#also I hope those numbers are correct I had to recount twice

[hollysoda]

I rant about Mario Kart Wii because I can

So the final wave of the Mario Kart 8 booster course pass is coming out next week and obviously I am super excited for it!! The new courses look awesome, and I can’t wait to try out the new characters, but since it’s the last wave I am a bit sad as well. There were so many courses that deserved to be remade into Mario Kart 8, but what was the roster mostly made up of instead?

Wii tracks

I do love Mario Kart Wii with all of my heart, it was my first Mario Kart experience and one of the first video games I ever played as a child, but holy shit. It got WAYYY too much representation

Here’s a list of all Mario Kart Wii nitro tracks in Mario Kart 8

Base game + WiiU DLC:

Moo Moo Meadows

Grumble Volcano

Wario’s Goldmine

DLC:

Coconut Mall

Mushroom Gorge

Maple Treeway

DK’s Snowboard Cross

Moonview Highway

Koopa Cape

Daisy Circuit

Rainbow Road

Mario Kart Wii tracks not in the game:

Luigi Circuit

Toads Factory

Mario Circuit

Dry Dry Ruins

Bowser’s Castle

So out of the 16 nitro Wii courses only 5 didn’t make it into the game, which is kind of crazy. Not to mention all the retro tracks that were in Wii that also made it to MK8, like Peach Gardens (DS) and Waluigi Stadium (GCN)

How does that compare to the other games then?

Tour - 14 tracks (17 if counting Merry Mountain, Ninja Hideaway and Sky-High Sundae but tbh the amount of Tour tracks is just as much of a problem as Wii tracks)

Wii - 11 tracks

3DS - 8 tracks

GBA - 8 tracks

DS - 7 tracks

GCN - 7 tracks

N64 - 6 tracks

SNES - 4 tracks

That’s a pretty big difference.

Personally, to level out the numbers and bring back some tracks that deserved to be remade, I would drop Mushroom Gorge and Koopa Cape from the mix. Both were retro courses in MK7, and Mushroom Gorge has barely changed between MK7 and MK8, apart from one mushroom being removed and a higher quality version of the theme. Koopa Cape has had some minor changes: the underwater pipe is now antigravity and the MK8 version has mixed the gliders from MK7 with the half pipes from the original, but I just don’t think it needed it?

Another track that I’m not sure on is Moonview Highway. I love Moonview Highway, but wha are some other non-Tour city tracks with moving vehicles that have only been remade once/have never been remade? Mushroom Bridge and Mushroom City from Double Dash, though I’m leaning more towards Mushroom City since it has a similar vibe to Moonview Highway and has never been remade, whereas Mushroom Bridge was in MKDS.

I think Wario’s Galleon from MK7 would be a good stand in for Koopa Cape. Although it’s far from a tropical and upbeat track, it’s mostly water based, and even though it’s not one of my favourite 3DS tracks I think it would vastly benefit from antigravity since it’s layout already has some nearly vertical climbs. I was actually hoping for this track over Rosalina’s Ice World in the latest wave

As for Mushroom Gorge, I would put Airship Fortress in its place. There aren’t many similarities between the two, but goddamn it I just want a remake of this track is that too much to ask? It was my favourite DS track when I was younger, and I know it was in MK7 like Mushroom Gorge but I can actually see some improvements to be made!! Turn the spiralling tower into antigravity!! Have some singing Shy Guys added to the music because I know for a damn fact they’d be sitting inside the ship!! Add some really strong electric guitars to the music as well while you’re at it!! Nintendo are missing out big time give us Airship Fortress cowards!!

If they were still insistent on giving us 11 Wii courses at least bring back ones which have never been remade before. Toad’s Factory is an obvious choice. It’s a fan favourite and just a super cool track overall. It’s honestly a crime that it’s been stuck in MKWii all these years. Honestly Dry Dry Ruins and Bowser’s Castle could also be good for a remake but they’re nowhere near as popular

Other tracks that deserved to be included, in my very biased opinion, are: Wuhu Island Loop/Wuhu Mountain Loop, Shy Guy Bazaar, Luigi’s Mansion, Delfino Square, Dino Dino Jungle, Rainbow Road GCN, Shy Guy Beach (yeah I could just go on-)

To sum it up, Mario Kart Wii gets too much spotlight and other courses deserved a remake more than some of theirs. Also, I’m a nerd with a Mario Kart fixation, if you couldn’t tell already

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

FiveThirtyEight has issued its final presidential forecast. There hasn’t been a lot of change over the past 24 or 48 hours, as most of the late polling either came in close to our previous polling averages, or came from — frankly — fairly random pollsters that don’t get a lot of weight in our forecast.

Of course, you can click over to the forecast right now if you’d like to see what it says — I’m sure most of you have already done that. But in these accompanying write-ups, I like to provide some context. When I wrote about our final presidential forecast in 2012, for example, I was trying to explain why a race that everyone assumed was close actually reflected a fairly decisive advantage for Barack Obama. When I wrote about our final forecast in 2016, conversely, it was pretty much the opposite. I was trying to explain that, although Hillary Clinton was favored, what most of the media was portraying as a sure thing was a highly competitive contest between her and Donald Trump.

This year … I’m not really sure what I’m trying to convince you of. If you think that polling is irrevocably broken because of 2016 — well, that’s not really correct. On the other hand, if it weren’t for 2016, people might look at Joe Biden’s large lead in national polls — the largest of any candidate on the eve of the election since Bill Clinton in 1996 — and conclude that Trump was certain to be a one-term president. If you do think that, please read my story from earlier this week about how Trump can win and why a 10 percent chance needs to be taken seriously.

Nonetheless, Biden’s standing is considerably stronger than Clinton’s at the end of the 2016 race. His lead is larger than Clinton’s in every battleground state, and more than double her lead nationally. Our model forecasts Biden to win the popular vote by 8 percentage points,5 more than twice Clinton’s projected margin at the end of 2016.

Indeed, some of the dynamics that allowed Trump to prevail in 2016 wouldn’t seem to exist this year. There are considerably fewer undecided voters in this race — just 4.8 percent of voters say they’re undecided or plan to vote for third-party candidates, as compared to 12.5 percent at the end of 2016. And the polls have been considerably more stable this year than they were four years ago. Finally, unlike the “Comey letter” in the closing days of the campaign four years ago — when then-FBI Director James Comey told Congress that new evidence had turned up pertinent to the investigation into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state — there’s been no major development in the final 10 days to further shake up the race.

Now, there are also some sources of error that weren’t as relevant four years ago. The big surge in early and mail voting — around 100 million people have already voted! — could present challenges to pollsters, for instance. Still, even making what we think are fairly conservative assumptions, our final forecast has Biden with an 89 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, as compared to a 10 percent chance for Trump. (The remaining 1 percent reflects rounding error, plus the chance of an Electoral College tie.)

But what’s tricky about this race is that — because of Trump’s Electoral College advantage, which he largely carries over from 2016 — it wouldn’t take that big of a polling error in Trump’s favor to make the election interesting. Importantly, interesting isn’t the same thing as a likely Trump win; instead, the probable result of a 2016-style polling error would be a Biden victory but one that took some time to resolve and which could imperil Democrats’ chances of taking over the Senate. On the flip side, it wouldn’t take much of a polling error in Biden’s favor to turn 2020 into a historic landslide against Trump.

So as we did four years ago, let’s run through a few stress checks here. On average in past elections, the final polls have been off by around 3 percentage points. How would the map change if there were a 3-point error in Trump’s direction? And what about a 3-point error in Biden’s direction? Keeping in mind that some states move more than others in accordance with national trends, here’s what our final forecast shows:

How a 2016-sized polling error would change our forecast

Biden’s projected margin of victory or defeat in the most competitive states

with 3-point national error … State Final 538 Forecast IN BIDEN’S FAVOR IN TRUMP’S FAVOR New Hampshire +10.6 +14.5 +6.7 Minnesota +9.1 +12.1 +6.0 Wisconsin +8.3 +11.6 +5.1 Michigan +8.0 +11.2 +4.9 Nevada +6.1 +9.5 +2.8 Pennsylvania +4.7 +7.7 +1.7 NE-2 +3.2 +6.4 -0.0 Arizona +2.6 +5.8 -0.7 Florida +2.5 +5.7 -0.7 North Carolina +1.8 +4.7 -1.1 ME-2 +1.6 +4.8 -1.6 Georgia +1.0 +3.6 -1.6 Ohio -0.6 +2.5 -3.7 Iowa -1.5 +2.0 -5.0 Texas -1.5 +1.7 -4.7 Montana -6.4 -3.3 -9.5 South Carolina -7.5 -4.8 -10.2 Alaska -8.5 -5.3 -11.7 Missouri -9.4 -6.3 -12.5

First, before we get to the Biden-friendly or Trump-friendly scenarios: Suppose this is one of those happy years when there isn’t any systematic error in the polls — that is, Biden wins by about 8 points nationally. In that case, then Biden’s going to win the Electoral College, even if there might be polling misses in individual states. Biden’s easiest path to victory would be to win back three of the so-called “Blue Wall” states that Hillary Clinton lost: Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Coupled with the states that Clinton won in 2016, that would get Biden up to 278 electoral votes, more than the 270 required. Pennsylvania is the most tenuous of the “Blue Wall” group, but even if Biden lost it — unlikely if polls are about right overall — he’d have plenty of other options as he’s also narrowly ahead in our final forecast in Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and Georgia and only narrowly behind Trump in Ohio, Texas and Iowa.

