#2016 united states presidential election

[quotesfrommyreading]

On November 8, 2016, it really did feel as though the physical laws of the universe had changed. Time didn’t stop that night, but it did stretch out, and in the morning everything was different; we saw divides we hadn’t seen before, and no obvious way to bridge them. A lot of people didn’t even want to bridge them.

  —  Where Did the Internet Challenge Go?

[louisapennyfeather2021]

Welcome to Sam's Dream Journal.

Entry #1(the one and ONLY entry):

Last night I have a dream that had a plot, but I forget all of it because I saw a giant Ao3 banner on a TV screen advertising the release of the third fanfic of a series and told myself I had to tell the Group Chat about it.

The fic was titled "UNDERWORLD TO 53" and was the continuation of Former President Bill Clinton waking up in Area 51 only to find himself impregnated by one of the aliens that had infiltrated the United States. Fic #1 had been about how, during his presidency, Clinton's administration discovered that aliens were real and hid the information away. Fic #2 took place during Hillary's run for president when Bill dove back into politics with the intention of revealing the truth to the People before it was too late, only for the aliens to begin their invasion in Area 51. UNDERWORLD TO 53 followed Bill, Hillary, and the alien spawn as the Clinton's spread word to each state that aliens had compromised various US cities such and Tampa and San Francisco.

Don't ask me where this absolute crack riddled dream came from, I'm just as pained as you are that my subconscious created it.

It was complete with an Ad Banner of a map of the United States with markers for compromised cities, quotes from the fic, and tags(including mpreg).

Some brave soul on the internet will see this and turn it into a cracked masterpiece.

[thenewdemocratus]

Jesse Dollemore: 'INSANE LIAR Donald Trump Tells Fox News Bootlicks That HE NEVER SAID 'LOCK HER UP!!!'

Source:Jesse Dollemore talking about Donald J. Trump’s weekend lieathon. I wonder how much he charged people to be able to hear that, or intend it. And how much of that money he pocketed, or put into his legal defense fund. By the way, I think I invented the word lieathon.  SourceThe New Democrat “Jesse talks about one of a series of crazy lies Donald Trump told to the weekend hosts of Fox &…

[m0ther-of-p3arl]

at this point i will fully just be blocking anyone who says they're voting third party idk how to get it into your brains that by voting third party YOU ARE VOTING FOR DONALD TRUMP. if he wins, you're not getting another chance to vote, you're not getting another election, because he WILL become the dictator. he has smart people behind him, horrible people, but people who know what they're doing and know how to manipulate laws and twist them in ways where trump can do whatever he wants.

if you are voting third party, you are taking away our one chance at winning this thing.

kamala harris is a good candidate. she is the most pro-palestinian candidate we are EVER going to get who actually has a shot at winning this thing. she's a black and south-asian woman who understand the struggles that minorities face and does her best to fix them. she is smart, she is pro-abortion, she is literally the most liberal candidate we will EVER HAVE who has a remote chance at winning. she has a positive stance on lgbtq+ rights and worked to make sure the gay and trans panic defense was removed. she protected children and women and people of all kinds who were sexually assaulted. she made it so that children who were SEX TRAFFICKED wouldn't be prosecuted for BEING TRAFFICKED.

she is a good candidate. hell, she's a GREAT candidate. she's leagues better than biden, at this point i honestly don't know what you all are hoping for. we are never going to get the hyper-liberal, massively far left candidate some of you seem to be hoping for. that's just not a possibility: this is politics. you can't appeal to that tiny corner of the population and still hope to win. i wish you could, but that's just now how it works at this moment in time. kamala harris might be the best presidential candidate in the history of the united states.

and even if she wasn't: have you forgotten what 2016-2020 was like?! have you forgotten who we're fighting against?! because donald trump is a nightmare scenario. he is literally the opposite of everything that liberals and far-left people like myself stand for. when bush was running against al gore, the only reason that there was even a supreme court case that appointed bush was because too many people voted third party. you can't do that shit. i wish you could, i wish we had more options, but we just fucking don't.

so, yeah: come november, go out and vote, and when you do, vote for kamala harris. vote for her so we don't lose everything that we as liberals are fighting for, vote for her for those of us who are too young, vote for her for the best-case scenario that the palestinian people will ever have in this current political climate.

please. please, please vote harris. it's the only option atp.

(i will not be doing discourse in the replies or reblogs. don't even try it.)

[usa2024election]

I hate that in the United States, a third party can rarely if ever win even a down ballot race. The presidency? Third party only came close once in recent time, in 1992. Since then it's been a constant: voting third party in a USA Presidential election is akin to throwing your vote on the trash.

Google Ralph Nader Florida 2000. He and a corrupt SCOTUS decision gave us George W. Bush.

Remember 2016. The people who hate Hillary so much they sacrificed our country to Trump by pissing away protest votes for Jill Stein.

Don't let history repeat. We need to stop Trump. If you're old enough to vote, you're old enough to remember how bad 2017-2021 was. Don't let it happen again.

[mariacallous]

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

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

One month ago, an NBC News headline reported:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[decolonize-the-everything]

If only 1/3 of voters of vote and only half of those voters are democrats why do people care when democrats say "nobody else would vote a 3rd party"?

