#D. Trump Aims to Be a Dictator | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mariacallous · 11 months ago

Text

As delegates arrived at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee earlier this week to officially nominate former president Donald Trump as their 2024 candidate, a right-wing policy think tank held an all-day event nearby. The Heritage Foundation, a key sponsor of the convention and a group that has been influencing Republican presidential policy since the 1980s, gathered its supporters to tout Project 2025, a 900-plus-page policy blueprint that seeks to fundamentally restructure the federal government.

Dozens of conservative groups contributed to Project 2025, which recommends changes that would touch every aspect of American life and transform federal agencies—from the Department of Defense to the Department of Interior to the Federal Reserve. Although it has largely garnered attention for its proposed crackdowns on human rights and individual liberties, the blueprint would also undermine the country’s extensive network of environmental and climate policies and alter the future of American fossil fuel production, climate action, and environmental justice.

Under President Joe Biden’s direction, the majority of the federal government’s vast system of departments, agencies, and commissions have belatedly undertaken the arduous task of incorporating climate change into their operations and procedures. Two summers ago, Biden also signed the Inflation Reduction Act, the biggest climate spending law in US history, with the potential to help drive greenhouse gas emissions down 42 percent below 2005 levels.

Project 2025 seeks to undo much of that progress by slashing funding for government programs across the board, weakening federal oversight and policymaking capabilities, rolling back legislation passed during Biden’s first term, and eliminating career personnel. The policy changes it suggests—which include executive orders that Trump could implement single-handedly, regulatory changes by federal agencies, and legislation that would require congressional approval—would make it extremely difficult for the United States to fulfill the climate goals it has committed to under the 2015 Paris Agreement.

“It’s real bad,” said David Willett, senior vice president of communications for the environmental advocacy group the League of Conservation Voters. “This is a real plan, by people who have been in the government, for how to systematically take over, take away rights and freedoms, and dismantle the government in service of private industry.”

Trump has sought to distance himself from the blueprint. “Some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” he wrote in a social media post last week.

However, at least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration contributed to Project 2025, and policy experts and environmental advocates fear Project 2025 will play an influential role in shaping GOP policy if Trump is reelected in November. Some of the blueprint’s recommendations are echoed in the Republican National Convention’s official party platform, and Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts says he is “good friends” with Trump’s new running mate, Senator J. D. Vance of Ohio. Previous Heritage Foundation road maps have successfully dictated presidential agendas; 64 percent of the policy recommendations the foundation put out in 2016 had been implemented or considered under Trump one year into his term. The Heritage Foundation declined to provide a comment for this story.

Broadly speaking, Project 2025 proposals aim to scale down the federal government and empower states. The document calls for “unleashing all of America’s energy resources” by eliminating federal restrictions on fossil fuel drilling on public lands, curtailing federal investments in renewable energy technologies, and easing environmental permitting restrictions and procedures for new fossil fuel projects such as power plants. “What’s been designed here is a project that ensures a fossil fuel agenda, both in the literal and figurative sense,” said Craig Segall, the vice president of the climate-oriented political advocacy group Evergreen Action.

Within the Department of Energy, offices dedicated to clean energy research and implementation would be eliminated, and energy efficiency guidelines and requirements for household appliances would be scrapped. The environmental oversight capacities of the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency would be curbed significantly or eliminated altogether, preventing these agencies from tracking methane emissions, managing environmental pollutants and chemicals, or conducting climate change research.

In addition to these major overhauls, Project 2025 advocates for getting rid of smaller and lesser-known federal programs and statutes that safeguard public health and environmental justice. It recommends eliminating the Endangerment Finding—the legal mechanism that requires the EPA to curb emissions and air pollutants from vehicles and power plants, among other industries, under the Clean Air Act. It also recommends axing government efforts to assess the social cost of carbon, or the damage each additional ton of carbon emitted causes. And it seeks to prevent agencies from assessing the “co-benefits,” or the knock-on positive health impacts, of their policies, such as better air quality.

“When you think about who is going to be hit the hardest by pollution—whether it’s conventional air, water, and soil pollution or climate change—it is very often low-income communities and communities of color,” said Rachel Cleetus, policy director of the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization. “The undercutting of these kinds of protections is going to have a disproportionate impact on these very same communities.”

Other proposals would wreak havoc on the nation’s ability to prepare for and respond to climate disasters. Project 2025 suggests eliminating the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service housed therein and replacing those organizations with private companies. The blueprint appears to leave the National Hurricane Center intact, saying the data it collects should be “presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate.” But the National Hurricane Center pulls much of its data from the National Weather Service, as do most other private weather service companies, and eliminating public weather data could devastate Americans’ access to accurate weather forecasts. “It’s preposterous,” said Rob Moore, a policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Action Fund. “There’s no problem that’s getting addressed with this solution, this is a solution in search of some problem.”

The document also advocates moving the Federal Emergency Management Administration, which marshals federal disaster response, out from under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, where it has been housed for more than 20 years, and into the Department of the Interior or the Department of Transportation. “All of the agencies within the Department of Interior are federal land management agencies that own lots of land and manage those resources on behalf of the federal government,” Moore said. “Why would you put FEMA there? I can’t even fathom why that is a starting point.”

The blueprint recommends eliminating the National Flood Insurance Program and moving flood insurance to private insurers. That notion skates right over the fact that the federal program was initially established because private insurers found that it was economically unfeasible to insure the nation’s flood-prone homes—long before climate change began wreaking havoc on the insurance market.

Despite the alarming implications of most of Project 2025’s climate-related proposals, it also recommends a small number of policies that climate experts said are worth considering. Its authors call for shifting the costs of natural disasters from the federal government to states. That’s not a bad conversation to have, Moore pointed out. “I think there’s people within FEMA who feel the same way,” he said. The federal government currently shoulders at least 75 percent of the costs of national disaster recovery, paving the way for development and rebuilding in risky areas. “You are disincentivizing states and local governments from making wise decisions about where and how to build because they know the federal government is going to pick up the tab for whatever mistake they make,” Moore said.

Quillan Robinson, a senior adviser with ConservAmerica who has worked with Republicans in Washington, DC, on crafting emissions policies, was heartened by the authors’ call for an end to what they termed “unfair bias against the nuclear industry.” Nuclear energy is a reliable source of carbon-free energy, but it has been plagued by security and public health concerns, as well as staunch opposition from some environmental activists. “We know it’s a crucial technology for decarbonization,” Robinson said, noting that there’s growing bipartisan interest in the energy source among lawmakers in Congress.

An analysis conducted by the United Kingdom–based Carbon Brief found that a Trump presidency would lead to 400 billion metric tons of additional emissions in the US by 2030—the emissions output of the European Union and Japan combined.

Above all else, Segall, from Evergreen Action, is worried about the effect Project 2025 would have on the personnel who make up the federal government. Much of the way the administrative state works is safeguarded in the minds of career staff who pass their knowledge on to the next cadre of federal workers. When this institutional knowledge is curbed, as it was by budget cuts and hostile management during Trump’s first term, the government loses crucial information that helps it run. The personnel “scatter,” he said, disrupts bottom-line operations and grinds the government to a halt.

Although Project 2025’s proposals are radical, Segall said that its effect on public servants would echo a pattern that has been playing out for decades. “This is a common theme in Republican administrations dating back to presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan,” he said. “What you do is you break the government, make it very hard for the government to function, and then you loudly announce that the government can’t do anything.”

34 notes · View notes

itsslowsonic · 8 months ago

Text

What's Your Problem?

Whenever people talk about South Korea and North Korea, they always compare them together. South Korea and North Korea have the same culture, language and race. What are your first impressions of those two countries? South Korea is famous for its Korean style of fashion, Korean celebrities, and Samsung Electronics. But what about North Korea? Poverty, starvation, and the dictator Kim Jong Un.

You should know the US President Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous "Four Freedoms" speech. As America entered the World War II these "four freedoms" - the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear - symbolized America's war aims and gave hope in the following years to a war-wearied people because they knew they were fighting for freedom.

The first freedom is "Freedom of speech and expression". South Koreans can talk and criticize their government. What about North Koreans? If you criticize the Kim Jong Un regime, you will be thrown into the concentration camps or executed immediately. In North Korea, only the dictator's voice is allowed, you cannot say what you want to say. Sounds familiar? In the US, everything on the main media about Kamala Harris is positive. But everything about Trump is negative. That's what you want, right?

The second freedom is "Freedom of worship". South Koreans can worship whomever they like. But North Koreans must only worship Kim Jong Un and his family members. Yes, you must worship them, no other choices.

The third freedom is "Freedom from want". South Korea has a well-developed trade system, North Koreans can buy everything they want from anywhere in the world. What about North Koreans? Food shortage, energy shortage, industrial materials shortage, medication shortage, etc. Why do they have shortage problems of everything? North Korea has a centrally planned economy, where the government controls prices, production, and what goods are produced. The government's price controls are based on a principle of Marx's economic theory, not market and trade principles. Sounds familiar? A lot of the Democrats' favorite, right? California Gov. Gavin Newsom just signed into a new law to control gas prices (https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4933177-california-legislation-gas-prices/). Why price controls will cause shortage? Do your own research.

