part because they’re annoyingly topical, and moreover, because they’re leading questions. i wish i could come up with specific examples but i don’t have the energy to go through my whole archive for these things...it’s just questions about, you know, the latest donald trump gaffe, or the most recent attention grab by james franco or shia lebeouf, or something else that’s a) more of a TMZ topic than what i’m usually interested in, and that b) really has a prefabricated answer that’s the only acceptable response: this guy’s a douchebag, that movie fucking blows, rapists and racists should be thrown off a cliff, et al ad nauseam. i guess there’s a possibility that whoever asks me these kinds of questions hopes that i’ll say something really surprising that no one has thought of yet, but the vibe i get is that they really just want me to go off on a fun, sarcastic tear where i satisfy the person by reinforcing things that they (and practically everyone) already think. sometimes there’s an adjective that kind of tells me what i’m supposed to think to begin with, or the question is structured in such a way that suggests that the author thinks they already know my answer. sorry i don’t have any fun examples! i just remember the sad, tired feeling of getting one of these after another, and wondering like: what provocative, unusual thing could i possibly say about some youtuber i’ve never heard of who just dropped the “N word”? isn’t that guy just an unqualified asshole, is this really deserving of analysis?

on a very similar note, sometimes i get messages that take this sarcastic tone toward social justice-related shit, like say the idea of being “woke”--as if that word weren’t originated by legitimately oppressed people to describe their need to relentlessly research and fact check every piece of information that crosses their path, because their lives are threatened by evil, bigoted social and political machinery. if the word “woke” is starting to sound ridiculous, it’s only because people with privilege find it hilarious to toss it around, specifically because it’s so far from their own experience. it isn’t inherently funny that people are trying to improve their circumstances through education that goes beyond the conventional curricula, or that people who have had traumatic, dehumanizing experiences are using modern technology to unite and increase their visibility with things like hashtags. the person who asks me these questions doesn’t come right out and shit all over this stuff, but their use of quotation marks and tonality always makes me think that they’re angling for me to thumb my nose at “today’s climate” of political correctness.

and on THAT note, i sometimes have this sense that people want me to be more, i don’t know what, anti-everything than i actually am. like they want me to hate every significant artist with the slightest taint of corrupt thoughts in their work, or they want me to hate every remake of a classic movie just because hollywood remakes = automatically bad. it’s like there’s a hope that i’ll be a lot more radical than i am, in one direction or the other, and i have to remind people that i’m mainly just a regular person who likes a fair amount of regular stuff. that’s kind of a weird experience.

1 note · View note

dailynewswebsite · 4 years

Text

Most US farmers remain loyal to Trump despite pain from trade wars and COVID-19

Trump prepares to offer a speech to farmers in Mills River, N.C., in August.

AP Picture/Evan Vucci

U.S. farmers have suffered quite a bit up to now few years: The commerce struggle with China, pure disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic have all resulted in substantial losses for a lot of producers.

Farmers overwhelmingly supported Donald Trump in 2016 and stay essential to his reelection in lots of swing states equivalent to Iowa and Minnesota. However given the affect of all that’s occurred, will they stick to the president within the November elections?

We’ve performed in depth analysis on American farmers in recent times via surveys and one-on-one interviews. We’ve additionally examined the affect of the U.S.-China commerce struggle.

Whereas the financial prices have been steep, Trump has discovered a technique to make it as much as them: document subsidies. And that’s why we imagine most U.S. farmers will keep loyal to Trump.

Falling exports

The commerce struggle with China, which started in 2018, has dealt a significant blow to U.S. agricultural exports.

After over a 12 months of escalation, by the autumn of 2019 retaliatory tariffs by China had coated nearly all U.S. agricultural merchandise. In consequence, exports of key items equivalent to soybeans skilled steep declines, leading to losses to U.S. soybean farmers of over US$10 billion, in keeping with our calculations.

The ache was unfold throughout the U.S., if erratically. California’s state economic system, for instance, has suffered essentially the most, shedding over $6 billion. Nonetheless, most states noticed tons of of hundreds of thousands of {dollars} in losses, and 11 skilled losses of greater than $1 billion.

Federal subsidies to the rescue

In 2018, the Trump administration created a subsidy program supposed to mitigate farmers’ losses associated to the commerce struggle. Breaking from custom, the administration let the U.S. Division of Agriculture spend the cash with out first getting approval from Congress.