You mean Democrats wouldn't, right? They represent barely half of 1/3 of voters. They absolutely do Not speak for everyone. There is still 80% of the fucking country remaining.

I'm not talking to democrats about my candidate or asking for their opinion anymore than democrats ask for approval from Republicans. Why have the rest of us given them the power to speak over us?

So if you are a Democrat, this post is not for you

"It's splitting the vote" when I try appealing to the 80% of the country that doesn't vote? Then why don't dems yell at Trump about splitting the vote?

Cuz they know those are Republicans™ and have fundamentally different beliefs than them. It's useless. The people voting for Republicans would have no interest in Democrats, right? There's no point.

Interesting 2/3 of the country doesn't vote in that context.

It's interesting that 2/3 of voters said they would vote for a 3rd party in that context.

The country does not support democratic politics anymore. Accept it. Democrats are not entitled to anyone's vote and other candidates are not required to step down just to let them win.

You know what I mean?

3rd parties absolutely have a shot is what I'm saying.

Democrats don't listen to Republicans who tell them how Biden is a pedophile and shouldn't get elected do they? Why the fuck do people who support 3rd parties listen to what democrats think about them??

Reminder Trump won the electoral college vote in 2016 with 304 votes. Clinton had 227. 7 people voted for someone else. 227+7=234. Less than 304 still. And Clinton won the popular vote by millions.

Clinton didn't lose because of 3rd party voters or non-voters. The election was not that close. She lost because Trump was more appealing than she was to voters.

So again, why are we letting the 16.5% of America that doesn't even like their own candidate tell 3rd parties that giving Americans another option is useless and "swaying the vote?"

Non-voters need to be motivated to the ballot box or they simply won't show up like they've been doing. And Clinton wasn't as motivating to voters as Trump was.

She lost because she did Not have any 3rd party/non-voter appeal and could not sway people from Trump's camp. She needed to do one or the other to win the election and she did neither.

Just like Kamala is doing because she also is a centrist democrat. And she too statistically appeals to way less people than Trump does.

You know what I think? It's time to tell democrats to get fucking stuffed.

Sorry but if Dem candidates can't get the support of the half the country and even their own party hates their candidates, why the fuck should anyone let democrats tell them how elections work?

"it's not realistic" oh but it's realistic for 16% of the country to hold the rest of us all hostage to stop Trump instead? Gtfoh.

Anyway

This is who I plan to vote for because fuck Biden and Trump. The remaining 2/3 of us need someone who's up to our standards and stands to actually motivate people to the ballot box.

This person motivates me.

Jasmine Sherman is doing a 24 hr live on tik tok right now (July 27, 2024) if you have any questions about their policy. They're also streaming it on twitch too if you'd like to tune in without using tiktok (links at the bottom). They'll be there until 10pm EST.

Some things they support:

Abolish police

Free Palestine, Free Sudan, Free DRC

Landback

Guaranteed housing

Reparations

Trans rights

Universal healthcare & healthcare reform

Universal basic income

Disability Rights

COVID regulations

Decriminalizing drugs & sw

And way way more!!

Tik tok live link: fatblacksocialist

If you are someone who usually doesn't vote and/or refuses to vote for genocide, please reblog this

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

* * * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 10, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Sep 11, 2024

Former president Trump has always approached debates as professional wrestling events in which the key is not to explain policies or answer questions, but rather to demonstrate dominance over your opponent. In 2016 the Democratic nominee, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, had a hard time countering this strategy effectively because of the many expectations of what was appropriate behavior for a female presidential candidate. In 2020 and then again in the June 2024 “debate,” Democratic candidate Joe Biden’s stutter made it difficult to counter Trump’s scattershot attacks.

The question for Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris in tonight’s presidential debate was not how to answer policy questions, but how to counter Trump’s dominance displays while also appealing to the American people.  

She and her team figured it out, and today they played the former president brilliantly. He took the bait, and tonight he self-destructed. In a live debate, on national television. 

The Harris campaign began the day trolling Trump with a new campaign ad featuring the pieces of former president Barack Obama’s speech at the August Democratic National Convention that concerned Trump. “Here’s a 78-year-old billionaire”—the ad cuts to a photo of Trump in a golf cart—“who has not stopped whining about his problems.” Then a clip of Trump shows him complaining about Harris’s crowds, before Obama notes Trump’s “weird obsession with crowd sizes,” complete with Obama’s hand motion suggesting Trump’s sizes were small. “It just goes on, and on, and on,” Obama says, before the ad shows empty seats and people yawning at Trump’s rallies.

“America’s ready for a new chapter,” Obama says to the overflow crowd cheering at Chicago’s United Center during the Democratic National Convention. “We are ready for a President Kamala Harris!” At the end, even Harris’s standard statement, “I’m Kamala Harris and I approved this message,” sounds like a challenge.

This morning, the Harris campaign began running the ad on the Fox News Channel. 

At the same time, they began running Philadelphia-themed ads across the city on billboards, in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and on food trucks and taxi cabs, sidewalk art, and digital projections making fun of Trump’s fascination with crowd sizes. They showed, for example, a full-sized Philadelphia pretzel labeled “Harris” alongside a piece of one that looked like an upside down U labeled “Trump.”