The fourth freedom is "Freedom from fear". South Koreans have this freedom but North Koreans live under Kim Jong Un's Red Terror every day. Today in the US, in a lot of the Democratic Party-controlled states, people are too scared to wear a MAGA hat outside. Why? Because the Democratic Party educates and brainwashes people to spread hate 24/7. That's what you want, right?

Do you want to live in South Korea or North Korea? Do you want to keep your American way of life? To keep your freedom, democracy, and equality? Do you want to have the North Korean lifestyle? To live under dictatorship, poverty, and starvation? If North Korea is your dream country, why don't you immigrate there? If you know North Korea is bad and you don't want to live like a North Korean, why do you want to make America become another North Korea? What's your problem? Seriously! What's wrong with you? Once again, what's your fking problem?

#2024 elections #politics #kamala harris #democratic party #usa #vote blue #vote harris #vote kamala #vote democratic #north korea #south korea #fuck communism #socialism

7 notes · View notes

dertaglichedan · 9 months ago

Text

More than 100 former national security officials from Republican administrations and former Republican members of Congress endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday after concluding that their party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, is “unfit to serve again as president.”

In a letter to the public, the Republicans, including both vocal longtime Trump opponents and others who had not endorsed Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2020, argued that while they might “disagree with Kamala Harris” on many issues, Mr. Trump had demonstrated “dangerous qualities.” Those include, they said, “unusual affinity” for dictators like President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and “contempt for the norms of decent, ethical and lawful behavior.”

“As president,” the letter said, “he promoted daily chaos in government, praised our enemies and undermined our allies, politicized the military and disparaged our veterans, prioritized his personal interest above American interests and betrayed our values, democracy and this country’s founding documents.”

The letter condemned Mr. Trump’s incitement of the mob attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, aimed at allowing him to hold onto power after losing an election, saying that “he has violated his oath of office and brought danger to our country.” It quoted Mr. Trump’s own former vice president, Mike Pence, who has said that “anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.”

The letter came not long after former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter, former Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, both said they would vote for Ms. Harris. Democrats featured a number of anti-Trump Republicans at their nominating convention last month, including former Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. Mr. Pence has said he will not endorse Mr. Trump but has not endorsed Ms. Harris.

The 111 signatories included former officials who served under Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush. Many of them had previously broken with Mr. Trump, including two former defense secretaries, Chuck Hagel and William S. Cohen; Robert B. Zoellick, a former president of the World Bank; the former C.I.A. directors Michael V. Hayden and William H. Webster; a former director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte; and former Gov. William F. Weld of Massachusetts. Miles Taylor and Olivia Troye, two Trump administration officials who became vocal critics, also signed.

But a number of Republicans who did not sign a similar letter on behalf of Mr. Biden in 2020 signed the one for Ms. Harris this time, including several former House members, like Charles W. Boustany Jr. of Louisiana, Barbara Comstock of Virginia, Dan Miller of Florida and Bill Paxon of New York

*** What the?!?!?!

7 notes · View notes

andreasgypsysoul2020 · 4 months ago

Text

Nazis do not respond to anything but violence. MAGA are Nazis. The absolute only way to deal with MAGA, is through violence, because they are Fascistic Authoritarian in Fact. They are imposing an Authoritarian Oligarchial Fascistic Government, with Far right Theocratic Christianity thown in, to herd the Jesus Sheep more easily. One mention of Jesus, and they're All-In, no If's, Ands, or Buts.

MAKE NO MISTAKE! Your MAGA Relatives, Neighbors, Co-Workers, Friends, and people sitting next to you on the Trolley or in a Movie House, will be, and are your Sworn Enemies. You may swear they are NOT your enemies, but they already have sworn YOU ARE THEIR ENEMY, by Pledging Allegiance to MAGA FASCISM, and their Current Orange God King.

If you wish to debate me on this, just please point out any situation in throughout all history, where Dictators, Nazis, Fascists, Imperialists, Authoritarians, Totalitarians, Ceasars, .......where Sweetness & Light, Playing Nice, brought them to the Negotiations Table.

Take all the time you need. Visit the library, prepare a Power Point Presentation with Videos, and written documentation to prove your case.

However, before you launch into me for this Violent Resolution Conclusion, continue reading below, the Essay by Dr. Earl Stephen's, D. Earl Stephens, author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters". Dr. Stephens, is a respected Journalist who was the Managing Editor for Stars and Stripes for 30 years.

*******<<<<>>>>*******

“It would be helpful if we stopped pretending this terrible chapter in American history won’t close without bloodshed …

It would be helpful if Americans, and our feeble Democratic politicians in particular, stopped implying by their comatose actions that Democracy is some damn American right and has no end date.

America very well might be arriving at hers, because, yes, it really is that bad right now.

Rather than bringing Ping-Pong paddles and groovy, little signs to a fascist hate-fest disguised as a State of the Union speech, it would be helpful if our meek, out-of-touch Democratic politicians at least pretended they understood the perilous moment we are standing in right now.

We are in deep, deep trouble, and now would be a wonderful, necessary time to step in front of your favorite mirror and honestly ask yourself what you are willing to do to fight for our country’s survival.

We are but six-plus weeks into the repulsive, wannabe-king’s second term and the damage he and his party are causing are already at catastrophic levels.

Our air, water, earned benefits, peace, public safety, civil rights, and human rights are all under immediate threat. Worse? This is only the first course of many that will be served by the vindictive, orange madman, and his pathetic party of supplicants.

The insults, the attacks, endless provocations, and thrashing of our Constitution will continue daily. All this carefully planned evil will be aimed at exactly one thing: breaking us.

Everything he is doing is designed to pound us into submission, and he’s having a grand damn doing it.

This was entirely his aim when he and his pet mutt, JD Vance, double-teamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the behest of Boss Putin in the Oval Office on Friday. The idea was to publicly humiliate the man who has done more to defend America’s interests across the globe than any Republican in memory.

Because Zelenskyy has tasted gun powder and breathed the odious smell of death on the battlefield, he wasn't about to be pushed around by some morbidly obese, 78-year-old yacht club bully and his toady, who think swinging a sand wedge to free a golf ball from some bunker is dangerous business.

Zelenskyy punched back and wasn't having it. He told the truth, and didn't back down. The future of his country is on the line right now, and he acted like it.

And therein lies the playbook for dealing with this sadistic bastard — if only the cautious, too-clever Democratic Party and their weak leaders, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, bothered paying attention.

While Rome burns, they dither.

They act as if we have all the time in the world, when time is something that is not guaranteed right now. They seem to somehow have no idea how bad things are about to get, or most certainly will be when elections they seem to be pinning their hopes on roll around next year.

Everything changed on November 5th, but by the looks of it, very little has changed in the Democratic Party.

This country will never be the same, and the sooner we come to grips with that, and start acting accordingly the better.

What would you do if everything you had and everyone you loved was threatened? Would you act like Zelenskyy or Schumer?

One of the big mistakes of Joe Biden’s presidency was this notion that everything was going to be OK, and that his idea of America matched the actual circumstances of America.

If I had a dollar for every time he said this, I’d fold up shop and move to Tahiti:

“We are the United States of America – there's nothing we can't do if we do it together. We just have to remember who we are.”

It was a noble statement and magical thinking that would have worked great pre-2016, when we could still believe without being laughed at that our two parties could work together in a crisis to protect America.

When we were attacked by the terrible human being who is now somehow leading us January 6, 2021, that magical thinking needed to go out the nearest window.

Instead, our Justice Department twiddled its thumbs and allowed the America-attacker to build himself back up, so that WE would have to deal with him AGAIN.

I seethe just thinking about this, but it is where we are right now, and the sooner we all understand this the better.

The clock is ticking. The bomb is in place.

Which brings me back around to my original premise: At some point, he will do something so heinous … so anti-America … so dangerous … that the people who truly love our country will be forced into the streets to take a life-or-death stand. Sadly, this is actually the best-case scenario, because the worst case is we just go quietly into the dark, gloomy night and become an authoritarian country, where we have zero rights or say in how we are governed.

Yesterday under the cover of his blankets, the America-attacker shared this with us:

[See Sphincter tweet in my Comment — JC]

Now read the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES."

He is telling us what he thinks of America and silly things like the Constitution. Kings don’t pay attention to that kind worthless drivel.

And, really, end of the day, it not him who we have most to fear. It’s the stupid, goddam Republicans who are stubbornly in all of our lives. These are the people who have illustrated there is no known pain or sacrifice to our civil liberties or pocketbooks that they won’t absorb just for the satisfaction of watching some poor kid of color going without something they didn’t think she should have.

So the choice is yours: You can continue thinking there is some magical way out of this, or you can begin to take the threat to everything you hold dear seriously, and ACT accordingly.”