What if there were a 3-point polling error in Biden’s favor? Then he’d be a favorite in all of the aforementioned states. Coupled with the 2nd Congressional Districts in Maine and Nebraska, where he’s also favored, that would result in his winning 413 electoral votes. Other states that are traditionally extremely red could even come into play for Biden too, with Montana being the most likely possibility, followed by South Carolina, Alaska and Missouri. This scenario would also make for an 11-point popular vote margin for Biden, the biggest by any candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984, and the biggest winning margin against an incumbent since Franklin Delano Roosevelt against Herbert Hoover in 1932.

But with a 3-point error in Trump’s direction — more or less what happened in 2016 — the race would become competitive. Biden would probably hold on, but he’d only be the outright favorite in states (and congressional districts) containing 279 electoral votes. In Pennsylvania, the tipping-point state, he’d be projected to win by 1.7 percentage points — not within the recount margin, but a close race.

Such a scenario would not be the end of the world for Biden. The extra cushion that he has relative to Clinton helps a lot; it means that with a 2016-style polling error, he’d narrowly win some states that she narrowly lost. Biden has polled well recently in Michigan and Wisconsin in particular and has big leads there. Still, this would not be the sort of outcome that Democrats were hoping for. For one thing, because Biden would probably be reliant on Pennsylvania in this scenario — a state that is expected to take some time to count its vote — the election might take longer to call. For another, it could yield a fairly bad map as far as Democrats’ Senate hopes go, as Biden would be a narrow underdog in several states with key Senate races, including Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia and Iowa. So while Biden isn’t a normal-sized polling error away from losing, he is a normal-sized polling error away from having a messy win that might not come with control of Congress.

Still, as much as we’ve tried to strike a note of caution, Democrats have a right to be pleased about where they wound up. Sure, Biden could be in a meaningly safer position with a larger polling lead in Pennsylvania or Arizona, where his numbers have slipped a bit down the stretch run. Nonetheless, if we’d told our Democratic readers six months ago that Biden would be heading into election morning ahead by 8 points nationally, also ahead by 8 points in Wisconsin and Michigan, by 5 points in Pennsylvania, by 2 or 3 points in Florida and Arizona, and even a little bit ahead in Georgia and with a pretty decent chance to win Texas, we think they’d be fairly pleased.

It’s also worth keeping in mind the background conditions in the country today. Trump only barely won the election four years ago, against a highly unpopular opponent in Clinton. In 2016, 18 percent of voters in the national exit poll disliked both Trump and Clinton, and those voters went for Trump by 17 points. If they’d merely split evenly, Clinton would have (narrowly) won the Electoral College. Many of those voters actually like Biden, though, who has much better favorability ratings than either Clinton or Trump.

Meanwhile, the election comes at a time where a 2:1 majority of voters are dissatisfied with the direction of the country amid a COVID-19 pandemic that his killed 233,000 Americans — and which has gotten worse in recent weeks — along with high (though improving) unemployment, a summer of racial protests, and continuous erosions of democratic norms by Trump and his administration. Trump’s approval rating has been in negative territory through virtually the entirety of his presidency. Trump’s electoral record is hardly unblemished: Democrats won the popular vote for the U.S. House by nearly 9 points in 2018, about the same margin that Trump now trails in national polls, in an election where polls and forecasts were highly accurate.

In other words, given everything going on in the country — and Biden’s popularity relative to Clinton — it simply shouldn’t be that hard to imagine a small number of voters switching from Trump to Biden. Indeed, that’s what polls show: There are more Trump-to-Biden voters than Clinton-to-Trump voters. The lion’s share of people who voted for Gary Johnson or another third party candidate four years ago also say they plan to vote for Biden.

Trump might be able to overcome this with a disproportionately high Republican turnout. But while Republican turnout might be very high, Democratic turnout almost certainly will be too, as evidenced by, among other things: Democrats’ equal or higher enthusiasm level in polls; their very high numbers in early and absentee voting, and their greater fundraising prowess throughout the cycle.

Again, this is not to deny that Trump will turn out his voters, too. Our model projects overall turnout in the race to be a record setting 158 million, with an 80th percentile range between 147 million and 168 million. But if persuadable voters and independents are mostly flipping to the other party, you need your turnout to be high and for the other party’s to be low to have much of a shot, and that latter condition doesn’t appear likely for Trump.

Still, 10 percent chances happen, there’s never been an election quite like this one and this isn’t a moment that anybody should be taking anything for granted. We hope you’ll follow our coverage for as long as it takes to determine who won.

[bellatrixobsessed1]

Wan High Weeping (Part 44)

Oh boy, the court scene, it’s 110% accurate. Trust me, I’m a professional, I’ve watched Judge Judy.

Also content warning on this chapter because it is from the perspective of the rapist and, naturally, he doesn’t have anything kind to say.

Jet scowled, jail time was doing him no good and his lawyer didn’t seem to have much interest in him. None of them did, not when the evidence stacked against him was so concrete. It was the day of his trial and frankly he couldn’t wait to see the face of that whore again. In fact he was thrilled to see both of his little sluts.

It may very well be the end of his run, but at least he could have the pleasure of seeing their discomforts one last time. At least he could rub it in Katara’s face what he had done. Maybe, if he was feeling up to it, he would rub it in that her mature and responsible brother was going to face a punishment of his own.

And TyLee. How he couldn’t wait to bring some fond memories to the surface. He had so many words to pick out. He was going to help fill in the cracks, clear any fuzzy surrounding his homecoming party.

Hell, he’d get Chan too if the man showed up.

Why not remind him of Ruon and how he couldn’t save him? The boy did do a number to Jet’s face. He deserved a good verbal beatdown too.

They removed him from his cell in cuffs. It would seem that he’d be cuffed for the duration of the trial. But that was fine, it was all okay. He didn’t need his hands to make them all squirm and blush. He didn’t need hands to inflict distress.  

Katara was already at the stand when he arrived, she looks annoyingly confident with her head held high and her eyes focused on the spot where the judge would soon stand. Behind her was TyLee, looking a little more fidgety. He’d break her, oh yes he would. Next to TyLee stood Sokka with a grim expression, looked like the man had already worked himself into a rage. He could exploit that too. If he was going to jail, he might as well bring someone with him.  Chan looked twice as easy to piss off, but he couldn’t see the man getting into too much trouble between his parents’ wallets and his age.

Katara’s parents were there too, he could see it in their eyes that they wanted to be standing as close to their daughter as they possibly could.

He stood before the court giving his sworn testimony. He tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth he would, in full and graphic detail.

Katara was all smug and mighty now, but she wouldn’t be by the time he was through.

They led him behind his podium where his defense attorney stood rigidly, looking as though life had dealt her the worst cards.

He listened to Katara babble on and on about how horrible she had it, how he had ruined her life. “I still wake up sometimes and it feels like his hands are on me.” She had emotional appeal down to a tee. He wished that she would skip the bullshit; the court was looking for facts not sniveling.

The judge looked up, her eyes landing on Katara. “Thank you Ms. Nanouk, but I would like you to tell me exactly what happened. I want to know of the events leading up to those nightmares.”

Katara nodded, “Right, I’m sorry. It was Halloween, Ch--Mr. Haga was throwing his yearly Halloween party and I decided to go. I was mostly with my friends, Aang and Suki, and I had my brother, Sokka. Every once in a while I would spot Jet in the crowd. He was just staring at me. And every time I noticed him, I went somewhere else. But he would always find me.  And then Sokka and Suki left me and I found TyLee.” She motioned to the girl. “So I thought that things would be okay. But then I started feeling...strange.  I think he put something in my drink. But at the time I thought that it was just stress and anxiety, so I tried to forget about it. Around that time, TyLee went to the bathroom and that’s when Jet found me…”

“And what happened after that?” The judge asked. Jet couldn’t help but grin, watching her get all squeamish at the question.

“He took me into a room, I don’t remember what the room looked like. I passed out and then I woke up in the hospital with pictures of me.” She paused, “of me  topless in my phone’s camera roll.”

His attorney spoke up. “But you have no concrete proof that Jet removed your shirt, nor that he put something in your drink. What is to say that you didn’t have drink or two and took your own shirt off? It would be easier to claim assault than to deal with people finding out that you had a little too much.”

