#Bush vs. Gore

[deadpresidents]

Their paths into politics could hardly have been more different, and their first encounter was rough. In 1999, both George W. [Bush], as Governor of Texas, and Jeb [Bush], newly elected in Florida, visited the White House during a Governors' conference. [President] Clinton liked Jeb right away but found George W. downright surly. Still, when Clinton's aides noted that the Texan seemed particularly uncomfortable, Clinton came to his defense: "Look, the guy's just being honest. What's he supposed to do, like me? I defeated his father. He loves his father. It doesn't bother me -- this is a contact sport." During the 2000 campaign, Clinton watched George W. with growing respect -- "compassionate conservatism" is a "genius slogan," he warned Al Gore's team -- and when George W. paid a visit after he won, Clinton came away from their meeting and a long lunch in the White House residence saying, "It's a mistake to underestimate him."

-- Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, on the first impressions and interactions between then-President Bill Clinton and Texas Governor George W. Bush, TIME Magazine, August 3, 2015.

[queenlua]

p fun overview of the espionage act + assange's, uh. his whole deal

[dragonstepp]

The Supreme Court

I watched Ari Melber line out the difference between how the Supreme Court acted when it came to Bush/Gore, and how they are acting today. Shameful. Not a fair judgment at all. Definitely politically motivated.

Carol in Austin

[lightdancer1]

Wrapped up the last book of the Oxford History of the United States:

Wrapped up the last book in the Oxford History of the United States. This book and its immediate precursor are the only two books in the series written by the same author and it was written and published in 2005, hence why it stops in the 2000 timeframe. It expands on the theme of the previous book that the political and legal changes of the 1960s ran into some very hard stops in cultural and social aspects of the South. It leads to both a cautious optimism that the tide of social progress leads forward that looks much sourer in the eyes of 2016 than it did in 2000 and an equally cautious view noting that 2000, like the 1888 election, was a case of the system having a hitch that is in the eye of the beholder.

On the whole the main benefit of it is that it is a single-volume history charting Ford, Carter, Reagan, H. Dubya, and Clinton when the very recentness of these means that a book like this is near-impossible to find.

7/10.

[qqueenofhades]

I just read an article on The Conversation that states: "Today, most data has Trump narrowly beating Biden in the national popular vote, albeit within the statistical margin of error." (Source for that data: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/)

In your opinion, is that true? How can that be possible after everything Trump has done? After the Insurrection? I'm terrified 😕

(For reference, the original article can be found at https://theconversation.com/five-reasons-why-trumps-republican-opponents-were-never-going-to-beat-him-223288?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%202888329325&utm_content=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%202888329325+CID_fceedfd21410eb8a7b6fd6e1124d9d54&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=five%20reasons)

Short answer: no, I don't think it's true.

Long answer: no, I really don't think it's true. Here's why.

Broader context. A Republican has won the popular presidential vote only twice in the 21st century, and in the first of those occasions -- 2000 -- I use "won" very advisedly. We all know, or at least we should, about all the fuckery that went down in Florida with Bush vs. Gore and SCOTUS stepping in to stop the recount (which almost surely would have gone to Gore) and handing Florida, and thus the presidency, to George Dubya Bush by a mere 537 votes. Dubya then did win re-election and the popular vote/EC in 2004, in the throes of patriotic war fervor and the GOP's Swiftboating of John Kerry (who was a pretty terrible candidate to start with). Other than that? None. Zip. Nada. None. Even in 2016 when Trump squeaked out a win (and thus the presidency) in the Electoral College, he lost nationwide to HRC by over 3 million votes. He lost to Biden by 7 million votes nationwide last time. Also, the reason the GOP loves the antidemocratic Electoral College is that it always works in their favor, and because red states with relatively scant population are given the same power in the Senate. That's why California, with 40+ million people, gets two (Democratic) senators, and Wyoming, with 400,000 people, gets two (Republican) senators. There is just no way that red states can get the actual raw numbers to win the popular vote against heavily blue urban population centers. The only one that comes close is Texas, and while it's something of a white whale for Democrats who think fondly that it'll surely turn blue this election cycle (and then it doesn't), it's not giving all its votes popular-vote-wise to Republicans. So yeah. The numbers aren't there. Biden is about 99% certain to win the popular vote, but because this is America, the question is whether the EC will follow.

(Although, I gotta say. In the deeply unlikely event that Biden loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College -- i.e. the exact same thing Trump did in 2016 -- the right wing would lose their fucking minds and it would be incredibly hilarious. Also, we might finally get some red states willing to sign up to the National Popular Vote Compact, which is just a few ratifications away from going into effect. As noted, the Republicans will cling onto the Electoral College with their last dying breath because it's the only thing that makes them competitive in nationwide elections. If it fucked Trump, they might finally listen to ideas about changing it.)