— D. Earl Stephens, author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. D. Earl Stephens, author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes

#resist

0 notes

ivankahasbeentreatedsounfairly · 4 months ago

Text

The NY Times

By Adam Liptak Reporting from Washington

Feb. 16, 2025

In the first case to reach the Supreme Court arising from the blitz of actions taken in the early weeks of the new administration, lawyers for President Trump asked the justices on Sunday to let him fire a government lawyer who leads a watchdog agency.

The administration’s emergency application asked the court to vacate a federal trial judge’s order temporarily reinstating Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel. Mr. Dellinger leads an independent agency charged with safeguarding government whistle-blowers and enforcing certain ethics laws. The position is unrelated to special counsels appointed by the Justice Department.

“This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will,” the administration’s filing said.

The court is expected to act in the coming days.

The filing amounts to a challenge to a foundational precedent that said Congress can limit the president’s power to fire leaders of independent agencies, a critical issue as Mr. Trump seeks to reshape the federal government through summary terminations.

The statute that created the job now filled by Mr. Dellinger, who was confirmed by the Senate in 2024, provides for a five-year term and says the special counsel “may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” But a one-sentence email to Mr. Dellinger on Feb. 7 gave no reasons for terminating him, effective immediately.

He sued, and Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington entered a temporary restraining orderallowing Mr. Dellinger to keep his job for two weeks while she considered whether to enter a preliminary injunction. Temporary restraining orders are generally not appealable.

The statute, Judge Jackson wrote, “expresses Congress’s clear intent to ensure the independence of the special counsel and insulate his work from being buffeted by the winds of political change,” adding that the government’s “only response to this inarguable reading of the text is that the statute is unconstitutional.” Judge Jackson was appointed by President Barack Obama.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Saturday rejected the government’s emergency motion for a stay of Judge Jackson’s ruling. The unsigned majority opinion, joined by Judges Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, both Biden appointees, said the government’s motion was premature.

“The question here is not whether the president is entitled to prompt review of his important constitutional arguments,” the opinion said. “Of course he is. The issue before us is whether his mere claim of extraordinary harm justifies this court’s immediate review, which would essentially remove the legal issues from the district court’s ambit before its proceedings have concluded.”

In dissent, Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, said he would have blocked Judge Berman’s ruling, thus allowing Mr. Dellinger to be removed from office. Citing recent Supreme Court decisions, he wrote that “Congress cannot constitutionally restrict the president’s power to remove the special counsel.”

The administration’s emergency application took aim at a precedent from 1935 that has been critical to government operations. In that case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the court ruled that Congress can shield independent agencies from politics. Some conservative justices have said they would overrule the precedent, arguing that it unconstitutionally infringed the power of the president.

That case concerned a federal law that protected commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission, saying they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

President Franklin D. Roosevelt nonetheless fired a commissioner, William Humphrey. The only reason he gave was that Mr. Humphrey’s actions were not aligned with the administration’s policy goals.

Mr. Humphrey died a few months later, and his estate sued to recover the pay he would have received in that time. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the firing had been unlawful and that the statute at issue was constitutional.

In 2020, the Supreme Court seemed to lay the groundwork for overruling that precedent in a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The law that created the bureau, using language identical to that at issue in Humphrey’s Executor and in Mr. Dellinger’s case, said the president could remove its director only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

In a 5-to-4 decision, the court struck down that provision, saying it violated the separation of powers and that the president could remove the bureau’s director for any reason.

In language that anticipated the court’s decision in July granting Mr. Trump, then a private citizen, substantial immunity from prosecution for conduct during his first term, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said the presidency requires an “energetic executive.”

“In our constitutional system,” he wrote in 2020, “the executive power belongs to the president, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead.”

The general reasoning in the chief justice’s opinion left Humphrey’s Executor on life support. Two members of the court — Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — would have pulled the plug right away.

“The decision in Humphrey’s Executor poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people,” Justice Thomas wrote.

He added: “With today’s decision, the court has repudiated almost every aspect of Humphrey’s Executor. In a future case, I would repudiate what is left of this erroneous precedent.”

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for what was then the court’s four-member liberal wing, dissented, saying the Constitution did not address the scope of the president’s power to fire subordinates. Congress should therefore be free, she said, to grant agencies “a measure of independence from political pressure.”

0 notes

yourreddancer · 8 months ago

Text

Heather Cox Richardson 10.24.24

The struggle over whether the U.S. government should work for everyone or for the very wealthy and corporations was on display today. Cable and internet providers and home security companies sued to stop the newly finalized Federal Trade Commission “click-to-cancel” rule that says it must be as easy to cancel a service as it is to sign up for it.

Also today, the Department of Transportation reached a record settlement of $50 million with American Airlines, whose damage to wheelchairs and dangerous physical assistance to disabled passengers has broken laws. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), who lost both legs in combat in the Iraq War, praised the fine and commented: “When an airline damages or breaks someone’s wheelchair, it’s like breaking their legs.”

"The era of tolerating poor treatment of airline passengers with disabilities is over," U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a statement. "With this penalty, we are setting a new standard of accountability for airlines that violate the civil rights of passengers with disabilities. By setting penalties at levels beyond the mere cost of doing business for airlines, we're aiming to change how the industry behaves and prevent these kinds of abuses from happening in the first place.”

A reader called to my attention that the recent Federal Election Commission filings showed one significant difference in the expenditures of the two presidential campaigns. The Harris campaign spent $34,550.02 on sign language interpreting services. The Trump campaign spent $0.00.

These details of governance are fragments of a larger picture of how we see our country. Are we all created equal and entitled to be treated equally before the law? Or are some people better than others?

CNN was supposed to host another presidential debate tonight, but while Vice President Kamala Harris accepted, Trump declined to attend. In place of a debate, CNN invited each candidate to hold a town hall. Harris accepted; Trump declined.

In her discussion with host Anderson Cooper, Harris focused on the reiteration yesterday by Trump’s longest-serving White House chief of staff, retired U.S. Marine Corps general John Kelly, that Trump had spoken admiringly of Adolf Hitler and expressed a desire to have generals like Hitler’s. In an interview with the New York Times, Kelly said Trump “met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law.”

The ideology of fascism is associated with Italian journalist and politician Benito Mussolini, who articulated a new political ideology in the 1920s. Mussolini had been a socialist as a young man and had grown frustrated at how hard it was to organize people. No matter what socialists tried, they seemed unable to convince their neighbors that they must rise up and take over the country’s means of production. The efficiency of World War I inspired Mussolini to give up on socialism and develop a new political theory.

Mussolini rejected the equality that defined democracy and came to believe that some men were better than others. Those few must lead, taking a nation forward by directing the actions of the rest. They must organize the people as they had during wartime, ruthlessly suppressing all opposition and directing the economy so that business and politicians worked together. Logically, that select group of leaders would elevate a single man, who would become an all-powerful dictator. To weld their followers into an efficient machine, they demonized opponents into an “other” that their followers could hate.

This hierarchical system of government was called “fascism” after the bundle of rods tied around an axe that was the ancient Roman symbol of authority and power. Italy adopted it, and Mussolini’s ideas inspired others, notably Germany’s Adolf Hitler. These leaders believed that their new system would reclaim a glorious past with the ideology of the future, welding pure men into a military and social machine that moved all as one, while pure women supported society as mothers. They set out to eliminate those who didn’t fit their model and to destroy the messy, inefficient democracy that stood in their way.

But while today we associate fascism with this European movement, its foundational principle—that some men are better than others and have the right and even the duty to rule over the majority—runs parallel to that same strand in United States history. Indeed, Nazi lawyers and judges turned to America’s Jim Crow laws for inspiration, and Hitler looked to America’s Indigenous reservations as a way to rid a country of “unwanted” people.

For retired Marine general John Kelly to have spoken out against Trump before the 2024 election was a huge deal. As Secretary Buttigieg put it: “It’s one thing for some leftist group to call you a fascist. Quite another when it’s a fellow Republican. And absolutely astonishing when it’s your own chief of staff.” But Kelly was not alone. Former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley told veteran journalist Bob Woodward that Trump is “fascist to the core.”

In tonight’s CNN town hall, Vice President Harris told Cooper that she agreed that Trump is a fascist. She noted that when a four-star Marine general comes out two weeks before an election to warn Americans that one of the candidates is a fascist, we should see this as “a 911 call to the American people.”

Trump is “increasingly unstable,” Harris said, “and unfit to serve…. [T]he people who know Donald Trump best, the people who worked with him in the White House, in the Situation Room, in the Oval Office, all Republicans by the way, who served in his administration, his former chief of staff, his national security advisor, former secretaries of defense, and his vice president have all called him unfit and dangerous. They have said explicitly he has contempt for the Constitution of the United States. They have said he should never again serve as President of the United States,” she said.

When Trump talks about “the enemy within,” Harris said, “ [h]e's talking about the American people. He's talking about journalists, judges, nonpartisan election officials…. And he's going to sit there unstable, unhinged, plotting his revenge, plotting his retribution. Creating an enemies list.” In contrast, she said, she would have a “to-do list” to work on the things that matter to the American people.