Katara’s mouth opened and closed. It took all of Jet’s willpower to not remind everyone of the slut rumors.

“I-I.” She sputtered. “I have three witnesses to say I was assaulted.”

“Four if you include my phone.” TyLee spoke up.

“Do not speak unless addressed.”

“I’m sorry, your honor.” TyLee mumbled.

“Let me see the phone.”

TyLee placed it in the hands of the bailiff. He carried it up to the judge who reviews it. “I will present these clips to the jury.”

Jet smirked to himself as the footage rolled. Katara was growing increasingly uncomfortable, doing her best to look everywhere but at the clips. But the sound of his voice on record had her cringing throughout. A satisfactory sight, if he must say.

He hoped that it would haunt her.

The clip came to an end and he half listened to whatever the judge was saying. He saw TyLee step forward and listened to her recount the same tale as TyLee. And then Chan rehashed it as well. Jet wondered just how much restraint it was taking him to not burst in front of the judge--a lot if his grip on the podium was anything to go by.

Sokka, the dumb bloke, stepped up next. He had a much simpler and muddled recount of the events. A rather useless witness if he had to say. The man hadn’t even been there to catch him toying with his sister.  He just saw Chan and assumed--albeit, correctly--that Jet had done something.

“Is there anything else that anyone would like to add?” The judge offered. She waited for a moment. “I would like to hear from the defendant.”

Jet’s attorney answered for him, addressing not the judge, but Katara. “You said that you went to a party, am I correct?”

“Yes.” Katara confirmed.

“And you knew, Ms. Nanouk that going to the party wasn’t a wise decision?” It was really the only semi-solid argument she had in Jet’s defense.

“We-well, yes.” She sputtered.

His attorney cut her off.  “Then why did you go? You knew that you were putting yourself in an unsafe situation, full of drunk teens and some college students.” She spared a glance at Sokka. “My client was just one of many who probably had the same intentions, seeing an innocent girl.”

Katara’s attorney wedged himself into the conversation. “She is a seventeen year old girl. An innocent one, as you helpfully noted. She should not have to think about the possibility of assault when going to a party filled with people she attends school with regularly. If they can go without felony on school grounds, why should she have to mistrust them later? Is every girl supposed to think to herself, ‘but what if I get raped’, every time she leaves the house?” He paused. “And to address your second point. Maybe your client wasn’t the only one with dirty intentions, but he was the one who acted upon them. Don’t think, for a moment, that we would not be here if it was another boy or girl like him.”

“But you did not trust them, did you, Ms. Nanouk?” Jet’s attorney spoke up. “You have been sent various threats. And yet you attended the party anyhow.”

The judge cut in. “I would like you to help me understand why you attended an event you knew would put you in a dangerous position.”

“Objection, your honor.” Katara’s attorney spoke smoothly. “Her attendance at is irrelevant. My client had told me that she had contacted law enforcement multiple times--once after Mr. Akunin had shattered the window of her house. It is abundantly clear that he would have found a way to act on his perversions regardless of whether or not Ms. Nanouk attended Mr. Haga’s party.”

“Do you have proof of your contact with law enforcement?” The judge addressed Katara.

“I have a few police reports, your honor.”  Katara passed those over to the bailiff.

The judge looked them over. The sound of her half-hum, half-speak as she read hit Jet’s ears in all the wrong way. Honestly, he wished that they’d just cut the bullshit and hand him his sentence or his freedom. Again she prattled on and on about her thoughts on the police reports. It interested him none, he could see it on their faces that the jury had made up their minds the minute the clips had begun rolling.

“Mr. Akunin, would you like to make a statement?”

And because they had already decided he might as well deliver a final blow. “Sure thing. I’d like to confess.”

His attorney pinched the bridge of her nose, he was doing exactly what she had advised against.

“I assaulted Kitty Kat.” He started. She was already tensing at the pet name and it drove him onward. “And I had a great time. She made it so easy. She is easy. She’s such a prude, I thought that I’d do her a favor and help her come out of her shell a little. I was nice enough to put up with it for a little while, but you can’t just deprive someone of sex, that’s just cruel. So I figured that we’d have some sex and she wouldn’t die a high-strung virgin.” He turned to Katara. “Come on now, Kitty Kat, live a little. You should thank me for trying to save you from being your prude self.” He let that sit before laying out some details. “You know, just before you went out cold you muttered, ‘please, Jet, don’t do it’ and you gave me the weakest little punch. There’s no bigger turn on than a damsel with some fight, I had to rip your shirt off after that, you gave me no choice, Kitty Kat.”

Her eyes were getting misty, another big turn on. He would have made her away of that too if the judge hadn’t cut him short with a, “that’s quite enough, Mr. Akunin.”

Her scowl was enough to murder. But he wasn’t done. “And I’ll save you the mess of a second trial; I raped Boyang too. She was real fun. Those whore tits were just begging for…”

The gavle came down thrice. “Enough, Akunin!” Sharp and without the honorific.

Never had he seen a room so full of disgust and loathing.

He had done his job.

Soon enough he’d be making himself at home in a jail cell, but at least Kitty Kat would have a lot to think about.

[polss]

Political Swizzlestick: Seema Nanda and Tom Perez - DNC Heads - need to rid the DNC of its bullshit....Or get fired when the Dems lose to Trump.

As anyone who followed the train wreck that was the Iowa caucus knows, Tom Perez is the head of the DNC. 

Let me throw another name out for you. Seema Nanda is his boss, the CEO of the DNC. 

 And they are both on their way to helping Donald Trump get reelected. 

 How can I say such a hateful and unfair thing? 

Because it's neither hateful nor unfair. 

It's truthful. 

 In the 2016 election, the GOP and the DNC gave us two candidates that we hated more than any other candidates in the history of US elections that we've tracked. So we had an election where everyone in the liberal-leaning states voted their asses off against Donald Trump and everyone else in America voted their asses off against Hillary Clinton (and to a lesser degree against President Obama's economic policies, which most of us will admit we didn't particularly like.) 

It's now four years later. People in the liberal states who hated Donald Trump have four years of evidence showing that their hatred was justified. 

People in the conservative States and in the Swing states have seen Donald Trump address probably 80 to 90% of his campaign promises, far far far more than any previous Republican president. Republicans are on board , even most of the 2016 "never Trump" Republicans have realized that it's four years later and their skin has not been melted off by a nuclear disaster. They are on team Trump now. 

 So, what does that mean for the 2020 election? 

Well It means that again The Electoral College will decide the winner and victory will be dependent upon which candidate wins the Rust Belt states (as well as North Carolina and Virginia). 

Trump won those rustbelt States in 2016. While the DNC can probably count on Michigan moving back into the DNC column, There is no guarantee on the rest of the Rust Belt. 

Now Trump will have a few more votes as moderate Republicans realize they can tolerate Trump or just fall under the sway of Trumps continuous 4 year long disinformation campaign. 

It's no given that the Democrats can win. 

In the face of that, people who want to vote against Trump who aren't Democrats and don't believe in the ethics of the DNC, have just seen what appears to be an attempt by a candidate to steal the Iowa election. 

"Whoa! Whoa there!" you might say. "There is no evidence that Pete Buttigieg's people were cheating In Iowa and hope to cheat again in Nevada in that caucus!" 

Well, then, why did embattled DNC had Tom Perez call for a manual recount of Iowa's results? 

That action makes my point. He did it because there was the PERCEPTION of fraud that threatened to drive away non-reliable Democratic voters like myself.

Tom Perez is the replaceable COG of the DNC . He gets that. Calling for a recount Is something he can do. If Trump wins re-election, Perez will be gone. 

Nanda should be gone too but Perez is in the position that would certainly take the fall. 

Really in that instance anyone with over 20 years of experience working in the DNC in management should be removed. 

Why can I say such an unfair thing?

Because there is a culture of corruption in the Hillary and Bill era DNC operatives. That corruption needs to be scrubbed out. And at that point it would make a lot of sense to simply cut out the infected tissue, if the leadership cannot self-correct. 

Every action that the DNC leadership has taken over the years is designed to protect their ability to push down on the scales for one candidate over another that the public has chosen. 

When I cast my vote In a primary for a Democratic candidate, the DNC does not count my vote as one part of however many total votes are cast. 

That's a fuzzy statement. Let me explain this another way. 

I'm going to throw some numbers out there to keep the math easy. 

If I am one of 10,000 people who vote for a candidate in a state where 100,000 votes are cast. My candidate has gotten only 10% of the vote. AT BEST, my candidate will get 10% of however many delegates the DNC has assigned to the state. I could be in a state with a population of say 3 million people that tends to vote Democrat in the general election. 

 My neighboring state also has 3 million people in it, but may always vote Republican in the general election. Given that the GOP dominates that state, Democratic turnout is always low because they have no ability to affect government. They have 50,000 people who turn out and vote in the Democratic primary. The candidate I hate gets 10,000 of those votes in that state (20%).