Below this system, farmers and ranchers obtained $8.5 billion for 2018 losses and $14.three billion for 2019. No trade-related subsidies have been distributed for 2020 apart from the remaining third tranche of the 2019 funds.

However simply as some states had been harm extra by the commerce struggle than others, not all states benefited equally from the funds. The subsidies closely focused the Midwest, reflecting the political affect of rural constituents in these states. Many of the states that got here out forward – equivalent to Iowa and Nebraska – are likely to vote Republican and have comparatively giant agricultural sectors.

As Trump put it throughout a latest rally in Iowa, “A number of the farmers had been making extra money the best way I used to be doing it than working their asses off, all proper? They had been very, very blissful.”

For the reason that prices of this system are financed by all taxpayers, states with giant city populations equivalent to California, Texas and New York are footing the invoice – and spending extra money than they’re getting in assist. California farmers, for instance, obtained simply $106 million in funds – regardless of the $6 billion in losses – even because the state’s taxpayers contributed $2 billion to this system.

Coronavirus provides to losses

Sadly for farmers, simply because the U.S. and China had been reaching a truce of their commerce struggle, the coronavirus recession saddled them with one other supply of deep financial ache.

Whereas the financial toll from the virus stays unknown, the closures of faculties, eating places and different companies minimize into meals gross sales and additional depressed markets for crop and livestock farmers throughout the USA. In 2020, even with federal help, Midwest corn and soybean farmers are anticipated to lose cash.

Working with Congress this time, the Trump administration created one other program to assist farmers harm by the coronavirus pandemic and has to this point disbursed virtually $30 billion. Once more, a big chunk of the funds have gone to crimson Midwestern states equivalent to Iowa, which alone obtained virtually $1 billion of the primary $10.2 billion disbursed.

Funds have been accelerating as Election Day approaches. Mixed with trade-related and pre-Trump subsidies, whole funds this 12 months are anticipated to succeed in a document $46 billion.

Whereas the funds are supposed to present short-term reduction, the commerce struggle could have already got carried out long-term harm to American farmers. The tariffs on U.S. agricultural merchandise led Chinese language corporations to hunt out cheaper sources for meals and feed. Brazilian farmers offered document quantities of soybeans to China in Might and June and are actually having fun with their highest earnings from the crop in historical past.

Farm nation demonstrates its persevering with assist for the president. Paul Weaver/Pacific Press/LightRocket by way of Getty Photographs

Assist holds sturdy

So what does this all imply for the way Trump will fare with farmers in November?

Two latest research present that Republican candidates misplaced assist within the 2018 congressional elections in counties extra uncovered to commerce retaliation, in addition to in counties with extra soybean manufacturing. And definitely, not all farmers are pleased with Trump. One Ohio farmer who voted for Trump in 2016 lamented in a information article that the president “all the time does the identical. He hurts you after which he offers you cash to maintain you quiet.”

[Get our best science, health and technology stories. Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter.]

But the beneficiant farmer subsidies are one motive farmers have stated they assist Trump’s commerce struggle. Final fall, our survey of Midwest crop farmers discovered that 56% stated they considerably or strongly assist Trump’s tariffs on Chinese language merchandise, regardless of retaliation on their very own exports. Farmers additionally stated they share issues held by many Individuals of the broader perceived menace of China over points just like the commerce deficit and cyber espionage.

And a number of other latest polls present that farmers’ general assist for the president stays sturdy. Eighty-two % of farmers polled by the Farm Journal in August stated they deliberate to vote for Trump. A survey of large-scale farmers in July discovered that 75% would again the president, about the identical as in 2016.

Whereas the commerce struggle’s affect on the election stays unclear, there is no such thing as a motive to count on a considerable portion of farmers to defect from the president.

Wendong Zhang receives funding from from US Division of Agriculture Agriculture and Meals Analysis Initiative (AFRI) Markets, Commerce and Economics program with the venture titled "Quantifying the Transmission of U.S.-China and World Coverage Impacts via a New Commodity-Particular Worldwide Normal-Equilibrium System; and is member of the agriculture committee of US-China Heartland Affiliation, a non-profit group.