The media are incredibly biased, and so is Nate Silver. Silver first rose to prominence as an independent geeky Data Guy elections whiz-kid, and was relatively good at being unbiased. That is not the case anymore. He's now affiliated with the New York Times and has started echoing the smugly anti-Biden framework of both that paper and the mainstream media in general. I'm not necessarily saying his data is total bunk, but he's extremely eager to frame, narrate, and explain it in ways that artificially disadvantage Biden (in the same way the NYT itself is all in on "BUT HIS AGEEEEE," just as they were with "BUT HER EEEEEEMAILS" in 2016) And that's a problem, because:

The polls are shit. Like, really, really shit. Didn't we just go through this in 2022, where everyone howled about how All The Data pointed to a Red Wave and then were /shocked pikachu face when this was nothing more than a Red Dribble of Piss (and frankly, the best midterm election result for the ruling party since like, the 1930s?) We've also had major, real-time proof that the polls are showing a consistent pro-Trump bias of 10 or more points, which is a huge error and keeps getting corrected whenever people actually vote, but the media will never admit that, because TRUMP IS WINNING WE ARE ALL DOOMZED!! We heard about how Biden might lose New Hampshire because he wasn't even on the ballot and that would be a critical embarrassment for him. He cruised easily with 68% (all write-in votes and FAR more than any other Democratic "candidate.") Meanwhile, Trump won New Hampshire by about 15% under what the polls had predicted for him (after doing the same and barely squeaking over 50% in Iowa, one of the whitest, most rural, most Trump-loving states in the nation). The number ballparked for Biden in the NV Democratic primary was something like 75%; he got over 90% (and twice as many votes as any candidate in the Republican Primary/Caucus/Whatever That Mess Was). The number for what he was supposed to get in the SC primary was in the high 60% (driven by the media's other favorite "Black voters are abandoning Biden" canard); he absolutely crushed it at 97% statewide. When Biden is winning by whopping margins and Trump is underperforming badly, in both cases by gaps of ten percent or more, it means the polls are simply not showing us an accurate state of the race. This could be because of media bias, bad data, selective polling, inability to actually connect with voters (especially young voters, who are about as likely to eat a live scorpion as to pick up an unsolicited phone call from an unknown number). This also shows up in:

Special elections. We've heard tons of Very Smart Punditry (derogatory) about how Democrats kicking ass in pretty much every competitive election since Roe was overturned in 2022 totally means nothing for the general election. (Of course, if the situation was reversed and Republicans were cleaning up at the same rate, we would be hearing nothing except how we're all destined for Eternal Trumpocracy... wait. no... we're still only hearing this. Weird.) In the last special election in early February, Democrat Tom Suozzi won back his old U.S House seat (NY-03) by over eight points, after polls had given him at most a two- or three-point edge. (Funnily, once again a Democrat did far better than the media is determined to insist, so Politico hilariously called a thumping eight-point win "edging it out.") This represents almost a 16-point blue swing from even just 2022, when The Congressman Possibly Known as George Santos won it by 7 points. On that same night, a Democratic candidate in a Trump +26 district in deep, deep red Oklahoma only lost by 5 points, marking another massive pro-blue swing. This has been the case in every special election since Roe went down. Apparently blah blah This Won't Translate to the General Election, because the media is very smart. Even when Democrats (historically hard to motivate and muster in off-year election cycles, or you know in general) are turning up in elections that don't involve Trump to punish terrible Trumpist policies, we're supposed to think they won't be motivated to actually vote against the guy himself? And not just them, because:

Trump is a terrible candidate. Which we know, and have always known, but now it's really true. We've had up to half of Haley voters stating they will vote for Biden over Trump if that is the November matchup (which it will be). Haley, amusingly, actually outraised Trump in January, because it turns out that the Trump Crime Family's open promise to send every single donor or RNC dollar to pay El Trumpo's legal fees hasn't been a terribly effective message. We had Republicans in NY-03 telling CNN that they voted for the Democrat Suozzi because they're so fed up with the GOP clown show in the House and don't think Republicans can govern (which uh. Yeah. Welcome to reality, we all knew that ages ago too). We have had up to a third of Republican voters saying they won't vote for Trump if he's convicted of a felony before the election (and technically he already has been, but we're still hoping for the January 6 trial to go ahead). Now, yes, Republicans are a notoriously cliquey bunch and might change their minds, but for all the endless bullshit BIDEN SHOULD STEP DOWN BECAUSE DEMOCRATS ARE DISUNITED narrative the media has been pushing like their kidnapped grandmothers' lives depend on it, Democrats aren't actually disunited at all. Instead, Trump is in chaos, the GOP is in chaos, sizeable chunks of Republican voters are ready to vote for someone else and in some cases have already done so, and yet, do we hear a peep about how Trump should step down? Nah. In related news, did you hear that Biden is old?!?! Why isn't anyone writing about this?!?!

Now, I want to make it clear: Trump's chances of winning are not zero, and they are not inconsiderable. We need to face that fact and deal with it accordingly. Large chunks of the country are still willing to vote for white Christian nationalist fascism. Trump still has plenty of diehard cultists and the entire establishment Republican party in his pocket, and it's been made very clear that Putin is bringing the full force of his malevolent Russian fascist machine to bear on this election as well. Case in point: we spent four years hearing about HUNTER BIDEN HUNTER BIDEN SECRET CORRUPTION GIANT SECRET BUSINESS SCANDAL, and it turns out that the GOP's "star informant" has been actively working with Russian spies the whole time and fed them complete bullshit disinformation, which they were eager to repeat so long as it might hurt Joe Biden. (And it would hurt Ukraine, so, twofer! I cannot emphasize enough how much it was all a deliberate collaboration by some of the worst people on earth.)