With fewer people supporting that candidate, that candidate is likely to get more delegates.... possibly twice as many. 

That is an unfair system. 

And it gets even more unfair. The DNC weights the system to cheat for the leading vote getters.

Many/Most/all? state democratic primaries and caucuses have rules about “viability” of candidates.  Google your state’s primary or caucus and read the rules.  Basically if your candidate earns less that 15% in a certain region of the state, they are considered unviable in that region and barring a change are mostly inelegible to secure actual delegates using the votes placed in that region. It’s like those votes were never counted.

If it is a caucus state (an entirely deeper level of clusterfuck) you and your fellow participants are actually told you need to vote for another candidate or not have a voice at all.

The candidates who are viable in various regions and them alone split the actual state delegates.  How fucked is that?

Applying the viability rules to our example, it is entirely likely that despite 10,000 people voting for my candidate in my state of 100,000, there is statistically a great chance that our preferred candidate didn’t clear 15% in ANY of the state’s various regions. For all of our efforts, our candidate is likely to walk away from the state with zero delegates.

We probably should have stayed home and played nintendo instead.

That not piss you off yet?  Wait until you look at the neighboring state.  In that state the candidate we hate pulled 20% of that state’s total 50,000 votes. Their candidate actually won the state with 6 other candidates splitting the rest of the vote. That candidate won 100% of their “pledged” delegates.

So while each state has say 25 pledged delegates, my candidate who earned twice as many actual votes gets 0 delegates and the candidate I hate gets all 25 of my neighboring state’s delegates.

That is fucked up logic.

So why don't we just count the existing votes? If between two states with 3 million people, 150,000 votes are cast and the candidate that I like gets 10,000 of those votes and the candidate that I don't like gets 10,000, both of those candidates would get the same number of delegates. And both me and my neighbor in the next state over would have the same ability to choose our candidate. 

"But we have to do this to protect small states!" 

Do we really? If someone who lives in Iowa has the same ability as I do living in Texas to cast a single vote with exactly the same value, how exactly are they being hurt? 

Is it worth more to the DNC to give say, Iowa a state where 90% Of the population is white, a much greater ability to affect the nomination, then it is to have unrepresented voters in a large red state with blue State demographics (Texas) feel like they finally have the ability to exercise a political voice and a reason to get registered to vote? 

I think if you look clearly at that picture, the former gives you the ability to ensure that your candidate is a lily-white candidate who fully agrees with the values of the DNC core. 

The latter gives you the ability to force the GOP to change their tactics. No more obstructionist government. No more underhanded dealings. No more talking in racist dog whistles. 

The former has been what the previous leadership of the DNC has valued. The latter I would argue is what the DNC leadership from here on out should value.

In the latter instance, if the GOP wants to win future elections at minimum, they have to treat either Black or Mexican voter with respect --- like they're valuable humans too. Default current operating practices of the GOP would have to change. And our society would benefit from it. 

So the question becomes do you want control of the nomination process? Or do you want to win? 

The argument for delegates is the same argument for the Electoral College. "The US was designed to be a republic." That statement is regularly made to defend the status quo. 

When it is made in that context what that is actually saying is that the US was designed where people vote for convention delegates or electoral voters who are "smarter or make more capable than them" to cast an actual vote that mean something on their behalf. 

That is, not surprisingly, a republican argument. 

But if you told Americans back in the Revolutionary War who thought they were fighting against taxation without representation that that's what they were fighting for, trading the British House of Lords making decisions for them for rich Americans making decisions for them, the Civil War might have come a lot quicker. 

Americans were promised democracy. This is why they supported the new US government. This is why those who are willing to vote for the Democrats expect democracy to be delivered. 

 It boils their guts every four years when they read about how the DNC has “super-delegates”, party insiders whose opinions are on their own worth several delegates.

I am pissed when I think that my vote and likely several thousand of my Texan neighbors' votes are required to get one single DNC delegate , but superdelegate Hillary Clinton's opinion, directly and indirectly, is probably worth more delegates than some states! 

Hillary has blown two freaking presidential elections ----  two opportunities for the dems to run the show....and yet here I am beholden to her sensibilities. 

That is not democracy. That is corruption. 

The DNC only won in 1992 because Ross Perot split the Republican vote. Without that, Bill Clinton would have been curb-stomped. 

Barack Obama won in 2008 because he was running against a second Great Depression. George Bush was totally unable to address the problem with the standard Republican tactic of trickle down economics and John McCain ran on continuing Bush's economic policies. 

Obama's people did run a brilliant campaign in 2008 but let's not overrate winning when you're running against a second Great Depression. 

You have to go back to 1976 to see the last time some random Joe Schmoe Democrat cleanly won their way INTO the white house. 

So let's not overrate our chances or give the Clintons, the Obamas, or some hoity-toity career DNC operative, the ability to select "winning candidates" against the will of the voting public. 

And the superdelegates are just one objectionable piece. The pool of delegates alloted to a state is usually divided into pledged and unpledged delegates.  The unpledged delegates are just like super delegates --- totally unbeholden to the voters.

And, the DNC makes it even worse. My vote and everyone who sees the candidates like I do's votes don't give us a single delegate "chip". 

No, we get a “pledged delegate” chucklehead who doesn't really even have to vote the way we voted. This is slimy. It's underhanded. It's disgusting. ....And it's the DNC today.

"But the GOP does the same thing" you might argue. 

The GOP believes America is a republic. They have a built-in argument for their corruption that their voters accept. 

The DNC believes America was founded on democracy. Democratic is part of the name. So why not be democratic? 

Since 2016 a huge chunk of the democratic voting base has argued to get rid of the Electoral College and embrace a direct popular vote because it's more democratic. 

Maybe you can't do that in the actual election, but you sure as heck can do that in the selection process. 

I have this advice for Seema Nanda and her employee Tom Perez. Be different from all of the other people who have had the positions that you're currently in. 

Discover ethics. 

Be Democratic.

Spend your political capital changing the rules to make the party successful. Instead of pushing down for one candidate against another and pissing off all of us “non-reliable” DNC voters that you need to win the Rust Belt and the other swing States in order to defeat Donald Trump in 2020, push down on the scales to help the DNC against the GOP. 

Meet with all of the presidential candidates and get the majority of them to sign off on shit canning delegates. 

The candidate with the most votes will be the nominee at the convention. 

With the possible exception of Mayor Pete, I think every other candidate will gladly concede to those terms in order to remove the perception of corruption that has dogged the party in this election. 

Count every citizen vote in the primary season. Give us totally transparent running vote totals after each race, and then celebrate the totals at the DNC convention. 

Give me exactly the same voting power as someone in Iowa, New Hampshire, New York City, California or anywhere else in the country and you'll increase Democratic registration countrywide, turning a lot more States purple and blue.

You, Seema Nanda and Tom Perez, will get to be seen as the white hats of the DNC. You'll be seen as once-in-a-lifetime leaders --- the reformers who permanently dragged the party out of corruption. 

These are controversial changes, No Doubt, but they are changes that increase the party's chances of defeating Donald Trump. 

Your reputations will get the benefit of the doubt when the DNC defeats Donald Trump. 

And if the DNC loses to Donald Trump....you're in exactly the same boat you'd be in if you do nothing. 

Tom Perez can call for recounts, but Seema Nanda is going to be required to change the culture of the DNC. 

 There was a guy you might remember by the name of Barack Obama who talked about being on the right side of History. You two are currently on the wrong side of History. 

Don't think that you can't get rid of this 20th century corruption that is inherent to the party rules, because someone in your positions eventually will. 

 If you don't do it, your replacements will or your replacement's replacement will. It's just inevitable. 

The Democrats are losing too many presidential elections for things not to change. 

Or you can stay the course and be unemployed in a year.... another disgraced scandal-ridden failure in those positions, reduced to writing books because your political careers in the DNC are over. The choice is yours.

final note

I thought about not writing this piece because it might hurt turnout.  People might read this and think, “why even vote in the primaries?” But then I thought, “that is actually a great reason to publish this.  If people don’t vote in the primaries that puts the screws to Perez and Nanda.”  

People have to register to vote in the primaries.  People not registering in time costs the party votes in the general election.  They want strong turnout in the primaries because it shows you are registered. I want them to sweat bullets. (Please register to vote now even if you chose not to vote in the primary because your candidate will fall short of your state’s viability thresholds.)

And then there is the Bernie factor.  Bernie is running away with this race to the chagrin of the DNC leadership.  Bernie voters are loving this.  They are going to vote. His turnout is guaranteed.  The only way Bernie could lose is if the DNC has strong turnouts for an alternate candidate. They need turnout.  

And if Bernie is the nominee he also would benefit from the most possible registered democratic voters ahead of the general election.

Everyone gets what they want if you do the right thing, so why not maximize turnout?