Minghao Li receives funding from from US Division of Agriculture Agriculture and Meals Analysis Initiative (AFRI) Markets, Commerce and Economics program with the venture titled "Quantifying the Transmission of U.S.-China and World Coverage Impacts via a New Commodity-Particular Worldwide Normal-Equilibrium System."

from Growth News https://growthnews.in/most-us-farmers-remain-loyal-to-trump-despite-pain-from-trade-wars-and-covid-19/ via https://growthnews.in

#Growth News

0 notes

schraubd · 6 years

Text

Election 2018: Post-Mortem

We're not 100% "post-" yet, as there are still a decent number of races outstanding. Here in California, the mail vote could yet push around some House race numbers (though Montana just was called for Jon Tester!). Nonetheless, we've got enough of a picture to give a pretty solid account of yesterday's events. Here are my takeaways: * * * Dems winning the House is huge: This was not something to take for granted. Let's not forget, there was a good chunk of time where people thought GOP gerrymandering had placed the House out of Democratic reach. And control of the House doesn't just prevent Congress from ramming through far-right pieces of the Trump agenda. It also gives Democrats a key fulcrum from which to launch investigations into the deep cesspool of corruption that characterizes the Trump administration. On that score, I actually don't recommend starting with Trump necessarily. There are so many targets to choose from, and if there's one thing I think we learned from how the GOP handled the Benghazi (non-)story, it's that a steady and constant drip-drip-drip of scandal is far more powerful than blowing everything in one shot. Start with easy marks like Zinke, and the noose will slowly begin to tighten around the inner circle. This was a continuation, not a reversal, of 2016's trend: One theory about 2016 was that it was a fit of temporary insanity, whereby good-hearted Americans had a bout of temporary insanity or rage or anti-Clinton derangement and chose a President whom they didn't really endorse or even like. Under this view, 2018 would be a "snapback" election, where these voters would revert to form and go back to supporting sensible candidates while repudiating Trump's extremism. Another theory about 2016 takes Trump voters more seriously. It posits that in certain very conservative parts of the country -- generally more rural, generally less-educated, concentrated in Appalachia and the American southeast -- they liked Trump, and they continue to like Trump. All the lying and racism and extremism and utter off-the-wall demagoguery -- the love it. Meanwhile, other parts of the country -- more suburban, more diverse, and especially in the southwest -- were moving away from Trump and Trumpism. Last night, I think, decisively ratifies the second theory. By and large, the people who like Trump still like Trump. Rick Scott's numbers in Florida were almost perfectly correlated with the 2016 presidential race. And at the same time, we saw a more decisive shift away from the GOP in the sort of districts where people already didn't like Trump. From what I saw, Democrats did better in Romney-Clinton districts than Obama-Trump ones, which verifies this instinct. And Democrats are continuing to make big strides in Nevada and (yes, even in defeat) Arizona and Texas. The partial exception to this view is the midwest (where Democrats won governorships in Wisconsin and Michigan, and a decent clutch of House seats as well). But even here, the news was mixed: Democrats lost the Senate races in Indiana and Missouri, the governorship in Iowa (albeit while winning 3 of 4 House seats) and Ohio, and their two pickups in Minnesota House races were offset by at least one and probably two GOP flips (which were some of the only such GOP wins nationwide). There is a truth that is important for pundits to get through their head: conservative Americans like Trump. He's not an aberration. He's not deus ex machina. He's not someone they begrudgingly tolerate. American conservativism, right now, is Donald Trump. If that's a scary thought -- and it is -- start reporting it like something scary rather than pretending that most Republicans basically pine for Gerald Ford but somehow got sucked into an authoritarian nightmare they wish they could escape from. State Races Matter The national focus also has somewhat obscured how Democrats did on the state level. A bucket of governor's mansions have just turned blue -- Maine, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, and Kansas -- and there were no blue-to-red flips (solid holds in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado). And it looks like they've turned over at least six state legislative chambers too -- not bad! Priority #1 in any state with Democratic majority: lock in voting rights. It's embarrassing that a state like New York has a train wreck of a voting system, and it needs to end immediately. Republicans really did overperform Senate side Yes, it was a brutally tough map for the Democrats. But Republicans nonetheless exceeded at least gameday expectations. Democrats taking back the Senate was always a longshot, but if the GOP holds onto their leads in Arizona and Florida (likely), then they'll have come close to running the table on their best realistic Senate scenario (with only Montana and Nevada as the blemishes). That's legitimate GOP ammo for the spin cycle. And, of course, it does give Trump the ability to continue to pack the