When Trump responded to Kelly’s claims, he appeared to confuse Kelly, who was retired when Trump chose him to serve as White House chief of staff, and Mark Milley, the active-duty chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Trump referred to four-star general Kelly, whose son died in Afghanistan, as “tough and dumb,” a “LOWLIFE, and a bad General,” but then went on to talk of him as active duty and to say he stopped seeking his advice in the White House.

Forced to comment on Kelly’s comment about Trump’s embracing fascism, Republican leaders are either ducking the question or acting as if it is not a big deal. On CNN this morning, New Hampshire governor Chris Sununu said the news that Trump has praised Hitler will not affect Sununu’s support. “If we can get a Republican mindset out of Washington,” he said, “we need that culture change.”

At a rally tonight in Macon, Georgia, Trump agreed with the audience as it chanted: “Lock him up.” “You should lock them up,” Trump said. “Lock up the Bidens. Lock up Hillary. Lock ‘em up.”

Tonight, Shawn Reilly, the mayor of Waukesha, Wisconsin—a key Republican stronghold—announced he’s voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.

0 notes

misfitwashere · 8 months ago

Text

October 23, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

OCT 24

Tonight, Shawn Reilly, the mayor of Waukesha, Wisconsin—a key Republican stronghold—announced he’s voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.

—

#heather cox richardson #letters from an american

1 note · View note

schraubd · 6 years ago

Text

Collected Thoughts on Excluding Omar and Tlaib

I've got another kidney stone. It struck on Monday, and then I felt pain Tuesday, Wednesday, and today. Thursday was my only pain-free day this week, and I have to assume that was the universe balancing the scales and recognizing that the Israeli government's truly terrible decision to exclude Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) from the country was plenty enough aggravation on its own. I went on a pretty vigorous tweet storm all through yesterday. Below I bullet point most of what I expressed on that site (which, as you may know, I've taken "private"), but my main takeaway is this: There's no serious case that either Congresswoman present a security threat to Israel (I've seen some people insinuate that they might incite a riot at the Temple Mount which -- I'm not sure I can physically roll my eyes hard enough). In practice, the "risk" Omar and Tlaib present is simply that they will hear mean things about Israel and then say their own mean things about Israel. That's the locus of the complaint about the "balance" of the trip; that's the locus of the accusation that they merely want to rabble-rouse. What people are concerned about is they will go to the West Bank, hear people saying mean things about Israel, and repeat those mean things back to American audiences. But -- and I mean this in all earnestness -- so what? So what if that's what happens? To be clear: I don't think Omar and Tlaib were coming just to say mean things about Israel. But even if they were -- there's no security threat. The state will survive (how pathetic would it be if it crumbled?). It'd be speech. It'd be discourse. That's the price of living in a liberal, free society. Sometimes people say mean things about you. Sometimes those mean things are unfair. Sometimes those mean things are entirely fair. Whatever. It comes with the territory (pun initially not intended, but I'll own it now). It's not a valid basis for a travel ban. It used to be that Israel was emphatic that "come see us and you'll think better of us". Now Israel is terrified that if people come see them--at least, see them unchaperoned, without a constant guiding hand ensuring they see only the choice parts--they'll think of worse of them. That's the sign of a society in decay. To be sure, I think Omar and Tlaib probably would come away from their visit with a rather grim appraisal of Israel's treatment of Palestinians. But then, there's ample basis to appraise that treatment grimly--there's no inherent foul there. People can come to the West Bank and be honestly appalled by what they see. Only police states confuse "people saying mean things" with security threats. A free society can survive--and perhaps even learn from--critics giving it grim appraisals. People talk a huge game about how Omar and Tlaib could "learn" from their trip to Israel and Palestine -- and no doubt they could. But the flip side is that Israel, too, can learn from the testimony of Palestinians laboring under occupation, and from efforts to bring that testimony to the fore. It is wrong -- not to mention insulting -- to treat discourse about Israel/Palestine as if it were a one-way street, where wise, omniscient Israeli/Jewish teachers dribble knowledge onto benighted, ignorant Muslims and Arabs. Below is a recap of my other collected thoughts on the matter (many but not all of which were on Twitter):

This was a terrible and unjustified decision. Let's lead off with that and give it its own bullet point all to itself.

There is no reason to think that this decision was "what Omar and Tlaib wanted" since it made Israel look authoritarian and repressive. That is projection, to avoid speaking the more uncomfortable conclusion that "Omar and Tlaib might have had a point" in suggesting Israel acts in an authoritarian and repressive fashion.

I neither think this decision was solely Trump's doing -- Israel "caving" to his pressure -- nor do I think he played no role in the decision. I think he successfully convinced Netanyahu to do something that he already kind of wanted to do in the first place, even knowing it probably was a bad idea. Trump was like the frat boy friend egging his buddy into doing another shot flight. That Bibi was probably dimly aware it wasn't the wisest decision in the world doesn't mean that he wasn't ultimately fulfilling his own desires. Ultimately, this was a decision of Israel's right-wing government and they deserve to take the full brunt of punishment for it.

I understand why everyone is calling this "counterproductive" from Israel, since it will undoubtedly give a huge boost to the BDS movement. But, as I wrote in the Lara Alqasem case, that really depends on what Israel is trying to "produce". In many ways, Bibi benefits from an ascendant BDS movement, just as they benefit from him; and he likewise benefits from a world divided between conservatives who love everything he does and liberals who loathe him. So the fact that this decision puts wind in the sails of BDS, while further lashing Israel to a purely right-wing mast and alienating it from erstwhile progressive allies, is not necessarily a miscalculation -- it's the intended and desired effect.

On that note, remember the other day when 21 Israeli MKs wrote to Congress and said that a two-state solution was "more dangerous" than BDS? Well, if you ever wanted an example of what it looks like to trade "increased BDS support" for "kneecapping two-state solution support", this was it (even though Tlaib isn't a two-stater -- Omar is -- this act was aimed like a laser at the most prominent base of support for two-stateism in America: that is, Democrats).

On the other hand, shouldn't these right-wing Israelis be more excited to welcome Tlaib than most other Congresspeople? After all, she opposes the "dangerous" two-state solution! Oh wait, I forgot: in her one-state world, everyone gets to vote. That won't do at all, will it?

I love Emma Goldberg description of how Israel will slide away from liberal democracy via Hemingway's description of how he went bankrupt: "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." And by love, I mean it gives me a sick feeling of recognition in my stomach.

Justifying the ban on the grounds that Omar and Tlaib's visit wasn't "balanced" because they weren't meeting with Israeli or Palestinian government figures, only NGOs, and these are bad NGOs -- spare me. To tell visiting U.S. politicians "you can come, but only if you speak with the 'right' people/visit the 'right' sites/speak the 'correct' words" sounds like something you'd hear from the North Korean embassy. Omar and Tlaib should be entitled to visit with whomever they want to visit, and come to whatever conclusions they end up coming to. If those conclusions are unfair, we should trust the ability to defeat them with more speech, not enforced silence. But again: we can't conflate "unfair" with "critical". It's entirely feasible that a fair-minded individual hearing testimony from West Bank Palestinians will come to a sharply critical conclusion.

Some of the attacks on the NGOs Omar and Tlaib were scheduled to meet with are the usual chad gadya (has a leader who's linked to a group which kicked the dog ....) nonsense, but there are some groups with some genuinely bad history. I've consequently seen people suggest that we need to also hold Omar and Tlaib accountable for their part in this fiasco for meeting with members of those groups. Fair enough: I'm happy to hold them accountable, weighted and prioritized in proportion to their relative culpability. In keeping with that metric, I might get around to returning to criticizing their draft itinerary sometime in 2035.

Fine, one more thing on the itinerary: Am I correct in reading it as taking Omar and Tlaib either solely or primarily to the West Bank and East Jerusalem? If so, it's entirely understandable why they'd refer to those locales as "Palestine".

Rep. Tlaib initially applied for a humanitarian waiver to visit her family, which was approved, but then she backed out given the conditions the Israeli government was going to impose on the visit (basically, not engaging in "boycott activities"). The usual suspects are crowing: she cares less about her family than she does about boycotting! I say (a) Rep. Tlaib is well within her rights to not prostrate herself to the dictates of a foreign government seeking to humiliate her, and (b) what about the past few days gives anyone the confidence in the Israeli government's ability to fairly adjudge what qualifies as a "boycott activity"?

The argument that Israel, as a sovereign state, has a "right" to exclude whomever it wants substitutes a juridical argument for an ethical (and practical) one. Sovereign states are formally empowered to do all sorts of terrible and/or stupid things. This was one of them. Hearing nominal anti-BDS folks make this claim -- which could as easily be applied to "universities and academics have the right to collaborate (or not) with whomever they want to" is probably causing another kidney stone to develop as we speak.

The other thing is that Israel is proving itself completely incapable of exercising this "right" in a reasonable manner that distinguishes between genuine threats to national security and unhappiness that people sometimes come to Israel and then say mean things. One of the reasons we liberals seek to limit unchecked government power is precisely because of the suspicion that it won't be exercised responsibly or non-arbitrarily.