The taunting might have been behind Trump’s demand for loyalty from Republican lawmakers this afternoon, telling them to shut down the government if he doesn’t get his way on the inclusion of a voter suppression measure in the bill to fund the government. The right has often relied on threats of government shutdowns to try to get their way, but such shutdowns are never popular, and even moderate Republicans are leery of launching one just before an election.

Nonetheless, Trump tried to lock them into such a shutdown, reiterating in a post this afternoon the lie that undocumented immigrants are voting in presidential elections. “If Republicans in the House, and Senate, don’t get absolute assurances on Election Security, THEY SHOULD, IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, GO FORWARD WITH A CONTINUING RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET. THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO ‘STUFF’ VOTER REGISTRATIONS WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS. DON’T LET IT HAPPEN—CLOSE IT DOWN.” 

Throughout the day, the Harris campaign placed posts on social media showing Harris looking crisp and presidential and Trump looking old and unkempt. And then, for ten minutes in the hour before the debate, the Harris campaign held a drone show over the Philadelphia Museum of Art showing campaign slogans and then turning the words “MADAM VICE PRESIDENT” into “MADAM PRESIDENT.” 

Hugo Lowell of The Guardian reported today that Trump’s advisors were concerned ahead of the debate about whether they would get “happy Trump” or “angry Trump,” worrying that a frustrated Trump would engage in the vicious personal attacks that turn voters off. They expressed relief that having the microphones muted when it was not a candidate’s turn to speak would prevent Harris from irritating him with fact checks and snark of her own. Conservative lawyer George Conway noted that it was “[i]nteresting how one campaign is extremely concerned about the emotional stability of its candidate, and how the other is not.”

Harris’s attacks on Trump, including her campaign’s subtle digs at his masculinity, appeared to have accomplished what they set out to. When the two came out on stage, he went straight to his podium, while she strode across the stage, moved into his space, held out her hand, introduced herself and wished him well: “Kamala Harris. Have a good debate.” He muttered in response, “Nice to see you.” Then she took her own spot at the podium. When the debate opened, it was clear that Harris was the dominant figure and that her opponent was “angry Trump.” He would not look at her during the debate.

In her first answer, Harris tried to set out both her own story as a child of the middle class and how she intended to build an opportunity economy for others, lowering food and housing costs and opening the way for more small businesses. It was a lot, quickly, and she looked a little nervous.

Then Trump spoke and it was clear he was going off the rails. His first comment was to suggest Harris was lying, and then to insist that his proposed tariffs will solve everything, although he has the way tariffs work entirely backward: they are paid by the consumer, not by foreign countries. As he followed with a long list of his rally lies, Harris started to smile.  

From then on, he continued to produce rally stories full of wild exaggerations and attack Harris with lies in what CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale called “a staggeringly dishonest debate performance from former president Trump.” "No major presidential candidate before Donald Trump has ever lied with this kind of frequency,” Dale said. “A remarkably large chunk of what he said tonight was just not true. This wasn't little exaggerations, political spin. A lot of his false claims were untethered to reality." As Harris spoke directly to the American people, growing stronger and stronger, Trump got wilder and angrier and told more and more crazy stories. 

And then, about ten minutes into the debate, Harris baited him. She invited the American people to go to one of his rallies, where “he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter, he will talk about ‘windmills cause cancer.’ And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.” 

Trump lost it. He defended his rallies, said Harris couldn’t get anyone to attend hers and has to bus in attendees (in reality, her rallies are packed and he is the one who reportedly hires attendees), and then, in his fury, repeated the lie about immigrants eating pets. When a moderator fact-checked that story, he fought back, saying he heard it on television.

And from then on, Harris kept baiting him while explaining her own policies directly to the camera, and he took the bait every single time. He ran down every rabbit hole and appeared unable to finish a thought. Notably, he refused to say he would not sign a national abortion ban and admitted that after nine years of promising one, he had no health care plan (he has, he said, “concepts of a plan,” and if they pan out, he’ll let us know in the “not too distant future”). 

He threatened World War III and repeated that the U.S. is “a failing nation.” He told a long story about threatening “Abdul,” the leader of the Taliban; in fact, the leader of the Taliban since 2016 is Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada. In response to Harris’s statement that foreign leaders thought he was a disgrace, Trump answered that Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, who destroyed his country’s democracy and replaced it with a dictatorship, says he’s a good leader. New York Times columnist David French wrote: “It's like she's debating MAGA Twitter come to life.”

The debate moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC, asked solid questions and corrected the most egregious of Trump’s lies. But as he continued to interrupt and yell at Harris, they increasingly gave him leeway to do so. This meant he spoke more often and for more time than Harris; MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle reported that he spoke 39 times for a total of 41.9 minutes, to her 23 times for a total of 37.1 minutes. But the extra time did him no favors.

By the end of the evening, Harris had delivered a clear message about her hopes to move the country forward beyond years of using race to divide people who have far more in common than they have differences. She promised to develop an economy that will build small businesses and support a growing middle class, while protecting rights, including the right to make reproductive decisions without the intrusion of the state. And she showed the nation that Trump can be baited, that he lies freely and incoherently, and—perhaps crucially—that he is no longer the dominant politician in America.  