courts with right-wing ideologues, which is substantively terrifying. The Democratic Party Neither Needs To Pivot Left Nor Pivot Center The favored post-election parlor of any pundit after an election is to explain why the results decisively demonstrate why a given party needs to adopt the political positions they already supported. Among Democrats, this has typically shaken out along the Bernie/Establishment divide that we're apparently doomed to relive forever because this is The Bad Place. But the fact is, there was no clear trend in which sort of Democrats were winning and losing last night. A bunch of more conservative voices went down in the Senate, but in states which were already punishing turf. And some progressive darlings -- like Ben Jealous in Maryland and Andrew Gillum in Florida -- lost too. On the other side, some establishment picks did their job and won their race (think Jacky Rosen in Nevada, or Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan). But progressives had their stars too -- Beto O'Rourke's campaign in Texas certainly performed better than Texas's red tint should've allowed, and there were a bunch of more progressive challengers who are among the entering House class. Which is to say: different races are different, and different candidates are good fits for different districts. The Party isn't the enemy here. What I think has been shown is that the more extreme "Bernie" accusation -- that there were a bunch of winnable races that Democrats were quasi-deliberately letting go Republican because something-something-corporate-money, and if we only ran Real Democrats they'd be ours -- has been decisively refuted (I don't think Ben Jealous necessarily did worse than Rushern Baker would have done in Maryland, but he certainly didn't do better). But that was a colossally stupid take anyway. Which probably means it still won't die the death it deserves. Briefly on Beto -- Yes, He Deserves Praise This isn't even a hot take anymore but obviously O'Rourke deserves a ton of credit for how he performed in his race against Ted Cruz. I'm seeing some mockery from the usual conservative suspects on this, since he lost, but that's a dumb take. Yes a loss is a loss, and yes everyone hates Ted Cruz, and yes Texas has been slowly purpling. But a sub-three point victory in a statewide race in Texas (by contrast, Governor Greg Abbott -- no political superstar -- won reelection by 13 points) is a monster performance. And his tailwind likely carried a few House races over the finish line as well. The New Redemption is (Sort of) Upon Us I'm by no means the first to come up with the idea that we're going through a "second redemption" to undo the "second reconstruction" that was the civil rights era. But I think there is something to be said about the re-energizing of White racist attitudes that's occurred in America over the last few years. People have talked a lot about Trump and, before him, the Tea Party, not so much creating prejudice as "activating" it. I think that in places like Georgia or Florida, there was some demoralization among the White racist crowd where they had basically given up on the possibility that open racism was something they could "do" anymore. Now, they're downright jazzed -- and from that we get both Kemp and DeSantis likely entering a governor's mansion. That said, the story does seem too pat in some ways -- especially with the passage of Amendment 4 (felon re-enfranchisement) in Florida. It's no exaggeration to say this might put Democrats firmly in the driver's seat in a state as evenly divided as Florida (a full 40% of Black male adults in the state regained their right to vote through this measure), which makes it all the more surprising that it managed to clear the 60% threshold. And to be fair, some amount of credit thus has to be given to those voters who punched a ballot for both Amendment 4 and DeSantis/Scott (there must be a lot of them). One-State Wave! With Rashida Tlaib's victory in Michigan, we not only have our first Palestinian-American Congresswomen, we also will have the first Democratic Representative to openly support a one-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. She will join approximately 2/3 of the House Republican Caucus in taking this view (and if you're a pro-Israel type who's about to respond "that's not fair -- Republicans only support a one-state solution where Palestinians aren't allowed to vote!" stop and listen to yourself). Mixed Results for Anti-Semites Tablet did a whole bit on "antisemites running for Congress", but I found their list far too restrictive (or in a few cases -- most notably Rep. Andrew Carson and GOP challenger Lena Epstein -- too expansive). Overall, it seems like the worst-of-the-worst antisemites -- the open Holocaust denier sorts -- lost, but some more "moderate" cases did fine. I may do a more in-depth exploration of this later. Early Frustration is Misleading There did seem to be an extent which last night felt like a letdown for Democrats. Obviously, the Senate is a clear case where that sentiment is justified. At the same time, it seemed like the night got better for Democrats as it went on -- a couple of races which seemed to be slipping away (Wisconsin, Connecticut) broke blue late, and some of our biggest victories (Nevada) were also well into the evening. On net, there's no question this was a big night for the good guys. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2AQsRAy

#Election 2018

6 notes · View notes