Of course, the fact that Israel also exercises the practical authority to exclude people not just from Israel-proper, but the West Bank as well, gives lie to the notion that Palestinians even conceptually could have their right to self-determination vindicated solely by voting in PA elections.

Silver lining: pretty much the entirety of the American Jewish establishment -- AIPAC, AJC, ADL, J Street, Simon Wiesenthal Center -- came out against this decision. Huzzah for that.

Tarnish on even that silver lining: the Conference of President's weak-sauce statement on the matter. "Many of the organizations expressed disagreement with the government’s decision", but "Ultimately, the government of Israel made its assessment of the countervailing arguments and acted upon their conclusion." Really, that's what you're giving us? It's amazing how the Conference doesn't care about the "consensus" of the Jewish community when that consensus is a progressive one.

When a prominent member of or institution associated with an outgroup does something awful, it is natural for members of that outgroup to feel acutely vulnerable. In part, that's because they know that this awfulness will be wielded against them; in part, that's because frequently they have feelings for or connections to the target person and institution, and it is painful to see them act in such a terrible fashion. Of course, that feeling of vulnerability needn't and shouldn't be the primary story as compared to those directly victimized by the awful behavior. But it is not per se wrong, or "centering", to acknowledge and validate the existence of the sentiment; nor is such an acknowledgment necessarily one that stands in competition with recognizing the direct damage of the instigating act.

The next time a Democrat occupies the Oval Office, I have to wonder what sort of penance is going to be demanded from the Israeli government for years upon years of insult and humiliation. It's not going to be back to as it was before. It's not even going to back as it was in the Obama administration. Democrats will -- rightfully -- insist that Israel pay a price for what it's been doing these past four (if not twelve) years. The flipside of recognizing the importance of preserving Israel as a bipartisan issue is that Israel aligning itself fully and completely with the Republican Party is going to come at a cost. It will be interesting to consider what that cost will be.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2ZcVv85

#Ilhan Omar #Israel #Palestine #Rashida Tlaib

60 notes · View notes

alexsmitposts · 6 years ago

Photo

The US is as much a threat to the world as Hitler's Third Reich WASHINGTON IS BUILDING A POLICY EXACTLY TO A TEE THE EXAMPLE OF NAZI GERMANY

I just finished reading "Berlin diary" by William Shirer. (It doesn't necessarily fascinate you, but that's what I'm getting at.) I first encountered this piece in high school. This, of course, is Shearer's description, then a correspondent in Germany, of the rise of the Nazis. Most of this is well known to educated people. The Nazis, who controlled the local press, convinced the German population that the poles threatened Germany — just as Guatemala threatened the United States. It was said that the poles committed atrocities against the Germans. Then the Reich without any reason, with absolute superiority in the air, attacked Poland, bombed unprotected cities and killed a huge number of people. This was the German pattern repeated several times. Many reporters spoke of the smell of rotting bodies, of refugees dying of hunger and thirst. Today, the Reich is endlessly remembered as a model of evil. Remembered. But how is Nazi Germany different from today's United States? The lie is the same. Washington insisted that Iraq was going to get nuclear and biological weapons, that it had poisonous gas. None of this was true. The government, without interference from the media, convinced more than half of the American population that Iraq was responsible for the " nine-eleven "(the events of September 11, 2001-S. D.). Now Washington says Iran is working to get nuclear weapons, and of course that " the Russians are coming." The American press, unofficially but strictly controlled, thoroughly disputes none of this. Having prepared the American public as the Nazis had prepared theirs, Washington launched a brutal attack on Iraq, deliberately destroying infrastructure, leaving the country without electricity and clean water. The slaughter was terrible. But, according to America, the war was supposed to rid the Iraqi people of the evil dictator, bring democracy, freedom and human rights. (Oil turned out to be a completely random thing. Oil is always a matter of chance.) Washington does not close its eyes, leading its campaigns to improve the lives of those people whose most ardent desire is for America to stop improving their lives. To give Afghans democracy, human rights, and American values, the U.S. has for eighteen years bombed, bombed, bombed a largely illiterate population in a country that America doesn't care about. It is a cowardly war in which war planes to exterminate the peasants, who do not have any protection at all. The pilots and drone operators who do this deserve contempt, as does the country that sends them. How many more years will this last? For what purpose? And what is the difference from the German Nazis? The German Gestapo carried out sickening tortures in secret cellars. America is doing the same, holding torture prisons around the world. In them men and, undoubtedly, women, for many days are suspended by wrists, keep naked in very cold rooms, do not allow to sleep and periodically subject to beatings. (The Nazis of any nationality are Nazis and there.) Photos of Iraqis tortured by the Americans in Abu Ghraib show nearly naked prisoners lying in pools of blood. Tell me, please, how does this differ from what was done by the Reich? (More Gory photos are no longer stored online. Many of the remaining ones seem to have been edited.) Gina Haspel, the sadistic CIA chief who tortured Muslim prisoners, resembles ILSA Koch, the notorious Nazi torturer who also worked in prisons. I suppose the victims are easy to find. President trump recently pardoned several American war criminals, saying he wanted to give American soldiers "confidence to fight." This is tantamount to full permission to commit atrocities. The goal of barbaric training aimed at eradicating human decency and mercy is obscene barbarism. Atrocities are what soldiers do. And will do so as long as wars continue, and fiercely denied by the government. (When I was covering the" work "of Force Recon-marine special forces-I saw their motto on the wall:" Smash their skulls and eat their faces.") Perhaps the most famous example of applied approval was Nixon's pardon of Lieutenant Kelly, who ordered the killing of Vietnamese villagers, for which he received three years of house arrest. The Germans wanted an Empire, lebensraum (German. living space-SD) and resources, in particular oil. The Americans want an Empire and an oil whose control allows them to control the world. They go to conquer it all by invasion and intimidation. So America wants to bring democracy and human rights to Iraq, Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria, which have a lot of oil, and the US has occupying forces in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other parts of the Middle East. What part of Syria does trump occupy? Surprise, surprise! The part where the oil is. Oil for the Americans, land for the Germans. As Shearer points out, the German public was not enthusiastic about the war until at least 1940 — nor is the American public today. But neither the one nor the other has expressed concerns about the horrors that her government brought to the world. What is the difference? The Parallels with the Reich do not end there. Washington is not trying to commit genocide against Jews, blacks or any other group within the country, content to kill those on whom its bombs fall. Trump is not comparable to Hitler. He lacks vision, backbone and, apparently, malice. Hitler was a very clever, very evil man who knew exactly what he was doing, at least politically. The same cannot be said of trump. Nevertheless, Hitler was — and trump is-surrounded by freaks of high militancy. Adolf had Goering, Goebbels, Himmler, Reinhardt Heydrich, Julius Streicher, Eichmann. Trump has John Bolton, as immoral and pathologically aggressive as any of the Fuhrer's entourage. Pompeo-a bloated toad-man-bears an uncanny resemblance to Goering. Both he and Pence are Christian Evangelical heretics who believe they are connected to God by broadband. O'brien sounds like Bolton. Everyone wants war with Iran and possibly with China and Russia.

Wikipedia: "US army Soldiers killed between 347 and 504 unarmed people ... among the victims were men, women, children and infants. Some women, like children as young as 12, were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated.» For this, Kelly received three years of house arrest — less than the sentence for a bag of methamphetamine-until he was pardoned by Nixon. Many Americans have said — and many still say-that he should not have been punished at all, that we should "take off the gloves" and let the troops fight. Again, that's what trump said. The German Nazis worshipped "blood and soil"**, the land of Germany and the Teutonic race, who, in their opinion, were genetically superior to all others. Americans can't easily worship race. Instead, they consider themselves "exceptional, "" irreplaceable," " shining hail on a hill," "the greatest civilization the world has ever known." The same narcissism and arrogance, a slightly different Foundation. Nazi Germany was, like Nazi America now, distinctly militaristic. The US has hundreds of bases around the world (China has one base outside the country — in Djibouti), they spend an outrageous amount on the armed forces, despite the absence of a clear enemy in the military sense of the word. The US is currently purchasing new missile submarines (Columbia class), aircraft carriers (Ford class), Intercontinental nuclear bombers (B21) and fighters (F-35). Nazi Germany attacked Poland, Norway, Belgium, France, Russia, America and England. America? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria. Supports the most brutal war against Yemen (Yemen is a serious threat to America!). Threatens Venezuela, China and Iran with attack, imposes embargo on Cuba. This is from the latter. Looking back a bit, we have Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, the intervention in Panama, and so on. Millions and millions killed. The third Reich was-and America remains-a major threat to world peace, a real pariah state. Is that something to be proud of?