Immediately after the debate, the Harris campaign continued their demonstration of dominance. Harris-Walz campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon released a statement recapping Harris’s strength and Trump’s angry incoherence. She concluded: “Vice President Harris is ready for a second debate. Is Donald Trump?”

Then things got even worse for Trump. 

Music phenomenon Taylor Swift endorsed Harris, telling her 283 million Instagram followers that she felt she had to because of Trump’s earlier reposting of an AI image of her seeming to endorse him. That, she said, “brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter. The simplest way to combat misinformation is with the truth. I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election.”

After explaining why she was supporting Harris and Walz and urging her fans to do their own research, Swift signed off: “Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[abstractpenny]

Okay, so I've been thinking about it and I don't think we're actually all that cooked with Joe Biden dropping out.

If you don't know, Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential election. He is no longer running. BUT Kamala Harris, the current VP, is taking his place as the Democratic candidate for this election.

Looking at this, you may say something like "Oh no, we're done for. We're doomed." But if you think about it, this is actually an unbelievably intelligent and strategic move. In fact, this gives me a lot of hope that I didn't have before.

Obviously, this move is a last resort. They knew if they kept running with Biden they would lose. It means the Democratic party is pulling out a final weapon. But it's honestly a damn good one.

Before this happened, it seemed hopeless. Our two options were two old rich white men, one of which is an awful public speaker and the other is a literal criminal. And, because of that, you got people choosing not to vote or choosing to vote for Trump. Because which of the two evils is more appealing?

Donald Trump is a wonderful public speaker. He is charismatic and charming. He knows how to get people on his side. He's spent his whole life learning how to be a strong public speaker. That's what makes him scary. That's what made it so he won the 2016 election, so he almost won the 2020 election, and why he's still in the conversation today. He knows how to speak in an appealing way.

Joe Biden is honestly an awful public speaker. He struggles with gathering people to be on his side. Whether it's because he has a stutter/speech impediment or because he's dealing with dementia, he's still not good at public speaking. That makes him weak in things like debates and in politics. We saw that with our own eyes during the last debate.

Kamala Harris, while maybe not as strong of a speaker as Donald Trump, is very knowledgeable and self assured. She knows how to debate, she knows how to be a politician. She knows what she's doing. She's strong and confident. She may be our final hope.

A lot of why people aren't going in to vote is because it felt useless to do so, especially to people on the left. Donald Trump is out of the question for a lot of people, but Joe Biden isn't much better to many. They're both old as fuck, about 80 years old. They're both straight white cis men who have higher incomes. They're not aligned at all with what a lot of people on the left view.

Harris is significantly more relatable to a lot of people. She's a woman of colour. A good percentage of the United States population is one of those, either a person of colour or a woman. She's also younger than both Biden and Trump by almost 20 years. Yes, she's still 60 years old, but that's absolutely nothing compared to our other candidates.

Another thing that brings Biden out of favour with the left is how he handled and backed specific foreign wars (Ukraine and Palestine specifically). The Palestine Israel war is a very strong thing on the left, it's very talked about, and a lot of people view Biden as 'om the wrong side' of it. And, although Harris was the VP of the Biden administration, she's not very tied in to the wars from public view.

Harris is a great candidate other than a few minor minor minor things. She's leagues better than our dropped out ex candidate and our currently running candidate. One of the biggest hurdles for her, though, is going to be racism and sexism. It's always there. Oh, and the fact that her opponent had an assassination attempt on him, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Kamala Harris coming into this race may change things completely. We're not as screwed anymore. There's hope.

You. Whoever may read this. Go vote. It's crucial. Vote if you can. If you can't, get people to vote who can. This is the most important election in a long time.

We can win.

[fanhackers]

Fandom/Activism

I interrupt my dive into Abigail DeKosnik’s work to note that as the United States moves deeper into its (apparently endless) election season, we’re seeing a lot of fandom-as-activism starting to emerge, as well as activism-as-fandom. De Kosnik herself was one of the early writers on fandom/activism, writing “Participatory democracy and Hillary Clinton's marginalized fandom” for the very first issue of Transformative Works and Cultures in 2008; more recently, Aja Romano wrote about how Donald Trump’s followers can be seen to be acting like a fandom for Vox: “If you want to understand modern politics, you have to understand modern fandom.” 

TWC hosted an entire guest issue on Transformative Works and Fan Activism, edited by Henry Jenkins and Sangita Shresthova; Jenkins and Shresthova also collaborated on By Any Media Necessary: The New Youth Activism (NYU, 2016) which collects essays on fan activism. Other essays on fandom/activism have been published by TWC with Alex Xanthoudakis’s Mobilizing minions: Fan activism efficacy of Misha Collins fans in "Supernatural" fandom (2020) and  Hannah Carilyn Gunderman’s Fan geographies and engagement between geopolitics of Brexit, Donald Trump, and Doctor Who on social media (2020) being recent examples. Meanwhile, Tanya Cook and Kayle Joseph are the authors of Fandom Acts of Kindness: A Heroic Guide to Activism, Advocacy, and Doing Chaotic Good (Penguin Randomhouse 2023), a guide on how to use fandom and fannish strategies to make a difference. 