[bountyofbeads]

White House Ukraine Expert Sought to Correct Transcript of Trump Call https://nyti.ms/32TnKet

White House Ukraine Expert Sought to Correct Transcript of Trump Call

Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, who heard President Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president and was alarmed, testified that he tried and failed to add key details to the rough transcript.

By Julian E. Barnes, Nicholas Fandos  and Danny Hakim | Published October 29, 2019, 8:50 PM ET | New York Times

WASHINGTON — Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to restore them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.

The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter.

Colonel Vindman, who appeared on Capitol Hill wearing his dark blue Army dress uniform and military medals, told House impeachment investigators that he tried to change the reconstructed transcript made by the White House staff to reflect the omissions. But while some of his edits appeared to have been successful, he said, those two corrections were not made.

Colonel Vindman did not testify to a motive behind the editing process. But his testimony is likely to drive investigators to ask further questions about how officials handled the call, including changes to the transcript and the decision to put it into the White House’s most classified computer system — and whether those moves were meant to conceal the call’s most controversial aspects.

The phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call. There are plenty of other examples of Mr. Trump referring to Ukraine-related conspiracy theories and asking for investigations of the Biden family. But Colonel Vindman’s account offered a hint to solving a mystery surrounding the conversation first reported by the intelligence whistle-blower whose complaint launched the impeachment inquiry: what Mr. Trump’s aides left out of the transcript in places where ellipses indicate dropped words.

In hours of questioning on Tuesday by Democrats and Republicans, Colonel Vindman recounted his alarm at the July 25 call, saying he “did not think it was proper” for Mr. Trump to have asked Mr. Zelensky to investigate a political rival, and how White House officials struggled to deal with the fallout from a conversation he and others considered problematic.

His testimony about the reconstructed transcript, the aftermath of the call and a shadow foreign policy being run outside the National Security Council came as Democrats unveiled plans for a more public phase of the impeachment process. They plan to vote on Thursday to direct the Intelligence Committee to conduct public hearings and produce a report for the Judiciary Committee to guide its consideration of impeachment articles. The measure will also provide a mechanism for Republicans to request subpoenas for witnesses and give Mr. Trump’s lawyers a substantive role in the Judiciary Committee’s proceedings to mount a defense.

Some lawmakers indicated Colonel Vindman would make a good candidate to appear again at a public hearing next month.

It is not clear why some of Colonel Vindman’s changes were not made, while others he recommended were, but the decision by a White House lawyer to quickly lock down the reconstructed transcript subverted the normal process of handling such documents.

The note-takers and voice recognition software used during the July 25 call had missed Mr. Zelensky saying the word “Burisma,” but the reconstructed transcript does reference “the company,” and suggests that the Ukrainian president is aware that it is of great interest to Mr. Trump.

The prosecutor general, Mr. Zelensky said, according to the document, “will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue.”

The rough transcript also contains ellipses at three points where Mr. Trump is speaking. Colonel Vindman told investigators that at the point of the transcript where the third set of ellipses appear, Mr. Trump said there were tapes of Mr. Biden.

Mr. Trump’s mention of tapes is an apparent reference to Mr. Biden’s comments at a January 2018 event about his effort to get Ukraine to force out its prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin. Supporters of Mr. Biden have said Mr. Shokin was widely criticized for his lax anti-corruption efforts. Republicans charge, without evidence, that Mr. Biden was trying to stop an investigation into his son.

His account of how the transcript was handled came as Colonel Vindman told House investigators Tuesday that he twice registered internal objections about how Mr. Trump and his inner circle were pressuring Ukraine to undertake inquiries beneficial to the president, including of Mr. Biden. After the July 25 call, the colonel reported what happened to a superior, explaining that “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” according to his opening remarks. He added, “This would all undermine U.S. national security.”

He also described confronting Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, after the envoy pressed Ukrainian officials to help the Trump administration by investigating the Biden family. The colonel said he acted out of a “sense of duty,” and emphasized his military service in his remarks. “I am a patriot,” he said, “and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country irrespective of party or politics.”

As he spoke, House leaders were preparing for what was expected to be significant new private testimony from current and former White House officials in the coming days. On Wednesday, they will hear from two Ukraine experts who advised Kurt D. Volker, the former United States special envoy to the country. On Thursday, Timothy Morrison, the National Security Council’s current Russia and Europe director, is scheduled to testify. And on Friday, investigators have called Robert Blair, a top national security adviser to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff.

There is no recording of the July 25 call by the American side. The White House uses note-takers listening in on the call as well as voice recognition software to create a rough transcript that is a close approximation of the call. But names and technical terms are frequently missed by the software, according to people familiar with the matter.

After the call, Colonel Vindman was given a hard copy of the rough transcript to make updates and corrections, according to a person familiar with the matter. Colonel Vindman went through the transcript, made changes and gave his written edits to his boss, Mr. Morrison, according to the person.

But after the call, Colonel Vindman went with his brother, a lawyer on the National Security Council staff, to see John A. Eisenberg, the council’s legal adviser, to raise concerns about the call.

Colonel Vindman declined to detail to investigators his conversations with Mr. Eisenberg, citing attorney-client privilege, according to two of the people familiar with the testimony.

One explanation for why Colonel Vindman’s changes were not made was that the transcript had been quickly placed into a highly secure computer system, the N.S.C. Intelligence Collaboration Environment, or NICE system.

Mr. Eisenberg ordered the transcript moved to ensure people who were not assigned to handle Ukraine policy could not read the transcript, a decision he hoped would prevent gossip and leaks about the call.

Putting the call in the secure server effectively prevented further edits from being made to the document.

Mr. Eisenberg made the decision without consulting with his supervisor, Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel. A White House review of the handling of the call is examining if Mr. Eisenberg acted properly in securing the notes.

Administration officials have said a number of calls between Mr. Trump and foreign leaders were put in the most secure server. But tightened security had been put in place for those calls ahead of time. The Ukraine call was put in the secure server only after the fact.

In the whistle-blower complaint that was made public, the C.I.A. officer wrote that placing the rough transcript in the server was part of an effort to lock it down, restrict access and a sign that “White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”

*********

Meet Alexander Vindman, the Colonel Who Testified on Trump’s Phone Call

He fled Ukraine at age 3 and became a soldier, scholar and official at the White House. That’s where, he told impeachment investigators, he witnessed alarming behavior by President Trump.

Sheryl Gay Solberg | Published October

29, 2019 Updated 8:06 PM ET | New York Times | Posted October 29, 2019

WASHINGTON — The twin brothers were 3 when they fled Ukraine, then a Soviet republic, with their father and grandmother, Jewish refugees with only their suitcases and $750, hoping for a better life in the United States.

In the 40 years since, the first-born twin, Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, has become a scholar, diplomat, decorated officer in the United States Army and Harvard-educated Ukraine expert on the White House’s National Security Council.

And on Tuesday, Colonel Vindman’s past and present converged as he became a star witness in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, which is centered on the president’s dealings with the colonel’s native Ukraine.

Ensconced in the secure hearing rooms of the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in a midnight-blue dress uniform, a bevy of medals pinned to his chest, Colonel Vindman testified privately from morning until night. He recounted for House investigators how he was so alarmed by the president’s request to enlist Ukraine to smear his political rivals, and similar efforts by Mr. Trump’s allies, that he reported them to his superiors — twice.

It was one of the more memorable turns in an inquiry that has been full of them. Colonel Vindman, who is fluent in Ukrainian, was the first White House official to testify who listened in on a July 25 call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. With his long résumé and military credentials, he immediately became a problem for Republicans.

Mr. Trump assailed him on Twitter, though not by name, branding him a “Never Trumper” without evidence. Conservative pundits and allies of the president questioned the colonel’s loyalty, insinuating he might be a spy for the country of his birth. But House Republicans, perhaps fearing a backlash, took pains to defend Colonel Vindman’s honor — even as they insisted he was wrong about Mr. Trump.

“He’s a veteran, a combat veteran and he needs our respect and appreciation,” said Representative Tim Burchett, a freshman Republican from Tennessee who participated in Tuesday’s closed-door hearing, echoing the statements of leadership. “But he also needs to be questioned.”

Inside the secure room, known as a SCIF, the atmosphere grew tense, as Republicans questioned Colonel Vindman about his private conversations in what Democrats viewed as an effort to discern the identity of the whistle-blower who prompted the inquiry. The colonel pushed back, participants said, making clear he was unwilling to share such information, especially when it involved members of the intelligence community.

But beyond the substance and the drama, Colonel Vindman offered a compelling immigrants’ tale and a glimpse into the story of twin brothers who have lived a singular American experience, one that was featured in a Ken Burns documentary when they were children. From their days as little boys in matching short pants and blue caps, toddling around the Brighton Beach neighborhood of Brooklyn — known as Little Odessa for its population of refugees from the former Soviet Union — and into adulthood, they have followed strikingly similar paths.