In 2016, people naively assumed that Trump could never win, and so they were especially willing to throw away, spoil, or otherwise not exercise their vote, or throw purity hissy fits over HRC (likewise fed at the toxic teat of Russian disinformation). That was exactly what allowed Trump to squeak out a win in the EC and put us in the mess we are currently in. If people act in the same way in 2024 that they did in 2016, Trump's chances of winning are drastically increased. So once again, as I keep saying, it's up to us. If we all vote blue, and we get our networks to vote blue, Biden is very likely to win. If we don't, he won't, and Trump will win. It's that simple. We had better decide what we're doing. The end.

[bestsynthpop]

Quarterfinal match-ups!

The quarterfinals are here! These polls are brutal, no apologies! One song has gotta win this thing, and the competition is FIERCE!

Soft Cell: Tainted Love vs. Kate Bush: Running Up That Hill - Everybody's favorite 80's twink-king against a song so powerful it trancends the decades!

New Order: Blue Monday vs. Talking Heads: Burning Down the House - Iconic: Dance music as we know it would not exist without Blue Monday! But Burning Down the House is a New Wave classic with a banging synth line.

Depeche Mode: Enjoy the Silence vs. Personal Jesus - Y'all knew this poll was coming! Who will you vote for: Martin Gore and Dave Gahan? Or Dave Gahan and Martin Gore?

Eurythmics: Sweet Dreams vs. Donna Summer: I Feel Love - This match-up breaks my heart! There's nothing I can say. Have at it guys, I just can't watch….

[imall4frogs]

From the page:

After three hours of oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, only one thing is certain: If the justices want to blow up federal elections, they will have nothing to hide behind—not history, not logic, and certainly not the Constitution. The three lawyers defending democracy methodically dismantled the “independent state legislature” theory from every conceivable angle, debunking each myth, misreading, and misrepresentation deployed to prop it up. They bested the conservative justices who tried to corner them, identifying faulty reasoning and bogus history with devastating precision.

Those of us who’ve been ringing the alarm over this dangerous theory—and who’ve been disgusted by the campaign to drag it from the far-right fringe all the way to the Supreme Court—can take solace knowing that these capable lawyers exposed it as an utter fraud. This idea was at the center of Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, so it was a relief to hear five justices sound deeply skeptical that it has any basis in the Constitution. It is far too early to celebrate the demise of the independent state legislature theory, since four justices have already endorsed it. But the skepticism it faced at arguments suggests that democracy has a fighting chance of survival.

The “independent state legislature theory” is a legal fantasy designed to allow state legislatures to elect Presidents rather than the citizens of the U.S. Where federal elections are concerned this “theory” would allow any State Legislature to violate its own State Constitution! This “theory” made an appearance in Bush vs. Gore. This “theory” was the linchpin in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election (fake Electors). This “theory” presents a clear danger to constitutional democracy.

The timber of oral arguments on Wednesday suggested that this “theory” will fail in a five-to-four split ruling, but that outcome is far from certain. In truth this case should never have been brought before the Supreme Court, but here we are. How many more near-death moments can democracy survive?

[liesmyth]

confession time: i was the nasty gall-on-gall Bush v Gore anon from a while ago.

well! today, i was driving through the hipster part of town, and there's a new indie bookstore called Third House Books. i didn't have time to stop, but what if? they have sick pornographies?

BUSH VS GORE oh my god I remember it. one of my most cursed anons ever <3

not to ask you to doxx yourself but you HAVE to take a picture of the interior of that shop

[phatburd]

I'm going to repost something I wrote about Booker in an ask into its own separate post, because some people need to hear it.

~~

Booker is not inherently selfish. Full stop.

Let me explain. In the early 2000s I was going through a really bad mental health patch. I kinda fell apart professionally and personally in the aftermath of Bush vs. Gore and pretty much hated everyone and everything.

I don’t know how many people here are old enough to remember the discussions around “enhanced interrogations.” In my really bad psychological state, I read a book that discussed the use of torture through the ages and its ineffectiveness as a tool to gather intelligence. This is because everyone has a breaking point, where they will do anything, say anything, agree to anything, just to escape the pain.

This is the point where I realized the same thing applied to depression and suicidal ideation. At some point, the pain of living becomes so goddamn intense, a person develops tunnel vision and will do anything to stop their own pain. Depression is torture without any visible mechanism. In that case, is it selfish to end your own pain?

This is where shitheads will say, “But what about all other people in your life? You’re selfish because you’ll hurt them!” No, they don’t fucking get it. That’s counterproductive because a person that far down in the hole will think, “Well, maybe they’ll be better off without me then.” The pain is so intense, you’re not thinking of others because you can’t. You just want it to end by any means necessary.

What does this have to do with Booker? Yeah, this is the mental state I imagine Booker to have been in for longer than most people have been alive. He wants it to end and he will do whatever it takes, including agreeing to things he probably wouldn’t have if he wasn’t in that mental state.

Is wanting to end your own pain weak or selfish? I’d say no. Anyone who says yes hasn’t been there, and I hope they never reach that breaking point to understand what it feels like.

[strawbg1rl]

⋆｡‧˚ʚMel's girlblogɞ˚‧｡⋆

Welcome to my blog, my name is Melina but you can call me Mel

𐙚⋆.˚.