Some examples of fandom/activism emerging this U.S. election season include Heroes 4 Harris: Kamala-Con  which is scheduled to happen online today, Sunday September 8, 2024, 1pm PT / 4pm ET: this is billed as “a Comic-Con for Kamala” and “the largest fandom led gathering in support of a presidential candidate in American history.” It will feature: “actors, writers, directors, and super fans of Hollywood's most inspiring heroic fandoms” and promises not just inspiration from some of our favorite stars (Mark Ruffalo, Sean Astin, Rosario Dawson and others - not to mention Henry Jenkins himself) but also breakout groups and training in “fan mobilization.”  

Meanwhile, Lynda Carter (always a Wonder Woman!) is also trying to get out the fan vote for Harris with her group Geeks & Nerds for Harris Walz (@GeekOutTheVote); this is also billed as “a fan activist campaign” and they are planning special online events, the first of which will be an online call on September 24, 2024.  As they describe on their website: “Fandom has never just been about media consumption. Fans are artists, creators, and digital ambassadors. When we share what we love, it radiates around the world. And to paraphrase the Vice President, it’s how we show them who we are. By connecting battle-tested campaign canvassing strategies to the heritage and practices of fan communities, we can encourage fans to get out the vote in key battleground states.”

Donald Trump, aside from being his own fandom with himself as fan in chief, also seems to have had some self-identified fandoms collectively organizing for him over the years - these include Fans of Kanye West, Fans of Race Car Driving, and, strange but true, Fans of the 1980s, who apparently believe that Donald Trump would also be a fan of 80s horror movies, Scritti Politti, and  the soundtrack to Pretty in Pink. (I’m not making that up; it’s on their Twitter.) That said, Mel Stanfill’s newest book Fandom is Ugly (2024) argues that, despite its popular reputation, media fandom is not essentially progressive; that in fact, “reactionary politics and media fandoms go hand in hand.” Stanfill’s book looks at the ways in which fans have organized in conservative, reactionary, or even hateful ways, from Gamergate to the collective abuse and harassment of actors in the latest Star Wars franchise. 

The discipline of fandom studies is now being used to study all different kinds of affiliations and advocacy movements, not just those based around film, tv, sports, or music. Fan studies is now applied to political and social movements. Jenkins is still a powerful voice on the relationship between fan studies and participatory democracy (whether progressive or reactionary): read this 2024 interview with him published in Communication and the Public: “The path from participatory culture to participatory politics: A critical investigation—An interview with Henry Jenkins.”  As Jenkins notes:

Part of the ethos of fandom is to ask questions—from nitpicking to imagining other outcomes, different trajectories for character arcs, and other worlds where the story might occur, all of which is expressed through fan works. I would say that fans are often more critical than the general audience in asking these questions, which makes them somewhat different from many partisans and activists I might know who rarely question their beliefs and ideological commitments. And fans are more tolerant—as an aggregate—of different interpretations than partisans are of different ideological stances. So, you could do worse in grounding a democracy than engaging with fans.

[ceilidhtransing]

I see people saying “a vote for a third party isn't a vote for Trump, no matter how much you try to tell me it is” and while this statement makes sense from one perspective, it also sadly just misunderstands the material reality of politics.

If we're talking about voting purely as something that affects the moral tally of your individual heart, then yes, a vote for the Greens or whatever isn't morally equivalent to a vote for Trump. If the way you think about this is in terms of getting to the pearly gates and being asked “and did you always vote for the purest and most morally clean person?” then yes, a Green vote is not the same as having to say “actually I voted for Trump”.

But down here in the real world where voting isn't about maintaining your own personal sense of having a Morally Untarnished Heart but about, you know, real material consequences, a vote for a third party is functionally, if not morally, equivalent to a vote for Trump. You might not be voting for Trump but you are voting in a way that only makes it harder for the only candidate that has an actual chance in hell of beating Trump to win. There is no world in which that does not simply help Trump. You are splitting the anti-Trump vote and making it easier for him to win because that is how this voting system unfortunately works. Frankly, you may as well be voting for Trump.

“But my vote isn't an endorsement of Trump! It's an endorsement of the exact opposite values of Trump!” Yes, but again, this terrible first-past-the-post voting system does not produce “the average of all the values that people voted for”. Any votes that don't go towards the winner are wasted votes. And the winner, especially if that winner is Trump, will not care that you voted Green. They will govern just the same, and your voice will carry no weight at all electorally.

“Stop blaming people who vote third party for all the terrible things Republicans decide to do! Those things aren't my fault; I didn't vote for them.” There is a certain value to the argument “it's not my fault for voting third party; it's the Democrats' fault for not putting up a candidate I could vote for”. But this slightly falls apart when it comes to the people who have already decided they will always vote third party, regardless of how perfect a candidate the Democrats run, so this whole “it's the Democrats' job to convince me” is purely theoretical. And I too hate the way our society often defaults to blaming leftists for whatever the right does, as if leftists are the only ones with political agency and the right can never be held accountable for anything. But when leftists had an opportunity to prevent the right from doing something evil and they chose their own moral purity over an imperfect choice that would nevertheless have prevented some harm, then no, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to place some of the blame on those people.