Like Alexander Vindman, Yevgeny, who goes by Eugene, is a lieutenant colonel in the Army. He also serves on Mr. Trump’s National Security Council, as a lawyer handling ethics issues. During his testimony, Alexander Vindman referred to him as “my kid brother” — and insisted that lawmakers do the same, telling them with wry amusement that he was born six minutes earlier than Yevgeny was.

When Alexander Vindman decided to alert a White House lawyer to his concerns about Mr. Trump’s July telephone call with the Ukrainian president, he turned to his twin, bringing him along as he reported the conversation to John A. Eisenberg, the top National Security Council lawyer.

“He was very honorable, very believable, very precise with his remarks,” said Representative Stephen F. Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts. “He seems to have followed every single procedural safeguard and has, as a lieutenant colonel, followed the chain of command in every respect.”

The twins both married women with Native American ancestry, live in the same Northern Virginia suburb, and have offices across from each other in the West Wing of the White House, according to Carol Kitman, a photographer who met the family when they were boys, chronicled their upbringing and remains a close family friend.

“They say nothing,” Ms. Kitman said, when asked if the two had revealed their views about Mr. Trump. “They’re very smart and they’re very discreet.”

Along with their older brother, Leonid, the twins left Kiev with their father shortly after their mother died there. Their maternal grandmother came along to help care for them. The family sold its possessions to survive in Europe while waiting for visas to the United States.

“I think their father felt they would do better in the United States as Jews,” said Ms. Kitman, who recalls spotting the grandmother and the two boys, then known as Sanya — for Alexander — and Genya — for Yevgeny — under the elevated train in Brooklyn. She spoke to the grandmother in Yiddish, she said, and returned the next day, aiming to do a book about their lives.

“Upon arriving in New York City in 1979, my father worked multiple jobs to support us, all the while learning English at night,” Colonel Vindman told House lawmakers on Tuesday. “He stressed to us the importance of fully integrating into our adopted country. For many years, life was quite difficult. In spite of our challenging beginnings, my family worked to build its own American dream.”

Ms. Kitman’s website tells the story in pictures.

“Genya is always the smiling twin. Sanya is serious,” she wrote in the caption accompanying the image of them in their blue ball caps and short pants in 1980, the year after they arrived. A 1985 photograph of them with their grandmother on a boardwalk bench appeared in Mr. Burns’s documentary “The Statue of Liberty.”

“We came from Kiev,” they said almost in unison, in a clip on the filmmaker’s website. “Our mother died, so we went to Italy. Then we came here.”

When they were 13, Ms. Kitman captured the Vindman twins in matching red shirts. When Colonel Vindman married, she photographed him and his bride under a tallit, a Jewish prayer shawl, at their wedding.

The twins’ father, Semyon Vindman, went on to become an engineer, Ms. Kitman said, and the twins’ older brother entered the Reserve Officers Training Corps in college. She said the younger boys looked up to Leonid and decided to pursue their own military paths.

“It’s incredibly compelling,” said Representative Tom Malinowki, Democrat of New Jersey, who emigrated from Poland when he was a child and said he was very touched by the story of fellow immigrants from Eastern Europe. He added, “You can’t make this up.”

In his testimony, the colonel mentioned his “multiple overseas tours,” including in South Korea and Germany, and a 2003 combat deployment to Iraq that left him wounded by a roadside bomb, for which he was awarded a Purple Heart.

Since 2008, he has been an Army foreign area officer — an expert in political-military operations — specializing in Eurasia. Colonel Vindman has a master’s degree from Harvard in Russian, Eastern Europe and Central Asian Studies. He has served in the United States’ Embassies in Kiev, Ukraine, and in Moscow, and was the officer specializing in Russia for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before joining the National Security Council in 2018.

By this spring, he said in his opening statement, he became troubled by what he described as efforts by “outside influencers” to create “a false narrative” about Ukraine. Documents reviewed by The New York Times suggest the reference is to Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, and his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and implicate Ukraine, rather than Russia, in interfering with the 2016 election.

He twice reported concerns about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, according to a draft statement.

In May, a month after Mr. Zelensky was elected president of Ukraine in a landslide victory, Mr. Trump asked the colonel to join the energy secretary, Rick Perry, to travel to Ukraine to attend the new president’s inauguration.

By July, Colonel Vindman had grown deeply concerned that administration officials were pressuring Mr. Zelensky to investigate Mr. Biden. That concern only intensified, he told investigators, when he listened in to the now-famous July 25 phone conversation between Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Trump.

“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen,” he told investigators, “and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine.”

His heritage gave Colonel Vindman, who is fluent in both Ukrainian and Russian, unique insight into Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign; on numerous occasions, Ukrainian officials sought him out for advice about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani.

Colonel Vindman’s testimony was sprinkled with references to duty, honor and patriotism — but also his life as an immigrant and a refugee.

“I sit here, as a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, an immigrant,” he said, adding, “I have a deep appreciation for American values and ideals and the power of freedom. I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country, irrespective of party or politics.”

Ms. Kitman, the photographer, said that was what she would expect from both the Vindman twins.

“When you talk about what good immigrants do,” she said, “look at what these immigrants are doing for this country.”

*********

[marymosley]

Navient Login Horror Stories You Can Avoid

Sapping borrowers of their ability to save for the future and live comfortably in the present, student loans are an enormous and escalating national issue. As of 2019, 44 million Americans owed more than $1.5 trillion in student loan debt, to the tune of $37,000+ per student.

But I probably don’t need to mention that to readers of this site, many of whom are drowning in significantly more than $37,000 in student loan debt.

It’s bad enough to be saddled with that kind of debt, but to add insult to injury, borrowers often log into their Navient accounts (or any of the other major servicers!) and discover errors.

Although those errors sometimes appear to be in the student’s favor, that’s rarely the case. For instance, Andrew Josuweit, the founder of Student Loan Hero, vaguely realized that two of his 16 original student loans never showed up on with his servicer. Busy with a post-graduation swirl of activity, Josuweit didn’t pursue the matter. However, those loans came back to haunt him when his servicer slammed him with default alerts, ultimately resulting in thousands of dollars of collection fees and interest.

Reddit user ajaydub also had problems with AWOL loans. In a December 2018 post, ajaydub recounted that his loan company, Navient, split his loan into four parts without giving his contact information to the three other companies. He realized something was amiss when his credit score began tanking. Not only was he in collections for two of the loans, but he had to chase one of them since it had been sold to another collections company. His initial debt of $55,000 doubled to over $110,000.

Disappearing-and-resurfacing debt is a surprisingly common problem with student loans. In other cases, students find that they’ve mysteriously acquired debt that doesn’t belong to them. The credit bureau somehow recorded their loans twice or even assigned someone else’s loans to them due to similar names or Social Security numbers. Those could be clerical errors or identity theft. In either case, the damage to a person’s credit can be substantial.

Another common error borrowers contend with is incorrect student loan info, including:

Paid-off student loans marked as active.

Closed student loans marked as active.

Incorrect credit report balances reported.

Incorrect loan origination or payment dates recorded.

Student loan servicing errors are commonplace and frustrating. It’s enough to make you want to take the Earnest bonus and refinance. However, you don’t always have that option and with tens of thousands of dollars and creditworthiness on the line, it’s necessary to get to the root of student loan problems.

How can borrowers stay on top of student loans?

Multiple loan origination dates, payments, interest rates, and terms are enough to make a borrower bury her head in the sand about student loan issues. However, with so much money and misery at stake, debtors should deal with loan servicing issues in a patient, business-like manner.

Even if their past record-keeping was sketchy or nonexistent, student borrowers should begin maintaining meticulous records of loan payments, conversations with loan servicers, problems, and resolutions. If students don’t make headway with their loan servicers, they’ll be required to produce documentation that they did, in fact, make sincere efforts to resolve issues on their own. This is especially true if you are seeking forgiveness. I’ve written about how you can take control by tracking your payments.

Here are some other general actions you can take to fix and avoid problems:

1. Check government records to verify federal student loans

In the flurry of graduation and, hopefully, starting a new job, lawyers often maintain their student loans account on autopilot. However, as the disappearing-and-reappearing student loan sagas recounted above demonstrate, students need to be proactive with their often-confusing array of student loans. The best way borrowers can make sure that all their accounts are present, correct, and accounted for, and to find out which servicing company holds their loans, is to reach out to the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS).

At NLDS, you can cross-check those accounts against the ones listed on their credit reports (which you can get for free, see below). If the NLDS search turns up an account a borrower doesn’t recognize, you should follow up to resolve the discrepancy. You can ask for all the original loan documentation from the servicer to verify it was for a school they went to and at a time that they were attending.

2. Check and Compare Credit Reports

Once a year, borrowers can request free copies of their credit reports from The Big Three credit bureaus—Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion—through AnnualCreditReport.com. This is the only place where you can get the credit reports for free. All of the other sites are trying to get you to buy some kind of monthly credit report monitoring service. You don’t need that. Cross-checking all three reports on an annual basis allows loan holders to catch reporting errors on student loan accounts before too much damage is done. Building a record of past credit reports also allows borrowers to cross-check current reports, so save each credit report that you run so you’ll have access to it in the future.