2 notes · View notes

feelingbluepolitics · 6 years ago

Text

Automakers strike climate deal with Calif., rebuffing Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/07/25/major-automakers-strike-climate-deal-with-california-rebuffing-trump-proposed-mileage-freeze/

"Four automakers from three continents have struck a deal with California to produce more fuel-efficient cars for their U.S. fleets in coming years, undercutting one of the [t]rump administration’s most aggressive climate policy rollbacks.

"The compromise between the California Air Resources Board and Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW of North America came after weeks of secret negotiations and could shape future U.S. vehicle production, even as White House officials aim to relax gas mileage standards for the nation’s cars, pickup trucks and SUVs.

"Mary D. Nichols, California’s top air pollution regulator, said in an interview Wednesday that she sees the agreement as a potential 'olive branch' to the [t]rump administration and hopes it joins the deal, which she said gives automakers flexibility in meeting emissions goals without the 'massive backsliding' contained in the White House proposal.

"'What we have here is a statement of principles intended to reach out to the federal government to move them off the track that they seem to be on and onto a more constructive track,' Nichols said, adding that the companies approached California officials last month about a potential compromise.

"In a joint statement, the four automakers said their decision to hash out a deal with California was driven by a need for predictability, as well as a desire to reduce compliance costs, keep vehicles affordable for customers and be good environmental stewards.

..."Under the new accord the four companies, which represent roughly 30 percent of the U.S. auto market, have agreed to produce fleets averaging nearly 50 mpg by model year 2026. That’s just one year later than the target set under the Obama administration, which argued that requiring more-fuel-efficient vehicles would improve public health, combat climate change and save consumers money at the gas pump without compromising safety.

"The share of America’s auto market affected by the new terms could grow significantly if other automakers also join the deal. Last month, the Canadian government also pledged to align mileage requirements for its auto market with California rather than the [t]rump administration.

"As part of the new agreement, California has pledged to certify vehicles from the four automakers and provide the firms with additional flexibility in how they meet each year’s emissions goal. The firms will improve their fleet’s average efficiency by 3.7 percent a year, as opposed to 4.7 percent dictated under the Obama-era rules.

"Now that the transportation sector has emerged as the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, the future gas mileage of the country’s auto fleet will have a profound impact on the nation’s carbon footprint. According to the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at the New York University School of Law, the [t]rump administration’s plan to freeze mileage standards between 2020 and 2026 would increase greenhouse gas emissions by between 16 million and 37 million metric tons during that period. That’s the equivalent of adding between 3.4 million and 7.8 million cars on the road.

..."Within days of [t]rump’s inauguration, the world’s largest automakers urged [trump] to revisit the standards that President Barack Obama had finalized just before leaving office, which required the industry to increase the average fuel efficiency of the cars and light trucks they sell across the country each year.

"But California, which sets its own tailpipe standards, insisted that it would forge ahead with stricter mileage requirements. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have pledged to follow California’s lead, and several of them are already challenging the [t]rump administration’s move.

"While Nichols said she floated a similar deal last year to the [t]rump administration, the White House announced in February that it had broken off talks with California, saying state officials had 'failed to put forward a productive alternative' to the White House’s plan. For their part, California officials said substantive talks never really began, and concluded that the administration was never serious about negotiating.

"This feud, which threatens to split the nation’s auto market in half, has created a level of uncertainty that makes many car manufacturers skittish.

..."While the new agreement will require car companies to meet stricter targets than under the [t]rump administration’s proposal, it also could provide a hedge in case a Democrat wins the presidential election next year. California regulators committed to maintaining the tailpipe standards even if control of the White House flips."

5 notes · View notes

lukemeintheeye · 6 years ago

Link

Republicans have long dismissed the evidence of Donald Trump’s political impropriety — both before and after he took office — as simply sour-grape concoctions from critics unable to come to grips with the results of the 2016 election. But it's becoming increasingly clear that Republicans may not be handling the results of the 2018 midterms all that well themselves.

After an arduous reckoning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally became convinced last month that the majority of her controlling caucus supported at least an inquiry into impeaching the president. The White House’s apparent attempt to block of an intelligence community whistleblower’s complaint from Congress, and the subsequent release of an edited transcript of a call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, seemed to push enough Democrats in districts won by Trump to support the investigation.

Testimony from respected military officers and civil servants corroborating allegations of a quid pro quo imposed by Trump — a potentially damaging public investigation into political rival Joe Biden, in exchange for already-appropriated military aid to Ukraine — has now prompted even the most moderate Democrats in red districts to support the impeachment effort. (There were two Democrats who voted against the impeachment resolution on Thursday: Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, who has opposed impeachment all along, and Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, perhaps the most conservative Democrat in the House.)

House Republicans, having lost their majority after the so-called Blue Wave of 2018, appear to be in a state of panic and desperation. As the president reportedly begins to doubt the resolve of Republicans in the Senate, his loudest defenders in the House are amping up their baseless procedural complaints to muddy the waters in the face of mounting evidence.

Rep. Rob Woodall offered the first amendment to Democrats’ formal impeachment resolution dictating the rules for the inquiry, which the House approved by a 232-196 vote on Thursday. The Georgia Republican proposed cutting the House Intelligence Committee, which has the fewest number of Republicans, entirely out of the process in favor of the House Judiciary Committee, which includes some of Trump’s most ferocious defenders, as the lead committee overseeing impeachment.

Republicans have a new target: Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who replaced Trump lackey Devin Nunes, R-Calif., as chairman of the Intelligence Committee after Democrats won back the House. They see Schiff as a weak link in the Democratic hierarchy who they can use as a foil for impeachment.

“I’m sorry, Adam Schiff is not an independent counsel!” Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., complained on Wednesday, claiming that Schiff has made public statements in support of impeachment. At least 50 Senate Republicans have signed onto a bill condemning the House impeachment inquiry despite their likely roles as jurors in an eventual impeachment trial.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., called on Pelosi "to declare a mistrial" and accused Schiff of witness tampering by "directing witnesses not to answer questions that he doesn’t want the witness to answer if they’re asked by Republicans.”

The Louisiana Republican railed: “That might be what they do in the Soviet Union, not the United States of America. We can’t stand for this!” (They haven't done anything in the Soviet Union since it was dissolved in 1991. But let's move on.)

Apparently not too pleased with the punch of “kangaroo court,” Republicans seem to have agreed on "Soviet-style" as their coordinated term of abuse for the Democratic inquiry.

'Schiff has himself a sneaky new trick for his impeachment charade here in his Capitol basement bunker,” Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., wrote on Twitter. “On top of being the prosecutor, judge AND jury in his self described grand jury, he’s trying out his witness coaching skills & it’s a mess. This really is a Soviet style trial.”

#Adam Schiff #Volodymyr Zelensky #ukraine #House Intelligence Committee #Joe Biden #This is so fucking funny to me #GOP shitting bricks

1 note · View note

theliberaltony · 6 years ago

Link

via FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to a weekly collaboration between FiveThirtyEight and ABC News. With 5,000 people seemingly thinking about challenging President Trump in 2020 — Democrats and even some Republicans — we’re keeping tabs on the field as it develops. Each week, we’ll run through what the potential candidates are up to — who’s getting closer to officially jumping in the ring and who’s getting further away.

Although there was a lot of attention this week in the media on whether major names like Joe Biden and Beto O’Rourke will get into the Democratic presidential race, candidates who have already been on the official campaign trail staked out positions on big issues that have been in the news. Although Democrats are generally unified on immigration — denouncing President Trump’s proposed border wall — fractures are forming around “Medicare-for-all” proposals and the “Green New Deal.” Progressive candidates have faced some pushback from the field’s centrists, who believe that their aims could be achieved in a more incremental fashion.

Here’s the weekly candidate roundup:

Feb. 8-14, 2019

Stacey Abrams (D) On Friday, Abrams is visiting Washington, where she will deliver a speech at the Democratic National Committee’s Winter Meeting and participate in a discussion about race and political power in the United States at the Brookings Institution. Michael Bennet (D) The Colorado senator hinted at a presidential run during an appearance on “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “We’ve got a million people that are going to run, which I think is great,” he said. “I think having one more voice in that conversation that’s focused on America’s future, I don’t think would hurt.”

Bennet discussed his diverse professional background as one of the ways he was different from the field’s current candidates, citing his time in business and as Denver Public Schools superintendent.

On policy, he joined many Democrats in supporting a public health care option but said that such a plan did not necessarily mean that private insurance should be eliminated. Joe Biden (D) The Washington Post reported Thursday that Biden was still undecided about a presidential campaign, noting that he originally intended to decide by the end of 2018.

On Wednesday, CNBC wrote that Biden is signaling to several Democratic donors that he is leaning toward joining the presidential field but that his decision is not yet final.

The former vice president eulogized the late Rep. John Dingell on Tuesday, saying that the longtime Michigan congressman was one of only a few people he “looked up to.”

“He gave me confidence,” Biden said. “He made me believe more in myself more than I had. John had that special capacity to do so. Because when you are with him, you knew you were with greatness.” Michael Bloomberg (D) The billionaire former New York City mayor is prepared to spend at least $500 million during the presidential campaign cycle to defeat Trump, Politico reported Wednesday.