US presidential elections hang on relatively tiny numbers of people in only a few crucial swing states. And because 132,476 people in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin decided to vote Green rather than Democrat in 2016, abortion is illegal in 13 states. That's less than 0.04% of the US population. Even margins that small matter. And no, those people didn't vote “against abortion”, but their failure to tactically unite behind the candidate who would have protected reproductive rights and who had a chance of actually winning directly led to the victory of the anti-abortion candidate. I'm sure all the people who now can't access abortion (ironically, none of whom lives in MI, PA or WI) are really glad that those people voted with their hearts rather than strategically. Votes have consequences, and things do change (for the worse, as well as for the better), much as some people like to harp on about how “nothing ever changes” and “your vote doesn't matter”.

“But why are you blaming those people? What about the people who actually voted Republican? Or the people who didn't vote at all?” Well, first off, this post is about third-party voting, not Republican voters or non-voters. But I do feel there is more ground to be gained by talking about the consequences of third-party voting than by discussing the others. Many Republican voters are essentially unreachable; they're not remotely progressive, so trying to convince them that they should be voting Democrat is mostly like talking to a brick wall. And non-voters are the people who didn't show up anyway; arguably they should have shown up, but they didn't. But third-party voters got involved, made sure they were registered to vote, got all the way to the voting booth, and then decided to vote not in the way that would defend at least some progressive values, but in the way that would only make it harder to beat the ultra-regressive candidate. There's an understanding that a lot of third-party voters are on the right side, they're just not making the right strategic decision, which is why so much more progressive energy gets put towards trying to convince e.g. Green voters than towards trying to convince people who aren't even remotely on our side to begin with.

“But both major candidates are agents of capital who will ultimately work for the continuation of the American empire. I'm voting for the benefit of the world, not just for the benefit of a few people in the US.” I'm not going to argue with you over that first sentence, because yes, you are correct. Both Democrats and Republicans ultimately support capitalism and both Democratic and Republican presidents have been responsible for some absolutely heinous crimes of US foreign and military policy. But as a non-American, the idea that voting in a way that makes it easier for Trump to win rather than uniting behind the person who might actually beat him - who is still flawed, but orders of magnitude better than him - is in some way liberatory to the rest of the world is just... what??? Do you not hear the people who are screaming “please stop the guy who's basically in favour of Putin annihilating Ukraine and endangering the rest of Central and Eastern Europe”? The people who are screaming “please stop the guy who seems like he just can't wait to drop nukes somewhere”? The people who are screaming “please stop the guy whose victory will only embolden the far right in our own countries and make it harder for us to beat them here”? Non-Americans are, by and large, not saying “ah yes, we are grateful that you chose moral purity rather than supporting one of the two capitalist candidates who will continue US imperialism”; we are screaming “PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T LET TRUMP GET ELECTED; THIS WILL MAKE EVERYTHING WORSE FOR ALL OF US”. Your Green vote does not help the world right now. Please get behind the person who isn't a massive, immediate, almost unprecedented threat to everything we hold dear, and then we can fight for a better world together.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jennifer Bendery at HuffPost:

CHICAGO ― Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a rousing speech Monday night in support of Kamala Harris for president, emphasizing that her victory in November would mean that women everywhere have finally smashed through the glass ceiling. “Together we’ve put a lot of cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling,” Clinton said. “Tonight we are so close to breaking through once and for all. I want to tell you what I see through all those cracks. And what it matters for each and every one of us.” Clinton, who was hoping to become the first female president in 2016 but lost to Donald Trump, said if Harris becomes that historic first, she sees endless freedoms for people. “I see the freedom to make our own decisions about our health, our lives, our loves, our families,” she said. “To speak our minds freely and honestly. I see freedom from fear and intimidation from violence and injustice, from chaos and corruption.” “And you know what?” Clinton added. “On the other side of that glass ceiling is Kamala Harris raising her hand and taking the oath of office as our 47th president of the United States.” The crowd erupted into deafening cheers in response, something they’d already been doing from the moment Clinton stepped on stage. She seemed happy to receive it, too. She was beaming and forceful throughout her speech. She took several shots at Trump, something she may have been eager to do given how ugly his campaign was in 2016.

“It is no surprise, is it, that he is lying about Kamala’s record. He’s mocking her name and her laugh. Sounds familiar,” she said to laughs, referring to Trump doing the same thing to her in 2016. “But we have him on the run now.”

Monday night at the DNC in Chicago, 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton gave an all-time great speech on how Kamala Harris can smash the glass ceiling for good if she can win in November to become the USA’s first woman to become President.

America made a giant mistake by electing Donald Trump in 2016 instead of her, and let’s pray we finally get our first woman leader that is long overdue.

See Also:

The Guardian: Hillary Clinton takes jabs at Trump and pins hope on Harris to ‘break through’ glass ceiling

[thenewdemocratus]

Early Start With Kasie Hunt: 'You're Lying': George Conway Clashes With Republican Commentator Over Donald Trump Guilty Verdict'

Source:CNN with a George Conway vs Scott Jennings live TV debate. Source:The New Democrat “Lawyer George Conway and CNN Senior Political Commentator Scott Jennings joined “CNN This Morning” to discuss Donald Trump’s guilty verdict in his criminal hush money case.” From CNN I’m not going top try to play mindreader and argue that Scott Jennings is lying here. He just might be complete idiot when it…

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A federal judge on Monday dismissed the classified documents case against Donald Trump, a shock ruling that clears away one of the major legal challenges facing the former president.