3. Reach out to student loan servicers ASAP.

As soon as borrowers spot an error, either after logging on to their account or through checking the NSLDS database, they should contact their loan servicer. Since the reporting agency will verify with the servicers, contacting the servicer is the most important part. Navigating the loan servicer maze can be challenging. When speaking to a customer service rep (politely, of course—more flies are caught with honey than vinegar), know that most services will connect you with an ombudsman, otherwise known as a consumer advocate, who investigates, reports on, and helps settle complaints. Borrowers should take note of that person’s name and direct phone number for easy contact in the future. The Navient ombudsman is at 888-545-4199 or advocate@navient.com. Borrowers should also keep servicers up-to-date with their contact information so that you receive all relevant communication, which you should save. Don’t rely on the servicer to maintain accurate records or prior communication.

If working with a loan servicer doesn’t resolve an issue . . .

Sometimes a loan servicer provides more blame than service. In that case, it’s time to:

Reach out to state and federal offices

Borrowers who get no satisfaction from their loan servicing company can turn to their state attorney general; many of those offices employ consumer advocates. At the federal level, debtors can file complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) ombudsman online or by phone at 855-411-2372. In addition, the CFPB website also includes other tools to help borrowers understand their student loan options. The CFPB Ombudsman helps resolve private loan issues.

For federal loan issues, turn to the US Department of Education, the agency that oversees student loan servicers. The DOE offers limited, “last-resort” services to student borrowers through their Federal Student Aid Ombudsman Group. Although the ombudsman group will not directly advocate for borrowers, they will help them figure out their options and remedy any discrepancies in loan or repayment figures. Borrowers can submit problems online, by phone at 877-557-2575, by fax at 606-396-4821, and by mail addressed to the US Department of Education, FSA Ombudsman Group, P.O. Box 1843, Monticello, KY 42633.

There are happy endings

The best advice to students is to incur as little educational debt as possible. However, for those who have already racked up a little or a lot of student loan debt, there’s still hope, as exemplified by Joel Winston’s story.

A University of Michigan graduate whose loan servicer erroneously kicked his loan into default after three years of on-time payments, Winston politely but firmly navigated his servicer’s channels to rectify the mistake. It took two internal investigations, but the lender eventually corrected its error. However, because the company violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, which regulates how collections companies can contact borrowers about their debt, Winston filed a lawsuit and won a legal settlement that he applied to his loan balance.

To people facing similar problems, Winston counsels, “You have to keep meticulous records. You have to keep all of your files. If you feel that something has happened, be patient. Ask nicely. Be polite. Do not get upset with the people over the phone because those are the only people right now that can help you.”

With 20 million student loans being serviced, and a patchwork of private and federal loans, there are bound to be problems. However, with proactivity, persistence, and patience, most of these problems can be resolved.

Plus, you’re a lawyer, so you’re good at this stuff. Keep good records and stay persistent.

Leave a comment on Navient Login Horror Stories You Can Avoid

Navient Login Horror Stories You Can Avoid published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[azveille]

'The world is against them': new era of cancer lawsuits threaten Monsanto

A landmark verdict found Roundup caused a man’s cancer, paving the way for thousands of other families to seek justice

Dean Brooks grasped on to the shopping cart, suddenly unable to stand or breathe. Later, at a California emergency room, a nurse with teary eyes delivered the news, telling his wife, Deborah, to hold out hope for a miracle. It was December 2015 when they learned that a blood cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) was rapidly attacking the man’s body and immune system.

By July 2016, Dean was dead. Deborah gets emotional recounting the gruesome final chapter of the love of her life. But in recent months, she has had reason to be hopeful again.

In an historic verdict in August, a jury ruled that Monsanto had caused a man’s terminal cancer and ordered the agrochemical corporation to pay $289m in damages. The extraordinary decision, exposing the potential hazards of the world’s most widely used herbicide, has paved the way for thousands of other cancer patients and families to seek justice and compensation in court.

“It’s like a serial killer, but it’s a product,” said Brooks, 57, who has a pending case against Monsanto, alleging that her husband’s use of the company’s popular weedkiller at their home led to his fatal disease. “It’s unconscionable … I don’t see how they can win. The world is against them.”

Brooks said she cried when she learned that a jury had ruled in favor of Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, the terminally ill former school groundskeeper who became the first person to take Monsanto to trial over Roundup. The verdict stated that Monsanto “acted with malice”, knew or should have known its chemical was dangerous, and failed to warn consumers about the risks.

Monsanto has filed an appeal, and a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday in San Francisco. The stakes are high for Monsanto and Bayer, the German pharmaceutical giant that acquired the company earlier this year. Energized by the Johnson win, a snowballing series of courtroom challenges are now threatening the legacy and finances of the corporations – and the future of a chemical that is ubiquitous around the globe.

The fight against 8,000 plaintiffs

Monsanto has argued that “junk science” led to the jury’s ruling on the chemical called glyphosate, which the company brought to market in 1974. Sold under numerous brands, including Roundup and Ranger Pro, the herbicide is now worth billions of dollars in revenues and is registered in 130 countries, with approvals for use on more than 100 crops.

Johnson, who is not expected to survive for more than two years, said he had prolonged exposures to glyphosate while applying the herbicide to school properties, at least twice accidentally getting large amounts of the chemical on his skin. Because Monsanto has insisted that the product is safe and has no cancer warnings on its labels, Johnson said he did not know about the risks until it was too late.

His award of $289m, which included $250m in punitive damages, is a game-changer for the 46-year-old, who will leave behind a wife and three children. But Monsanto is fighting to keep it from him.

One man's suffering exposed Monsanto's secrets to the world

Carey Gillam Read more

“It’s a big red flag for the company,” said Jean M Eggen, professor emerita at Widener University Delaware Law School, adding of the verdict: “It brings more people out who might not otherwise sue.”

Roughly 8,700 plaintiffs have made similar cases in state courts across the country, alleging that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides led to various types of cancer. The impact could be huge if Monsanto continues to fight and lose in jury trials, and an accumulation of wins could force the company to consider settling with plaintiffs.

“It could become very costly,” said Eggen, comparing the fight to that of the tobacco industry, which aggressively fought cases in court but eventually decided settlements were the best option. “It’s really a business decision.”

Monsanto may ultimately consider changing the labels to warn consumers about cancer risks and work to settle with consumers who have had high exposures, said Lars Noah, University of Florida law professor: “It’s sort of a wake-up call that their strategy was unrealistic.”

Of the thousands of cases, there are more than 10 trials on track to start in 2019 and 2020, with court battles ramping up in California, Montana, Delaware, Kansas City and St Louis (where Monsanto is headquartered). Farmers, gardeners, government employees, landscapers and a wide range of others have alleged that Monsanto’s products sickened them or killed their loved ones.

“This is a tremendous number of trials for one year and will allow plaintiffs to get critical evidence in front of juries – evidence not seen before,” said the attorney Aimee Wagstaff.

The first plaintiffs who may have an opportunity to face Monsanto in a courtroom are Alberta and Alva Pilliod, a California couple. Alberta, 74, has brain cancer while her husband, 76, suffers from a bone cancer that he said has invaded his pelvis and spine – both forms of NHL.

Given their age and cancer diagnoses, their lawyers have argued they have a right to a speedy trial. Monsanto, however, has opposed the request, and a hearing on the matter is set for Tuesday.

The couple, who have two children and four grandchildren, used Roundup from the 1970s until a few years ago – around their yard and on multiple properties they purchased and renovated. The couple said they chose the herbicide because they believed it wouldn’t be harmful to the deer, ducks and other animals that roamed their property. They were also sure it was safe for themselves.

“We are very angry. We hope to get justice,” Alberta told the Guardian, noting that they didn’t use protective gear when they sprayed and would not have used Roundup the way they did if they knew the risks. “If we had been given accurate information, if we had been warned, this wouldn’t have happened.”

Alva said the cancer had destroyed their lives: “It has been a miserable few years.”

Their lawyers hope to go to trial before it’s too late. Alberta’s doctors have said she has “substantially high risk” for recurrence, has “deep brain lesions” from the cancer – and is likely to die if she does relapse.

‘We are not going to be silent’

The Pilliods and other plaintiffs taking on the company have long argued that Monsanto led a “prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general public that Roundup was safe”.

Attorneys have cited internal Monsanto records that they say demonstrate how the company has manipulated and corrupted the scientific record with respect to the herbicide’s safety. The scrutiny has escalated in recent weeks.

On 26 September, the prominent scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology issued an “expression of concern”, saying that its published research finding glyphosate to be safe had not fully declared Monsanto’s involvement.