16

I use she/they pronouns

Aries sun Gemini moon Leo rising

Infp if you care abt that sort of thing

I'm a proud man-hater ever tho I'm bisexual

My bday is April 9th

I practice witchcraft or at least I try (any tips/help would be greatly appreciated)

I like to do things really over the top I physically cannot be basic I need every aspect of me and my blog to be unique

If I follow you back it means I stalked your blog, I loved it and now I'm in love with you<3

Things I love౨ৎ˚₊✩

fashion, going thrifting, makeup, hello kitty, listening to music, my record player,my gf lana del rey, reading, tarot cards, photography, winter and spring, journaling, gossiping with my mutuals, making pinterest boards, my spotify playlists, watching films, drawing, riot grrl music, when people recommend me things like films to watch or artists to listen to, and ofc my tumblr

.⁠｡⁠*⁠♡Films/shows I'm obsessed with:

the virgin suicides, coraline, the craft, the love witch, black swan, girl interrupted, the sixth sense, the shining, perfect blue, pearl, buffalo 66', edward scissorhands, corpse bride, princess diaries, the perks of being a wallflower, scott pilgrim vs the world,eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, se7en,fight club, kill bill,nana,paradise kiss, american horror story, skins,gilmore girls, I believe in unicorns, easy a, marie antoinette, I tonya, gone girl, inglorious bastards, the secrets of moonacre (I'm probably forgetting some but anyways)

My very random music taste⊰⁠⊹ฺ

fiona apple, lana del rey, mazzy star, mitski, hole, bikini kill, le tigre, babes in toyland, bratmobile, melanie martinez, bjork, camille jansen, dazey and the scouts, ha vay, joy division, kate bush, kittie, laufey, leslie gore, placebo, queen, radiohead, the cure, the smiths, system of a down, the doors, tommy february6, the velvet underground, david bowie, the cardigans, depeche mode, cocteau twins, wham, mars argo, marina and the diamonds

DNI if:

you're a p0rn/nsfw blog, racist, a terf, a pedophile, or just a weirdo that wants to cause harm I don't like you don't interact I will block you

My depop:

My pinterest:

[luckyladylily]

What do you think about Arab Americans refusing to vote Democrat unless they condemn the genocide in Gaza? I kinda feel like every post I've seen arguing against refusing to vote sidesteps that whole issue, including your own. Asking you specifically because you at least acknowledge the genocide in the post.

Alright, so the problem in Gaza is not a democrat problem, its an America problem. This is not about who is currently in power, but about 70 years of foreign policy and over seas American interests. The democrats will never abandon that because a relatively small amount of us on the left threaten to withhold our vote. Once again, it comes down to simple election math. I've explained this before on this blog again and again.

Depending on your area, progressives are up to around 10% of the population, and losing a progressive vote costs the democrat one vote. Centrists make up a minimum of 15%, with even greater numbers in the swing states that actually matter. And a centrist flipping from democrat to republican effectively costs 2 votes for the democrats - a flipped vote for republicans hurts twice as much as losing a leftist. This means that for any action they make to appease the left they have to gain twice as many votes as they lose centrists.

If the left wants to play this kind of election game we need to establish ourselves as a powerful voting block. But for the past 30 years people on the left have been hemming and hawing about voting in elections like Hilary vs Trump and Gore vs Bush and not showing up when it is clearly in our best interest. We have not done what is necessary to establish ourselves as a powerful voting block. If we had, if we hadn't been such lazy cowards about voting strategically, if we had established ourselves as an important, core voting block for the democrats then maybe we could attempt a move like this now. But we didn't. We were a bunch of useless cowards wringing our hands about how Hillary Clinton just didn't excite us, so why the fuck would the establishment democrats give a shit? We are a fickle, useless voting base that couldn't even take California for Bernie.

Meanwhile centrists are extremely reliable. That is a voting block with an extremely strong record. They will vote in high numbers every election in every state, especially swing states. And if they do not vote democrat, they will vote republican.

So on the one hand, we have the left, a small, unreliable, and fickle voting block, and on the other hand we have centrists, a sizable, reliable, consistent voting block that effectively counts double. Who do you think they are going to cater to?

If we want to use electoral politics like this to force change then we are going to need to put a lot of work over a long period of time. Work we on the left have not taken seriously for decades. It is absurd to think that we can suddenly enter the game at this late date and be taken seriously as a voting block. It's asinine.

For that matter, if we really wanted to avert this genocide happening now we should have been working at it seriously for decades. We've all seen the posts by now and read the history, this has been coming for decades. It was just a matter of when it was convenient for Israel to pull the trigger. But we, as the left, have not been making the concerted effort to influence moderate politics that would be required to shift American foreign policy like this. No, far too many of us have been so very concerned about keeping our personal hands clean or just being fucking lazy and not wanting to talk to moderates because it's not as fun as calling for le epic revolution. If every progressive for the past 30 years had made a strong effort to teach the basics of anti colonial politics to the general moderate left, centrist, and moderate right populations, using well considered arguments that appeal to their sensibilities, then this genocide might have been stopped in its infancy. Instead, we didn't. We sat around and complained about racist uncles and dropped friends at the first sign of them being less than perfect and created insular, echo chamber communities where we yell about settlers and a bunch of other bullshit and did nothing. We didn't do the work required. Trying to patch that over in a panic with electoral politics, which we also didn't do the work for, is terrible strategy. No one will be impressed.