“That’ll get us through the first few months,” said Kevin Sheekey, one of Bloomberg’s top aides, noting that Bloomberg put $100 million into his last mayoral election.

Last Friday, Bloomberg told The Associated Press that he would reach a decision on a presidential run by the end of February and pushed back on speculation that he would not run if Biden launched a campaign. “My decision doesn’t depend on what other people are going to do,” he said. “My decision depends on whether or not I think I can make a difference.” Cory Booker (D) Booker visited Iowa and South Carolina during his first weekend on the campaign trail as a declared presidential candidate. In Iowa, the New Jersey senator continued to pitch his theme of unity and optimism to voters. In South Carolina, he addressed racial discrimination, saying that the country needed a leader who is “telling the truth about racism, not participating in racist statements, demeaning and degrading people like we’re seeing now.”

In an interview with MSNBC on Tuesday, Booker said that if he wins the Democratic nomination, he will “be looking to women first” when he considers a running mate. “I believe there should be a woman president right now, and I worked very hard to get one,” he said. “We have such a great field of leaders. I think that you will rarely see a Democratic ticket anymore without gender diversity, race diversity.”

This weekend, Booker will be in New Hampshire for six events across the state. Sherrod Brown (D) Brown said that he’s “not ready to jump” into the presidential race during a Christian Science Monitor breakfast Tuesday. But he has given himself a March deadline to come to a “joint decision” with his wife, journalist Connie Schultz.

The Ohio senator rolled out two bills Wednesday with Democratic colleagues on Capitol Hill: The first is a “cost-of-living refund,” which would double the Earned Income Tax Credit; the second would lower the Medicare eligibility age to 50, allowing people to buy in voluntarily. Steve Bullock (D) The Montana governor will visit Iowa this weekend. Bullock has said that he is unlikely to make a public announcement about whether he will launch a campaign until later in the spring, after Montana’s state legislative session. Pete Buttigieg (D) The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, joined MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Thursday morning for a lightning round of questions on where he sits on the ideological spectrum. “I consider myself a pretty strong progressive, but I don’t consider the left-center spectrum to be the most useful way to look at our politics right now,” he said.

Last weekend, Buttigieg made his first trip to Iowa since announcing his presidential exploratory committee. While there, he shared his support for “Medicare-for-all” and the Green New Deal (which seeks to make massive public investments to combat climate change) while continuing to play up his military background and executive experience.

In an interview with New York magazine, Buttigieg expanded on how his local experiences could be helpful in the Oval Office, using South Bend’s sewer system as an example. “They’re so important that we make sure they work basically all of the time. Which is why you never think of them — that’s kind of the point,” he said. “But it’s not that different from national security. It’s like I say, the more freedom [people experience], the less they think about it.”

In both the New York magazine story and an interview with CNN, Buttigieg was critical of the social views of Vice President Mike Pence (a former Indiana governor and U.S. House member), saying to CNN that “politically [Pence] is a fanatic and he damaged our city and our state through choices that his social extremism led him to make.” Julian Castro (D) In a CNN interview Saturday, Castro said that even though he knows his candidacy has “special meaning for the Latino community,” his message is intended to be all-encompassing. “I’m also aware that I have to have policy proposals and a vision that includes everybody,” said Castro, who is a former mayor of San Antonio and served as the secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Obama administration. Bill de Blasio (D) De Blasio was scheduled to visit New Hampshire on Friday, renewing speculation that the New York City mayor is contemplating a presidential campaign. But he canceled the trip after a New York City police detective was killed during a robbery Tuesday. John Delaney (D) The former Maryland congressman spent the first half of the week in New Hampshire, his 14th trip to the state. He opened an office in Manchester and attended a “politics and eggs” breakfast at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics — one of 10 events in three days.

Delaney broke with several other Democratic presidential contenders by revealing that he was opposed to the Green New Deal. Tulsi Gabbard (D) During her first visit to Iowa as a presidential candidate, the U.S. House member from Hawaii and National Guard major touted her dedication to service and outlined her views on foreign policy, responding to criticism over her recent comments about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In Iowa, she said he was a “brutal dictator” but said that she didn’t feel the United States should be “the world’s police.” Kirsten Gillibrand (D) Gillibrand toured South Carolina, with seven stops across the state, from Friday through Sunday, including meetings with Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin, who leads the National Conference of Mayors, and a group of women leaders.

The New York Times highlighted Gillibrand’s “feminist campaign” Tuesday, describing how advocacy for women has already become a centerpiece of her candidacy and one that differentiates her from fellow female Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren thus far.

This weekend, Gillibrand is again visiting New Hampshire for a collection of meet-and-greets, walking tours and town halls, after having traveled to the Granite State just two weeks ago. Kamala Harris (D) Harris attracted headlines Monday after she admitted during a New York radio interview to having smoked marijuana in college. “I did inhale,” the California senator said. “It was a long time ago, but yes.”

The remarks came during a larger discussion about marijuana, during which Harris said it wasn’t true that she opposes its legalization. She said that she supports legalization but has “concerns” and that its effects on users should be researched. John Hickenlooper (D) The former Colorado governor visited New Hampshire on Wednesday and Thursday and said he’s going to decide on a presidential run in the next “six weeks.”

During his stop at a Manchester house party, Hickenlooper joked about his unusual surname and how it taught him in his childhood how to “deal with bullies” — a reference to how he would approach running against Trump.

Hickenlooper added that he still wants to learn more about the Green New Deal and criticized Trump’s proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border while also saying that there are “border security issues” to solve. Eric Holder (D) After a speech at Drake University in Iowa on Tuesday, Holder, a former U.S. attorney general, said he would reach a decision on a presidential run in the next three to four weeks. “I’m concerned about the direction of the country,” Holder said. “I think I’ve got some ideas and visions that I think would be useful to the nation.”

On the issues, Holder said that the U.S. was “at a point where we should think seriously about [marijuana] legalization” and that he supports the Green New Deal, labeling it “our generation’s moonshot.” Amy Klobuchar (D) Klobuchar launched her presidential campaign Sunday during a snowy outdoor event in Minneapolis. She outlined her humble political roots and described her motivations for getting into the race. “I’m running for every parent who wants a better world for their kids,” she said. “I’m running for every student who wants a good education. For every senior who wants affordable prescription drugs. For every worker, farmer, dreamer, builder. For every American. I’m running for you.”

In an appearance Monday on “Good Morning America,” the Minnesota senator defended herself against allegations that she was abusive toward her Senate staff, conceding that she is “tough” and “push[es] people” but said that it was because she holds “high expectations.”

She mocked the president after he, referring to her kickoff rally, tweeted that it was “bad timing” that she was “talking proudly of fighting global warming while standing in a virtual blizzard of snow, ice and freezing temperatures.”

“I’m sorry if it still snows in the world,” Klobuchar said on “Good Morning America” on Monday. “But the point is that we know climate change is happening.”

Next Monday, Klobuchar will participate in a CNN town hall in New Hampshire. She will then travel to Iowa on Thursday. Jeff Merkley (D) Merkley is “still exploring” a run for president, he told Northwest Labor Press this week. The Oregon senator denied that his decision will be based on whether Bernie Sanders, whom he endorsed in 2016, decides to run. Seth Moulton (D) After telling BuzzFeed News on Monday that he is thinking about running for president, Moulton confirmed the sentiment publicly Tuesday during question-and-answer sessions after a foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

“I’m thinking about running for president,” Moulton said in the BuzzFeed interview. “I’m not definitely running, but I’m going to take a very hard look at it. A very serious look at it. Because I believe it’s time for a new generation of leadership, and we gotta send Donald Trump packing.”

The Massachusetts congressman added that his decision will not be based on who else launches campaigns, saying that he doesn’t “look at this as a horse race.” Beto O’Rourke (D) As Trump held a campaign rally in El Paso, Texas, O’Rourke defended his hometown during a protest march Monday, criticizing the president for his rhetoric on immigration. “We are making a stand for the truth, against lies and hate and ignorance and intolerance,” O’Rourke said. “El Paso has been the safest city in the United States of America not in spite of the fact that we’re a city of immigrants but because we are a city of immigrants.”

Trump mentioned O’Rourke during his event, referring to the former U.S. House member as “a young man who’s got very little going for himself, except he’s got a great first name.”

Politico reported Wednesday that O’Rourke met with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to discuss a possible run for Senate against Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican, in 2020. Tim Ryan (D) Ryan is “seriously considering” a presidential run, he said on CNN’s “Erin Burnett Outfront” on Wednesday.

The Ohio congressman, perhaps best known for his 2016 challenge to Nancy Pelosi to lead House Democrats, added that he doesn’t “feel any pressure for any timeline at this point.”

“The country is divided,” Ryan said. “We can’t get anything done because of these huge divisions that we have, and people in communities like the ones I represent … are suffering because of this division. You can’t win the future divided.” Bernie Sanders (D) Sanders is leaning toward announcing a presidential campaign by the end of February, Fox News reported Thursday, citing two sources close to the Vermont senator.