In a 93-page ruling, District Judge Aileen Cannon said the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith violated the Constitution. She did not rule on whether Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents was proper or not.

“In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing ‘regulatory’ special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad hoc pattern with little judicial scrutiny,” Cannon wrote.

The ruling by Cannon, a judge Trump appointed in 2020, comes on the first day of the Republican National Convention. Even though a trial before the presidential election was considered highly unlikely, many legal experts had viewed the classified documents case as the strongest one of the four cases that were pending against the former president.

The White House referred requests for comment to the Justice Department. Smith’s office has not responded to a call for comment.

Smith had charged Trump last year with taking classified documents from the White House and resisting the government’s attempts to retrieve the materials. He pleaded not guilty.

In a separate criminal case brought by Smith against Trump in Washington, DC, the special counsel was pursuing federal charges stemming from Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Trump also faces a state-level election subversion case in Georgia and he was convicted of state crimes in New York earlier this year for his role in a hush money payment scheme before the 2016 election.

Trump’s efforts to dismiss the case under the appointments clause was seen as a long shot, as several special counsels – even during his own presidential administration – were run the same way.

But the fringe argument gained steam when Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas threw his support behind the theory, writing in a footnote in the high court’s presidential immunity decision that there are “serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed.”

Still, Cannon held a hearing on the issue several weeks ago, pushing attorneys to explain exactly how Smith’s investigation into Trump was being funded. The judge’s questions were so pointed that special counsel attorney James Pearce argued that, even if Cannon were to throw out the case due to an appointments clause issue, the Justice Department was “prepared” to fund Smith’s cases through trial if necessary.

Cannon said in her order that the special counsel’s position “effectively usurps” Congress’ “important legislative authority” by giving it to the head of a department – DOJ, in this case – to appoint such an official.

“If the political branches wish to grant the Attorney General power to appoint Special Counsel Smith to investigate and prosecute this action with the full powers of a United States Attorney, there is a valid means by which to do so,” she wrote.

COULD CASE BE REVIVED?

Cannon said in her ruling Monday that the Justice Department “could reallocate funds to finance the continued operation of Special Counsel Smith’s office,” but said it’s not yet clear whether a newly-brought case would pass legal muster.

“For more than 18 months, Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution has been financed by substantial funds drawn from the Treasury without statutory authorization, and to try to rewrite history at this point seems near impossible,” Cannon wrote. “The Court has difficulty seeing how a remedy short of dismissal would cure this substantial separation-of-powers violation, but the answers are not entirely self-evident, and the caselaw is not well developed.”

She noted in her ruling that Smith’s team “suggested” at a court hearing on the matter that they could restructure the office’s funding to satisfy her concerns.

[mikeysbride]

We Are Not Going Back

The 2024 U.S. presidential election has been anything but typical or boring, especially in the last month. Once President Joe Biden made the decision to remove himself from the race against Donald Trump in favor of endorsing VP Kamala Harris, everything changed. And it changed for the better if you're a Democrat. I was upset when he first withdrew, feeling that he was basically pushed into it by the media's insistence he is too old to run despite the record he's had as President the last 4 years. But then, within minutes, it seemed, my attitude changed to one of a sense of hope I hadn't felt in a while where the election is concerned. In reality, he made the ultimate selfless decision to put the country's interests above his own, and that is a remarkable quality, especially in a politician. It shows he's the real deal.

It appears I am not alone. The surge of excitement in the Democratic Party surrounding Kamala's nomination, which she'll officially accept this week, has been nothing short of amazing to watch. I have not seen anything like this since President Obama, and that says a lot. Her rallies are breaking attendance records, and even longtime Republicans are pledging to vote for her.

Of course, Kamala has already received the predictable criticism from the Trump cult about everything from her heritage to her laugh. Trump also still refuses to pronounce her name correctly, which is blatantly disrespectful but also typical behavior for him. If Kamala ("comma-la") is too hard for him to pronounce, Madame President will do just fine, I'm sure. But none if this should come as news to anyone. They have nothing else to go on, so of course they resort to the lowest rungs on the ladder when in reality, she has a stellar resume and record having served as a prosecuting attorney, District Attorney, Attorney General, Senator, and now Vice President of the United States. She is an actual prosecutor going up against Trump and his 34 felony convictions, and he's allowed to do that for the highest job in the country even though many jobs won't consider you if you have even 1 felony conviction. It's laughable really; it would be hilarious if it weren't also so sad and ridiculous. You can bet anyone of color would not be allowed the same leniency.

A few days before Kamala became the presumptive nominee, my 16-year-old daughter told me she felt apprehensive about her future if there were to be another Trump presidency. I told her that I feel the same way for myself. I actually feel that way about anyone who isn't a rich, straight white male because those are the only people Donald Trump cares about - those who look and think exactly like he does. But then, Joe passed the torch to Kamala, and it seemed the country awakened to a clearly better alternative and someone even the independents could get behind. Suddenly, there was hope that maybe, just maybe, things would be OK after all. That same daughter then came to me, just a few days after our previous conversation, and told me she is no longer fearful the way she was before. My 14-year-old daughter echoes her feelings, and the both of them have taken a greater interest in the election as a result. My teenage daughters are inspired and can see themselves in Kamala, and that is huge for them and for me.