And its not like the left's heart has really be in it for fighting this genocide, not completely. Oh, we made a reasonable effort at protest, but since we didn't do the work in either electoral politics or grassroots politics our entire strategy has had to rely on mass protest, which frankly we have not done to nearly the degree required to make up for our other shortcomings. Do you remember the 2020 BLM protests? We have never come close to that kind of disruption in our anti genocide protests. Which is understandable, protesting is dangerous and costly and difficult, but because we were too lazy or high minded to engage in either electoral strategies or mass grassroots conversion strategies up to this point mass protest is all we've got. We bet everything on protests and outrage. But it's not enough. The great flaw of betting everything on protest and outrage is that we can't keep it up forever because it is so costly. We are burnt out from years of protesting and dealing with Covid. It wasn't a month after this whole mess started that people were talking about fatigue and burnout. We don't have near the means or will to deliver the kind of mass riots that would be required to force an abrupt and massive change to American foreign policy. We might be able to cut the genocide short if we keep it up, and therefore we should absolutely keep it up, but frankly stopping it in its tracks was never in the cards for a political group as weak as the US left.

I understand the frustration or even hatred people feel towards democrats right now, I really fucking get it, but doubling down on proven failed strategies in a panic is not the answer. If we start establishing ourselves as an effective voting block now and we start a concerted effort to reach out to moderates and centrists now maybe in 20 years, if we are lucky, we will be powerful enough to throw around our weight with electoral politics. Maybe we will make it in time to avert the next genocide, or maybe us holding that kind of power will mean it never comes to genocide in the first place. But until that time we have no choice but to work within the constraints the failures of the US left of the past decades have left us with.

So I understand the idea, but I am sorry to say it simply will not work. As I said in my other post, the *only* thing you should be thinking of at an election is how it will effect your political goals. For the near future at the very least, vote withholding strategies will not advance any of our political goals and will almost certainly hinder many of them. It is a bad strategy and should not be employed.

[lunarmothmann]

bc its fall now and im wanting an excuse to talk abt Halloween, RTC HALLOWEEN HCS!!

ive never done one of these before, but there's a first time for everything!

(these are all angst free! its all fun little ideas and stuff based off of my own friends back when we spent Halloween together)

tw : mentions of gore (nothing expicit, the word gore is just used a few times)

- Ocean and Constance HATE being scared. Constance will 100% start crying if she gets scared really bad, while Ocean will just fall on the ground and refuse to get up until the immediate threat is gone (even tho she is completely safe)

- Penny loves Halloween for the sole reason of scaring the absolute shit out of Constance and Ocean. she plans it out WEEKS in advance, and the other two dread it bc Penny can be really scary when she wants to be

- Noel also hates being scared, but he blows it off, despite always flinching whenever he gets scared. one time, Penny hid in a bush and grabbed him by the ankles when he wasn't looking and he screamed so loud that everyone outside just. stopped. and stared at him.

- Mischa, Penny, and Noel all love one thing when it comes to Halloween, and that's gore. We already know Mischa loves gorey movies like Saw, and Penny just has twisted vibes, but Noel has a dark sort of humor that makes it so he can enjoy the more grotesque parts of the holiday, aside from the more family-friendly stuff

- the whole group still goes trick or treating, mainly for Penny and Ricky's sake, but they all have fun

- Ricky makes everyone's costumes, he asks everyone 2 months in advance what they want and then goes HAM

- Penny picks the most obscure things as costumes. she's like "I wanna be a vacuum" and Ricky just goes with it

- Mischa has absolutely gone as Ash from The Evil Dead before. He wore it multiple years in a row and was pretty upset when he outgrew it (bc theyre teenagers and growth spurts happen). otherwise my man is always someone from a horror movie. Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, you pick.

- Constance and Ocean are usually pretty basic with their costumes, typically going as witches, zombies, etc etc.

- Noel is just constantly going as iconic women in queer media/cult classics. Heather Chandler from Heathers (probably the musical version), one of the Sandersons from Hocus Pocus (either Winifred or Sarah), etc. He's fr running out of ideas.

- Ricky is a cat. every single year. but it just gets gradually more realistic until it eventually gets CGI Cats level freaky.

- i feel like its a universal experience for someone to trip and fall while trick or treating every year. do I even need to say it? its Ocean. every year, without fail, Ocean wipes out on Halloween. she's mainly unphased, aside from being slightly scraped up, but now the whole group makes jokes abt when they think she'll fall

- they all have a movie marathon where they each pick one movie and just eat candy and hang out. they usually pick the same movie every year.

- Ricky picks Ghostbusters. I dont need to elaborate.

- Penny picks Corpse Bride. i hc she likes animated movies, and its a classic.

- Noel picks Rocky Horror Picture Show. like, come on. it makes sense.

- Ocean picks Hocus Pocus. it literally isn't scary at all (which is one reason why she picks it) and she believes its the "superior Halloween movie"

- Constance pick Nightmare Before Christmas. its just a fun movie that everyone enjoys, regardless of the "Halloween movie vs Christmas movie" debate that the group has EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. (they watch it for both. it literally doesn't matter)

- Mischa picks Saw V (even tho the movie he describes in rtc is Saw VI). he gets confused EVERY YEAR wondering where certain parts that he remembered are, never realizing he picked the wrong movie. nobody corrects him.

- it always turns into a sleepover, whether they plan on it or not. its either at Mischa's or Constance's, so its not an uncommon thing for there to be at least 1 random teenager in their house at any given time.

im out of ideas, I might make a part 2 eventually but thats it for rn :)

[popolitiko]

After initially finding some common ground on the matter of Donald Trump's 14th amendment constitutional challenges conservative writer Andrew Sullivan had a heated exchange with MSNBC commentator Ari Melber on Real Time with Bill Maher about to what extent both sides the progressive left and the Democratic party versus the progressive right and the Republican Party are responsible for the current toxic state of American politics.