The high-profile correction came after litigation revealed that the company was involved in organizing and editing article drafts. Monsanto was linked to a scientific review that countered a crucial 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

More evidence could emerge at forthcoming trials about Monsanto’s questionable involvements in scientific papers, plaintiffs’ attorneys said.

A Bayer spokesman, Utz Klages, said in an email that the number of cases filed was “not indicative of the merits of the litigation”. He called glyphosate a “breakthrough for modern agriculture” and “cost-effective tool that can be used safely to control a wide range of weeds”.

Regulatory reviews and scientific studies have demonstrated that glyphosate is safe and not a cause of NHL, he said, adding: “The Johnson verdict is not final and concerns a single, specific case.”

EU on brink of historic decision on pervasive glyphosate weedkiller

Read more

John Barton, a California farmer who used Roundup for decades and was diagnosed with NHL in 2015, said he was eager to go to trial, especially since Monsanto and Bayer were still telling the public that glyphosate was safe.

“Monsanto needs to realize that we are not going to be silent any more,” said Barton, a third-generation farmer, who is part of a California lawsuit filed by the Baum Hedlund firm, which represented Johnson. “We are not going to roll over and play dead … People should be warned that this stuff is everywhere and we should be careful of this product.”

Barton, 69, said he also feared that his three sons could get sick due to their Roundup exposure.

“My dad exposed me to this. He never would’ve done that if he knew it was dangerous,” he added. “I have this guilt that I may have endangered my own sons.”

Deborah Brooks described NHL as “torture”, recounting her husband lying on towels on the floor trying to stop endless nosebleeds and the constant illnesses that plagued him while his immune system suffered.

“Nobody should have to go through that. It takes life in such a terrible way,” said Brooks, whose husband was 72 years old when he died. “I’m fighting for the honor of my husband and all the others that have come before and will come after … My heart goes out to those victims who don’t know they’re victims.”

Bayer declined to comment about the Brooks or Barton cases. A spokeswoman, Charla Lord, said in an email that because the Pilliods are both in remission and there was “no indication of any imminent cancer recurrence”, the company is arguing that an early trial date was not warranted.

Legal experts said it was possible the Johnson appeal could lead to a reduced monetary award. The courts could also find that there was insufficient evidence to prove that glyphosate causes cancer or that attorneys failed to demonstrate that the herbicide caused Johnson’s cancer.

Those outcomes could be devastating for Johnson and a setback for those fighting glyphosate. But cancer patients and families across the country will be able to push forward regardless of what happens in San Francisco, said David Levine, a University of California Hastings law professor.

“Even if Monsanto gets a complete victory here, it’s not going to stop other plaintiffs.”

Carey Gillam is a journalist and author, and a public interest researcher for US Right to Know, a not-for-profit food industry research group

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help.

The Guardian is editorially independent. So we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias. It isn’t influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one edits our Editor. No one steers our opinion. This means we can give a voice to the voiceless. It lets us challenge the powerful - and hold them to account. And at a time when factual, honest reporting is critical, it’s what sets us apart from so many others.

The Guardian’s long term sustainability relies on the support that we receive directly from our readers. And we would like to thank the hundreds of thousands who are helping to secure our future. But we cannot stop here. As more of you offer your ongoing support, we can keep investing in quality investigative journalism and analysis. We can remain a strong, progressive force that is open to all.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as £1, you can support the Guardian �� and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

[glitteryhottubavenue]

With a name like that

who knows what kind of people will be drawn to it

what’s in a name

nope.

I cross my legs alot. I think to keep myself warm but also I’ve been trying to notice it more and then I’ll put my legs on the ground in a manspread kind of way. I hope I hold correct posture. 

What is it about the energy between two people. Why can’t I control my face?

I am working on being present in the moment but for the moment I am working presently. hmmm that can be worked on

writing without a censor is hard

I kind of want to write about my day and then it comes out all different than what I had intended. Like do I keep typos? do I not have to follow proper sentence form and structure or even a coherent thought halfway through

can I just write the same thing

can I just write the same thing

Can I just Write the Same Thing

I guess not

I like the power of threes. I wish I was more assured about what I knew about how to create theatre. Like can I write a book about what I’ve learned about story telling from a sound designers point of view.

I guess I could. That would be interesting. To about.00002% of the American population but hey at least it would be relevant.

I have a tattoo from a tennessee williams festival

I also have a tattoo from a split second decision that is a comedy and tradgedy masks, sock and buskin, but with pumpkins as faces. It’s my first colored tattoo and I’m pretty proud of it. It’s cute and makes me laugh.

When I think about how I was raised on Pokemon it is no wonder that I like to travel. Although are my shows like collecting pokemon or is it like the knowledge is pokemon and my shows are the battles that get me to higher levels.

I guess that’s how life works.

 William Burroughs and the cut up method constantly tickle my brain. What did he actually get famous for and where did his money come from?

self edititng self edititing self editing editing 

just keep writing until the spell check doesn’t correct you and then you know you’ll have passed

my brain is being funny tonight I guess it’s a funny night

It has been a pretty good day overall though. I felt the most confident practicing with JJ and saying hey. I don’t know why I have to keep them at an arms length though. It’s like they have too much attention or affection or just doting presence that I’m like dude just chill and thank you I like hanging with you too but yikes I’m not ready for that much. And it’s not to say that I don’t appreciate them because I do and I recognize and honor that they have been an integral part of me growing as an artist but if I’m honest with myself I have to take them in doses. Today felt nice though.

The show felt better. I feel like I can do this. I WILL DO THIS FUCK THAT I WILL DO THIS AND IT WILL ROCK!!!

I mean if the actors keep giving me the material to work with then I will gladly take what their character thinks. My design it to grow with the show. Being present is helping I feel it. I would like to womanifest a fantastic show and the confidence, strength, stamina, will power, and humor with which to execute the piece. I can do this I can do this I can do this.

And I can womanifest a career in animation. I would really like to voice and write possibly for an animation. And get my shit together musically. I can do this I can do this. I at least have the opportunity with JJ, and the show. I’m excited but something else is telling me to keep pushing for more. I mean I’ve made it to the next level and now need to work for a hot second where I’m at if I want to continue to grow with it. I should probably pick up the Artists way again especially if I keep writing the daily pages. I should set aside time in the morning to do this because it does feel like at the very least good for exercising my hands, vocabulary, spelling, and recount of the day. 

go get em go get em go get em go get him geit gemti gemigemitem

trying out beats on a keyboard is fun.

I NEED TO MEMORIZE A BEAT FROM A PLASTIC DRUM AND INCORPORATE IT INTO THE SHOW SOMEHOW

Guitar?

He sings, can he give me an example of his work?

What has he sung?

Has he gotten back to me?

What is his style like I wonder.

I guess I’ll find out.

And I shouldn’t act defeated when we first meet. He doesn’t know me so I can be full of tricks to him. Lets have an initial convo about where we are musically and then figure out the best solution as to how we pair this. Take his lead. Your major ideas are, finding a beat for him, using plastic gallon drums, sax (but need to source so don’t count on it, michael suggested harmonica but that is definetely not a sound that I heard in NOLA so I don’t think that would be good.) My friend has a pocket trumpet I could maybe borrow would When the saints be a good number to play I wonder. I should ask J  anyway if he wouldn’t mind letting me borrow it. to see if I could at least try to learn it. I manifest the trumpet from J.

Everyone in my life is named J ok

once twice three times a lady

frice fifece sice times a man

what?

there has been a lot of discussion about the gender movement. I had to respell that 3 times. HMMM gender queer

what the fuck does that even mean

Why do I feel like being detached made me lose some level of understanding the details of things.

Maybe most of my memory exists in my muscles. Too many years of field hockey practice. At least I was a goalie and got to stand up

God damn those days. What fucking Days

Shit

Speaking of, I threw up my entire guts over the course of 8 hours just 4 days ago and now I feel better so I hope that lasts but what the fuck menstrual cycle.

What.the.actual.fuck.

Does that happen as you grow older or does it just happen to people when they’re dehydrated.

Ok why haven’t the transmen raised any kind of fuss about men with periods. 

Why aren’t the transmen held up as much as trasnwomen. I mean all politics aside I feel like I can rattle off the name of 3 trasnwomen that are household names but only because I’ve been deep in lgbt culture especially in womyn’s culture I can think of names of transmen. I guess entertainment and mainstream isnt everything but I think about it because I can’t seem to decide if I want to go ahead and move forward with that decision myself. It’s just so time consuming and money sucking that I’d rather just diet and be gay but damn Ive gotten so attracted to people that I know would date me if I was a guy. I think that phase is done now and I’m starting to come into my own though and through being observant and open am learning so much more about what people I’m attracted to want and how I can fulfil that and also my own needs...selfish? I guess, I’ve never claimed otherwise.... That will probably cost me brownie points somewhere down the line of life but we’ll see. 

I do enjoy being on my own and my life just sets me up with little pockets of people to learn over time. I can take my time with this show because we’re going to be together for a good long time. 

And its TW so yay.