Earlier in the week, amid the controversy that engulfed Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat, over a tweet interpreted to be anti-Semitic, Sanders called the freshman congresswoman to offer his support, The Daily Beast reported. Howard Schultz (I) The former Starbucks CEO continued to face criticism from Democrats over his potential independent bid for president, and Schultz returned the favor, discussing his misgivings with both Democrats and Republicans at a CNN town hall Tuesday. “Both parties today on the far left and the far right are more interested in partisan politics, revenge politics,” Schultz said. “I think we could be doing so much better than we are.”

During the event, Schultz acknowledged that his “business experience is not qualification to run for president.” But he argued that he could bring a pragmatic, results-focused approach to combating problems like climate change and economic inequality. Elizabeth Warren (D) Warren officially jumped into the 2020 race, announcing her candidacy for president at a rally in Lawrence, Massachusetts, last Saturday. Before a crowd of 3,500 supporters packed into Everett Mills — the site of one of the most famous labor strikes that catalyzed massive changes to labor rules — Warren said: “Millions and millions and millions of American families are also struggling to survive in a system that has been rigged by the wealthy and the well-connected. Hard-working people are up against a small group that holds far too much power. … Like the women of Lawrence, we are here to say enough is enough!”

Warren took the stage to Dolly Parton’s “9 to 5” before making her official announcement and kicking off a tour through early-voting states. She made her debut as a presidential candidate in Dover, New Hampshire, before heading to Iowa on Sunday. She continues on to South Carolina, Georgia, Nevada and California this weekend. Bill Weld (R) Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts and 2016 Libertarian vice presidential candidate, is attending a New Hampshire Institute of Politics “politics and eggs” event on Friday.

Citing Republican sources, WMUR reported Wednesday that Weld’s remarks at the event will include a “substantial move toward a challenge to President Trump.” Weld recently re-registered in Massachusetts as a member of the Republican Party. Marianne Williamson (D) Williamson, a popular self-help author and one-time congressional candidate, was profiled by ABC News’s “Nightline” this week. She explained her desire to get into the presidential race, despite her lack of political experience.

“I think what we need in the White House is more a visionary than just a political mechanic,” she said. “America is morally off course. … More than anything else in America today, we need a moral and spiritual awakening.”

“We need an awakening of American minds,” Williamson added. “Show me any traditional politician who’s had a 35-year career at that kind of awakening. That’s a skill set. That’s experience. That’s expertise. And I believe it is a qualification that would — you would do very well to put in the White House.” Andrew Yang (D) Yang is spending his own money to demonstrate his proposed “Freedom Dividend,” a form of universal basic income that would pay all Americans 18 years or older $1,000 per month. One family each in Iowa and New Hampshire are already receiving $1,000 per month from the entrepreneur, according to CBS News.

ABC News’s Kendall Karson contributed to this report.

#IFTTT #FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Adam Kelsey

4 notes · View notes

blckartemis-blog · 7 years ago

Text

SIMULATION.

serial#: 0611-01-WRH-ENTP-02-11 name: artemis

< EXTRACTING_SIMULATION_COLLECTION_ > < LOADING_TRANSMISSION……… >

[ WARNING: violence ] [ WORDS: 1186 ]

Drip. drop. She never liked being strapped into a table. She never liked hospitals and infirmaries to begin with. Whenever she was injured, she would do her best to flee. When she was younger, she would, ultimately, be caught and dragged away for treatment. As she grew older and stronger, there were times that she was successful in her chronic evasions. If she would have known that this simulation involved more than just the headset and earphones that she had been accustomed to during the first simulation trial, she would have declined wholeheartedly. Here she was suffering and living through her worse nightmare. It did not last long. She had soon slipped out of consciousness due to anesthesia (she assumed).

The lobby was not exactly the same as before. It was not like before. She never had to wait as it loaded the content of the simulated training. For the first time, she would be sharing her mind with other individual. She would be working alongside other candidates. Part of her was quite enthusiastic to enjoy the virtual adventure with friends. Then, she remembered that not many liked to be paired with her, because she was not the best partner to be around it. Most did not understand her vision, which was their lost. She was not some wild card. The redhead pounced on the first person to appear before her hugging them tightly. After a couple of minutes, they were five. She was excited for whatever they had in store for them. She hoped that they could live up to her expectations. After all, this reminded her of that movie, now, these movies...that one with the Jaeger robots or the classic Matrix or the anticlimatic Inception. The redhead took a quick glance at her comrades. There was ‘Ponytails’, there was ‘Blueberry’, there ‘Seaweed’ and there was ‘Scarface’ (yes, she did not bother to remember their names).

Without much of a warning, the lobby seemed to have been caught in a flood. They were warned a bit too late of the ‘risk of death’ as they realized that they were at the bottom of some river. As they swam to reach the surface, ‘Seaweed’ was quicker than the four of them (foolishly so in Artemis’s opinion as they did not know what awaited them at the surface) and, soon enough, ‘Seaweed’ seemed to be drowning. Filament of red surrounded the companion and she knew that they had been struck. ‘Blueberry’ was quick to catch them and to swim with them. The was when the AI fairy told them something that should have been said way before.

< FIND_A_PLACE_SAFE_ENOUGH_TO_REACH_THE_SURFACE_YOU_FOOL_! >

The quartet and the injured swam until they were under some dock. They were away from the sight of whatever was at the surface. When they finally could gasp for air (quietly). They could hear people shouting. They were searching for someone and they could all tell that they were searching for ‘Seaweed’ that they had seen. The objective was straight to the point. They needed to retrieve the diamonds and get the heck away from this place as fast as possible. The issue with that was that dumbass ‘Seaweed’ was injured. It was only their shoulder (thankfully), but it mean that, at any moment, he would be a dead weight for the team. “If anything, Seaweed can always be of use later on as bait.” Yes, it was sad, but Artemis wanted to complete the mission successfully. Sometimes, someone had to do one for the team. For the time being, ‘Seaweed’ could count on them (and on her).

The team waited until the ruckus on the land had diminished a little bit, before journeying out of their hideout. In the meantime, they familiarized themselves a bit with what they had. Artemis and ‘Blueberry’ had mid to long range weapons. ‘Scarface’ had a close range one. ‘Ponytails’ decided that she would take care of ‘Seaweed’. She was also a freaking sniper; therefore, she could be useful as long as she had a place to stay. When the coast seemed clear, the five men team moved fast. They found safety in the bushes near the shore. ‘Ponytails’ had her hand on Seaweed’s mouth who kept on making unnecessary noises. He had to suck it up or, else, Artemis was definitely going to sacrifice him to the wolves. ‘Ponytails’ suggested that ‘Seaweed’ and her would camp out while the trio would move in the camp. It was not a bad idea, but it meant that the trio (who never worked before together) to be able to handle an entire camp of mercenaries on their own. It was a challenge that Artemis actually approved of. ‘Scarface’ did not seem too eager at the idea, but with the overwhelming 4 v. 1, he had no choice but to comply.

The camp had more the looks of a village taken hostage by a group of mercenaries. There were civilians among the people and they looked terrified. Artemis remembered when she would watch these documentaries that this practice was quite common. The children would be taken away from their families to become child soldiers for the militias or the mercenary’s employer. ‘Blueberry’ vehemently expressed that they try not to touch to the children and that they should avoid pointless casualties (to which Artemis replied that they were in a freaking game. He was being twat and was acting like one of those players who would aim to respect the law in some GTA game). ‘Scarface’ had to intervene in their banter, because he did not want a) fail the mission b) die during the simulation. Lucky for ‘Blueberry’, the trio had to use stealth to infiltrate the pseudo-camp.

Finding the diamonds was easier than taking candy from a child. It was transporting them outside that was the issue. They either needed to bring a briefcase or they found a way to pear it open and to bring the content with them. In the end, they remained in the room until the warlord waltz in (probably to check on his prized loot). “Scarface’ did not spare him. After rendering him unconscious with blunt force, he grabbed his finger and used each one by one until the case was unlocked. Stealthy, they secured their prize and did their best to leave. However, the warlord regained consciousness faster than anticipated. The cavalry was released and they were being chased. Long story short, Artemis ended up using her trump card. ‘Seaweed’ was slowing them down. The rendezvous point was close yet far away. They needed a diversion. It was not a matter of necessity. Anyone who knew her knew that she had her true loyalty lied (?) in her twin brother. Anyone else was dispensable and disposable at some point. There was no selfishness or ill intention in her decision. It was solely dictated by logic. Their objective and their survival mattered more. ‘Ponytails’ was wholeheartedly against it. Artemis responded with threatening her with her gun. “You know, the objective is simply to meet up with the diamonds. A cadaver or two won’t ruin the outcome.”

< OBJECTIVE_COMPLETED_! > < MISSION_SUCCESS_CONFIRMED_! > < ONE_CASUALTY_! >

#blcktmpl ; softexclusive #{ CODE COLLECT10N ; +250 LP }#{ BONUS ; 100 LP }

7 notes · View notes