We have a couple of Clips to look at in this video and I'll say the most recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher a show that I don't follow that much anymore was actually pretty good fodder for commentary.

We just did a video about the interview between Maher and Gavin Newsome the governor of California.

But this exchange between Sullivan and Melber who are two political commentators of two very different political lenses was fascinating to me because it spoke to one of the things that we complain about quite a bit on this channel which is the urge of centrists and conservatives and even some on the left to create this artificial balance - this false equivalence between two imperfect but still wildly and fundamentally different political factions and so with that in mind I want to play this clip and for context Maher is going to ask about or ask these two about  a recent story about a right-wing Republican Trump Ally wanting to do something pretty drastic.

Maher: So Roger Stone one of his favorites. This is amazing that I mean it was not a big story I would think it would be media I reported it.   there a tape he's talking about killing people for Trump I not saying with Trump's approval but he says it's time to do it let's go find that's Congressman Swalwell it's time to do it then we'll see how Brave the rest of them are it's either Swalwell or Nadler has to die before the election let's go find Swalwell and get this over with.  That’s not right is it? I mean I feel like we're spinning out of control a little here with this…

Sullivan: I think what Trump set in motion and what the divisions of the country has done and what the Democrats have done the last four years which has respond to Trump by going even further to the left means that we are losing the legitimacy of the system and that is the critical thing when you lose that core legitimacy you lose your democracy that's where we're really going to lose our democracy because we don't believe in it anymore and you can see that the result of that the way this works is you start disbelieving in all the institutions and then you say who do I want you want a strong man you want someone to come in and cut all the knots this is the classic case of how you lose a democracy yeah and he's almost certainly going to be there he's going to win this election.

So before Melber responds I just want to remind you okay Maher just provided a recent story which in my opinion was hella under reported about a very close Trump Ally a guy who worked on Trump's 2016 campaign Roger Stone in private scheming about murdering two Democratic Congress people.  Okay so that is a right-winger scheming to perpetrate a heinous crime against two left-wing public officials and you know Andrew Sullivan's first instinct to say yeah Trump kind of set this emotion but man the Democrats they've really pushed far left so that's the context just to remind you and this is how Ari Melber responds.

Melber: I think you make Fair points Andrew but you sound a little bit both sidese I don't know if that's on purpose. But there are absolutely problems with the Democratic Party and the overreaction to Trump.  We just spoke about the ballot case and its thinness and we cover that all the time on the news.  But there's not equivalence here on the problems that you just referred to…

There’s not equivalence on political violence

There’s not equivalence on responding to court cases.

Bush vs. Gore was very controversial but there was no violent response and there was not any mainstream response from Democrats about overthrowing the certification.  Al Gore actually showed up on Jan 6 remember it was that date and certified it so there isn't a bothsidesism to this Decay and what Trump does   And I agree at times he may draw his opponents into messy dumb feuds but he is the one banking on a cynicism an attack on democracy and a complete rejection of the policy democracy that you want because they didn't even have a platform so he's saying “It's just me. You don't even know what I'm going to do just vote for me”.   No platform and you've got a whole Republican party that's basically codifying that.

So Sullivan's about to respond but I just want to emphasize Melber's response there was very accurate very honest and I would argue perhaps even charitable to a fault. He went out of his way to acknowledge -- which is something Republicans very rarely do if ever -- that there are issues with the Democratic Party and he said it repeatedly and he also reminded Sullivan of the Common Ground that they shared earlier in this interview because both of them think that the 14th Amendment challenges to Donald Trump's eligibility are weak and this is coming from an MSNBC legal commentator and he's publicly admitting that at least from his perspective (I completely disagree)  but that's his perspective. So he's again going out of his way to try to establish some commonality and reiterate that with Sullivan while also saying you can't create a false equivalence here if you do I'm going to reject it.

Note how Sullivan responds

Sullivan: It would be good at MSNBC if you actually did think about both sides and weigh the arguments and make constructive arguments against that side while respecting them. You don't do that. It’s propaganda all the time.

Melber: What you just said - just describe my show. I had a trump lawyer on this week I've had Steve Bannon on my show I've had officials … So describing a goal that I'm achieving I take that as a compliment

Sullivan:  well you might.

You can tell there's obvious tension there.  But also know Andrew Sullivan started to say something before Melber cut him off--  which was you know… he’s like… you should make constructive arguments … and respect the people that are making those arguments.

Well and here's the thing -- Melber just did that.  Melber just said -  and then he goes on to say Sullivan does that you know you're denying the denying and he was clearly starting to say that you're denying that Democrats do  anything wrong but Melber actually said that to the contrary.  He’s like there are issues with the Democratic Party and he talks about how the Democratic Party will fall for various rhetorical traps of Trumps and perhaps overreach from time to time in their criticism of him so again he was generous reiterating the common ground and making it very clear that he doesn't think the Democratic Party is perfect.  That went right over Andrew Sullivan's head because even though Andrew Sullivan by the way and he even mentioned it in this interview he doesn't like Trump he thinks that Trump is dangerous he doesn't he won't vote for Trump I want to be very clear he's an anti-trump conservative he still is compelled to try to create some artificial balance between his side and the opposition when his side is very clearly in the wrong far more often.  They have fewer facts on their side there are much many more moral transgressions on their side and Sullivan is not prepared to confront that fact right.