I don't care who you are; this is historic and a big deal. It takes an incredible amount of privilege to see all this unfolding and not appreciate how significant this is in our history. Not only are we on the verge of having our first female U.S. President, but she's also Black. Not only that, but she's smart, successful, personable, and damn qualified. I can't help but think of my grandparents and how thrilled they would have been to live to see Barack Obama become President and now Kamala Harris. We came so close to a female President with Hillary Clinton in 2016, and I pray the election deniers and complacent people don't mess it up for us this time. I honestly don't think we can survive another Trump presidency and come out the same way ever again. He's already promised to be a dictator on his first day back in office and has alluded to doing away with elections...neither of which we need. And we certainly don't need him. He only wants to be President to avoid jail time, point blank. We can't let that happen.

We have a chance this November to save our democracy and keep moving forward - to make a hopeful future available to everyone and not just the rich, straight white males of the country. We can do this, and I have to believe we will. This is a test we absolutely cannot stand to fail. I understand the assignment. Do you?

[anonymous-dentist]

"It's not that deep"

Yes, yes it is. It is that deep. Buying a Trump flag is that deep. I don't know if most of these Dream fans leftover in their echo chamber of a fanbase remember this, because they were probably kids, but the Trump presidency signaled the end of the world of minorities all across the United States. We're still feeling the repercussions of that today in 2022, almost two full years into Biden's administration. White supremacists are out in louder numbers than they have been in years. Antisemitism is on the rise. Abortion is being threatened in most U.S. states after the conservative-packed Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade this summer, a court packed by Trump and including Christo-fascists, racists, misogynists, homo- and transphobes, and literal alleged rapists and actual cult members. Anti-queer legislation is being pushed in a significant number of U.S. states and in the federal government by members of the legislature who have been emboldened by having a president that agreed with them.

The 2020 presidential election was huge- some of the largest numbers in decades- because people wanted this man out of office. And he's running again in 2024 despite having been impeached twice (the most for any sitting president in the history of the United States) and despite being under investigation for a bajillion federal crimes, including a recent indictment brought against him in response to him instigating, encouraging, and assisting an attempted insurrection and violent takeover of the government in January of last year. (You people might remember it for Doomsday on the smp; many others remember it as one of the most terrifying moments in U.S. political history.) He's running despite the several charges of campaign fraud and election interference brought against him. The Republicans might not be done with him yet, which is a terrifying thought. Even if they are and they're going with DeSantis for 2024, Trump is still planning on running, and he's bankrupt right now. He's broke. His company is broke. He is broke. The only income he gets now are from MAGA supporters buying his merch. Those funny little NFTs from last week? Those support him.

Know what else directly supports Donald Trump and his campaign? Flags. Buying flags.

Does this mean that Dream and Sapnap are Trump supporters for buying a Trump flag as a gag gift for their British friend? No, absolutely not, but the joke of 'lol look at this stupid idiot flag we got you' doesn't land when, A, the person giving the gift is a former Trump supporter himself, and, B, the person that the flag was bought from is a literal white supremacist and fascist who is friends with white supremacists and fascists who all want queer people to die, they want women to be silent or to die, they want civil rights overturned, they want to turn this country back into a shell of itself in the name of white male Christian supremacy

Dream's audience is young and vulnerable. Many members are queer. Many are POC. Most are young. They might not remember how fucking terrifying 2016 through 2020 were. People woke up in tears the day after election day in 2016 for a reason. The polls were flooded in 2020 for a reason. These audience members might not remember that because they were so young, or they might not realize the gravity of the situation. What does it say to them when their hero pulls out a Trump flag and says it's a gift? It's something to laugh at, yeah, but is it really? It shows people that it's okay not to take Trump seriously, and he and his followers are still a threat to America today. It's dangerous not to take him and his followers seriously. And since the Democrats don't seem to have anybody they're pushing for for 2024, it's especially important for potential voters (because that's what these fans are, many will be old enough to vote by 2024) to start to research and understand the opposition.

Oh, and this also alienates members of Dream's audience that do remember the Trump administration. Reminder, thanks to Trump and his buddies, being queer is becoming illegal again. POC are constantly under attack because of the racist remarks encouraged by Trump during his administration. Treating Trump as a joke could, and probably has, alienated a portion of viewers. It shows them just how seriously Dream thinks these issues are. It's all worth it for a funny joke that won't appear for longer than a minute on a several hour long stream train, one viewed by tens of thousands of people live and hundreds of thousands more via vods and clips in the 12+ hours that have passed since.

You'd think that Dream would know better with a platform this size and with a fanbase as unique as what his used to be, but I guess not. Critical thinking is vital in this industry, whether you're a fan or a creator. Do I think he meant any harm in this? No, I think he's just a moron. A terrible man, yeah, but not for this. For this, he's just a fucking idiot, and he needs to get a PR guy, and he needs to fucking think before he does things for once in his life. Because it could've been funny to some people, including himself, but there is a responsibility to be, well, responsible with yourself and your audience when you're a content creator. It's very easy to send the wrong message out. There's a certain level of critical thinking that needs to be put into place, and that clearly is not a skill that Dream has.