He’s prepared to seed the ground on Trump but he… well uh… you know listen… well the left has its problems too

Well listen if you're going to be an honest conservative if you believe in conservative principles which presumably Andrew Sullivan does

You should also have the Integrity to admit that… yeah right now … like Liz Cheney.   I don't like Liz Cheney.  Liz Cheney's voting record and her policies are terrible but Liz Cheney will admit and has admitted publicly that right now there is a bigger problem by far with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party.   and this is coming from not just a lifelong conservative but somebody who was a lifelong Republican and a republican public official right and even she has found the fortitude to say that right now it's not a both sides issue not that both sides are perfect but one is much worse than the other

Andrew Sullivan doesn't have the courage to admit it and he's so biased in that respect that even when Ari Melber says yeah the Democratic Party has its faults.

Sullivan doesn't hear.   “You deny that there's any problem with the Democratic Party”.

Well no I don't.   But the other thing I want to focus on is this idea that you know listen you should be able to give constructive criticisms of the right while still respecting the right and we've talked about this before again that asymmetry of expectation.

When is the shoe ever on the other foot?

I think it was yeah Nicholas Grossman wrote this article in the Bullwork back in August of last year “The media still doesn't get Biden voters”.

We’re not going to read the whole thing but just to give you a bit of a refresher.

“Conservative and mainstream media don't agree on much but one point of consensus is that everyone should work harder to understand Trump supporters. The implicit message you don't have to agree with the populist right but you should be listening to empathizing with and engaging with them more

And he gives two various examples.

Actually numerous examples of like a New York Times article and Matt Yglesias who is like a liberal leaning Centrist always talking about how important it is to show empathy and understanding for the right.

But this is what Grossman points out:

“Seeing these arguments I was struck by the asymmetry of our political moment. I've never seen Centrist like Iglesias say to people on the right or Center that it's important to read progressives  (even if they're super woke or whatever left-wing equivalent of Hanania’s racism is). Nor have I ever seen traditional conservatives like David Brooks call for empathy with people on the left or claim that any left-wing extremism is merely an inevitable reaction to Centrist and conservative Elites mistakes.  Reporters don't do safaris to Biden country seeking to understand what the voters who put him in the white house while there are pieces explaining how for example black women in Georgia suburbs made a big difference in the 2020 election there's nothing approaching the ongoing coverage of white men in Ohio diners.

And so on and so forth and he goes on and he makes the case like listen you know to whatever extent it is the moral obligation of the left to understand the right by definition the right has the same obligation.  Especially when and very often they're in a position of minority. There are more people who vote Democrat - so if Republicans want to win more elections perhaps they should also take time - like damn why are people voting against Donald Trump? Why are people voting for Joe Biden or Barack Obama or whoever it may be?

But again that's never the expectation.  Andrew Sullivan doesn't talk about that. Conservatives and Centrist don't talk about that. It’s always the impetus is always on the left to understand the right.   Democrats to understand Republicans.

And my position is this - if that is an obligation - it is it is by definition and it's non-negotiable it has to be reciprocal.

If the left has to understand the right - the right must understand the left.

The left's... you know Fox News and others as well they should be asking “why do so many people hate our party's front runner?” but nobody asked that question -- and it's always blamed on TDS Trump Derangement Syndrome.

This asymmetry is disgusting it really is- and I love the fact that Ari Melber publicly called it out you know.  So I think that was a great exchange and I think it further illustrated the weakness of conservatives and centrists again they cannot function

Everyone is always beholden to them everyone must come to them and understand them and understand their views and perhaps so -- but they should reciprocate they have a moral obligation to do so.

Ari Melber very clearly won that argument and you can see it with how upset Andrew Sullivan got how triggered he got and I love it

I love seeing that exposure of the weakness of centrists and conservatives and their snowflakes. They just can't handle it.

 So let me know what you think in the comments

---------------------------------------------------

Comments * I appreciate Ari Melber for his opinions on this awful show with Bill Maher. * Ari attempted to use logic and intelligence while Sullivan tried to be a prick. * Having watched Andrew Sullivan for more than a decade on the show, it’s great to see someone call him out on his nonsense. This is par for the course for Andrew and his narcissistic view of self. Love you Ari! *

*https://youtu.be/6DHvGrxRnCM?si=1sQZ-mvPysa_d-6x

[solar-sunnyside-up]

Im pretty sure thats the post that other anon was talking about. They didn't put it real well but they are kinda right.

Things are not as they were. Unless major reform is enacted a third party will never win in the usa. Not as it is. And any hope of reform will disappear if we get another red prez. Between gerrymandering and the electoral college and the pearl clutching moderates who get scared of progressives, to Republicans with no morals who will 100% vote red without hesitation. We effectively only have 2 parties. At least for now.

A Republican candidate hasn't won the popular vote in decades yet they somehow keep running things.

Everyone I know is scared. Scared this will be our last election next year. But no one is more scared than the disabled. We are terrified. Theres a lot of chatter from the right about "dealing" with us and other "freeloaders" we are legitimately scared for our lives.

Protest votes is what gave us that disaster in 2016 and why roe vs wade is gone now. If they win again they are going to push the rest of their agenda through. These posts about refusing to vote or voting third party are exactly like they were in 2016. We've been down this road once already.

If given the choice of neglect vs active homicidal intent we all have at least a chance to survive neglect.

And neglect gives us time to do something. Work locally. Try and push for reform. It's horrible but it's what we have. And for most disabled it's ALL we have. We can't run, other countries won't take us.

I've even seen some scream about revolution but with zero plans for us. What will their revolution do with us? Will we still have our medical access? Will we still be taken care of? Or will the wheels of the revolution be greased with our blood?

K so this is a lot for first in the morning, and I'm glad that someone has explained it a bit more detail bc I cannot stress this enough IM CANADIAN we live with a mutli party system. We, like most of democracies in the world, function with multiple parties at play. And tbh? They still use "splitting the vote is dangerous" talking point here. Here, it's used to prevent ppl from voting for actual reform in government. It's used to say "Green party will never win in they're trying to do rent caps and UBI!" Despite these being popular standing points with many many ppl and honestly the only reason ppl haven't voted them in is bc of this fear tactic. And yet this year, they've come in 3rd place if not 1st in several towns, cities, and providences. They've made headway, and also a lot of liberal ideals and NDP talking points are just old green party ones so ppl want those policies. But if it wasn't for those tree huggers 10 yrs ago fighting, and losing and being made fun of, as a seperate party and forcing them to move that direction they never would.

And let's be clear, Trump won bc of electoral collage he did not win popular vote in 2016 you where overruled the vote didnt matter. Just like Bush did against Al Gore in 2000

That doesn't mean its hopeless or that you shluldnt vote particularlly on local levels. More ppl then ever in history are voting!! Turn outs are the highest they've been since 1950s!! (Also the last peak in union reforms btw) It's scary flipping parties, you might loose to Democrats or Republicans. It will be horrible. But yall are on the cusp of a civil war and fascism anyway, as an outsider who should hold little say over what you choose in this election, I'd still endorse the 3rd party. idk yall your system seems fucked and legit doesn't seem to care how you vote so scare them into using your vote for someone else and make them admit they're not actually counting your votes.

If there's so many ppl like a different policy and candidate it forms another party then you NEED a different party to have a voice anyway. Even if it's in defeat it must exist and I'll happily be on the loosing side.

These are talking points that are used to stagnate progress and to (rightfully) scare ppl into voting for someone they don't like. So if it scares you too much, i wont be upset with however you vote. Its yours. It's scary out here no matter the outcome rn. But I can't let myself be shaken when there is hope and I will personally work for that hope so it's no longer a scary option for those who can't afford the choice.

[athetos]

So insane that bush vs gore wasn’t about pubic hair vs internal organs. Because if it was how would I vote? They’re both beautiful.

[fandomsandfeminism]

Ok, so I was curious if the way Nebraska and Maine split their electoral votes would actually get elections closer to their popular vote outcomes.

So, the way they do it, each congressional district does a popular vote for 1 Electoral vote, then the winner of the state popular vote gets 2 additional points.

Let's look at 2000 first. Now, we are going to assume that the way the congressional districts broke down for their elections would also be how they voted for President (not inherently true, especially in really close races, but....close enough.)

The Republican Party won 221 seats, while the Democratic Party won 212 and independents won two.

30 States went to Bush in the popular vote. So +60

That means 20 states went to Gore (+40) plus all 3 of DC's votes.

So 281 vs 255. Bush still wins, and by a much wider margin than he actually did.

Ok, let's look to 2016.

241 R vs 194 D. 30 States to Trump (+60) and 20 to Clinton (+40) plus DC (+3).

301 Trump v 237. So Trump still wins, though by a slightly smaller margin.

So....no. This system doesn't really seem to help end results. The issue remains that population density isn't uniform- so dense populations (Like LA or Houston) end up getting under counted compared to the vast swaths of sparsely populated congressional districts. And while the democrats will end up with *some* votes from Texas, and Republicans will end up with *some* votes from California, these don't have the proportionate outcome they should because of that imbalance.

This system still over-rewards candidates for winning by very very slim margins as well. Winning by 51% gets the same result as winning by 90%. In 2016, the actual votes for congress, by party, broke down to 49.1% vs 48.0%, but the seats ended up 241 v 194, because the Republicans won a lot of those races by very very very tight margins, while Democrats tended to win theirs by much wider margins (and in larger districts).

Look at these races from Texas's congressional election in 2020 for example:

863,875 votes for Democrats vs 852,932 votes for Republicans. That's a 50/50 split, but 80% of the seats went to Republicans. Now, this is an example to show the most extreme cases. Statewide, Democrats got 44% of Congress votes in Texas, but hold only 36% of the seats. Yay Gerrymandering- Go look up Texas Congressional District 35! (It's where I grew up!)

It's drawn that way to pack in blue votes from Austin, San Marcos, and much of SA, and keep the surrounding districts (Hays, Bexar, and Comal county especially) from swinging to 51% blue. So. It IS a problem (But not an 80% problem. lol)

Now, that said, I do think it has *some* advantages over the pure EC. More, smaller, popular vote elections does mean that states aren't *as* likely to go 100% for one candidate or another (it does still happen though. Imagine if Party A won every congressional race for 51%. You'd still end up with 100% Party A, and 0% Party B, when it should be an even split. This is why Gerrymandering happens.)

It would also reduce the influence of "Swing States" a lot- this is probably the biggest advantage. There are a lot more "swing districts" than "swing states" and it would spread that influence around more.