#donald trump speech today

[diretodaamericanews]

Trump se compromete a PROIBIR a mutilação sexual de crianças em TODOS os 50 estados

Ideias Principais Crítica ao governo de Joe Biden Restaurar políticas conservadoras e valores judaico-cristãos Defesa de juízes conservadores como Antonin Scalia e Clarence Thomas Posição pró-vida e crítica ao Partido Democrata quanto ao aborto Combate ao “Deep State” e reforma do FBI e do Departamento de Justiça Eliminar a teoria crítica da raça e conteúdo inapropriado das…

[shinobicyrus]

In a craven, pathetic, cynical, and transparently desperate ploy to energize his torpid 2024 campaign and match his rival Desantis, Twice-Impeached Ex-President Trump has shuffled out of his Florida tanning tank to join the gibbering chorus of Far-Right trans-panic by releasing a video on Truth Social. The full statement amounts to a hate-ridden, incendiary rant that proposes nationwide federal action that would threaten the health and well-being of trans people, in particular trans children, and will use the law to enforce a rigid, hetero-normative, cisgender social order.

You can watch the full video here on Forbes  if you choose to. I advise against it, personally. The years since his removal from public office and most social media seems to have had atrophied my tolerance. It’s probably why I was somehow shocked at how a video less than four minutes long can cram so much ignorance, falsehoods, hateful invective, and unhinged demagoguery in such a short period of time.

Pages of ink could be spilled breaking down every ranting tangent, from threats to prosecute doctors and hospitals providing gender affirming care, the distasteful novelty of calling trans children mutants,  inventing a conspiracy of pharmaceutical companies selling unsafe hormones and puberty blockers to children, and proposes using the federal government to “promote” aka enforce “positive education of the nuclear family” and the “role of mothers and fathers,” sprinkled with some good old fashioned sex-based bio-essentialism.

The crescendo, the real red meat dripping with bloody doctrine, is at the end:

“I will ask congress to pass a bill establishing that the only genders recognized by the United States Government are male and female and they are assigned at birth.”

“The Bill will also make clear that Title 9 prohibits men from participating in womens’ sports and we will protect the rights of parents from being forced to allow their minor child to assume a gender which is new and an identity without the parents’ consent. The identity will not be new and it will not be without parental consent.”

“No serious country should be telling its children that they were born with the wrong gender, a concept that was never heard of in all of human history - nobody’s ever heard of this, what’s happening today - it was all when the radical left invented it just a few years ago.”

He ends it all with a chilling conclusion. “Under my leadership, this madness will end.”

I’ve done my best since his departure from office to avoid talking about this sad orange failure puttering around his private golf course while lawsuits and legal investigations pile around him. But I’ve heard little mainstream discussion of this announcement; how Far-Right transphobic rhetoric is being elevated to the level of presidential politics.

While Trump was never friendly to the LGBTQ community, he was also prone to mocking the likes of Pence for his desire of wanting to “hang the gays.” Did his Administration do harm to the queer community? Yes, undeniably so. But to me it felt obligatory, with little energy or drive behind it, as Trump ultimately didn’t care. The callous apathy of an incurious narcissist.

Now, whether he believes the nonsense he’s spewing or not, Trump sees that the Republican base has been driven to a mad fervor over the existence of trans folks. So, like the cynical, amoral opportunist he is, he will regurgitate the vile hateful garbage his speechwriters feed him for political and financial gain.

Whether he gets the nomination or not, this announcement will set the tone for the entire Republican presidential primary of 2024.

[wilwheaton]

For some odd reason, moderator Jake Tapper told Trump in the beginning that he didn't need to answer the questions and that he could use the time however he wanted. Trump ran with that, essentially giving a rally speech whenever he had the floor and was unresponsive to the vast majority of the questions. He made faces and insulted Biden to his face, at one point calling him a criminal and a Manchurian candidate. If anyone had said 10 years ago that this would happen at a presidential debate they would have been laughed out of the room. After the debate when most of the country had turned off cable news or gone to bed, CNN aired its fact check. [...] Even had Joe Biden been at the top of his game, he would not have been able to parry all those lies and he shouldn't have been put in the role of being Donald Trump's fact checker. His choice was to either ignore the lies and let them stand so he could use his time to make his own case or spend the entire debate correcting the record. It was not a fair fight. It's obvious that Biden's terrible performance has caused panic among Democrats and liberal pundits and analysts. The calls for him to withdraw are loud and meaningful and it's going to be a very rough period in this campaign whatever happens. For me, this isn't really a question. As long as Donald Trump is on the ballot, I will vote for the Democratic nominee. If it's Biden or someone else, the calculation remains the same. Nothing is worse than another Trump administration and I suspect that at the end of the day Democratic voters will agree with that. So it's still a matter of those undecided voters in swing states, just like it was on Thursday morning.

CNN's debate was no fair fight

CNN, yet again, gave Trump a national stage to vomit an endless stream of unchecked lies, and today, CNN is telling itself and anyone who will listen that the network and its moderators did a great job. That’s just plainly false, and America is paying the price for their failure.

That doesn’t let Biden off the hook. Biden had a terrible night. He was so bad, it’s allowed the political press to completely ignore not just how much Trump lied, but what he lied about: January 6, all his indictments, his Covid response, and on and on. President Biden was a disaster, and his campaign should be at DefCon 1 to try and repair all the damage. I am terrified that his awful performance will obscure his surprisingly good record and leadership in the post-insurrection era, and give the political press an excuse to run with “Biden is old” in the face of Trump’s endless lies, his felony convictions, his pending trials, and all of his criminality. Someone at Salon said that Trump didn’t win, but Biden absolutely lost. I can’t argue with that, even if the facts are all on Biden’s side.

I’ve seen President Biden on TV today, and even last night after the debate, where he didn’t come across as an ancient dude who needs a walker on his way to some Matlock reruns. He looks and sounds like the SOTU Biden we all expected would show up last night. I have no idea why he was so awful for 99% of the debate (the campaign says he has a cold), and I have no idea why the guy who is showing up to speak to supporters today, and who delivered the SOTU didn’t show up last night to save America from Trump, again.

But we have to live with this reality now, and I hope like hell that the Biden campaign, the candidate, and the entire Democratic party apparatus scrambles like fucking crazy to get all hands on deck to fix this, and remind voters that

This isn’t about BIden vs. Trump. This is about America vs. Project 2025.

There will be no second debate where Biden can try to salvage something out of the wreckage of this one. Trump has everything to lose and nothing to gain. Trump will crow about how he won, and declare he has no reason to debate again, and he’s right. Biden had one shot and he absolutely blew it. The moderators did not help, but the campaign had to have known they wouldn’t, and it sure looks like they didn’t prepare Biden for what we all knew was coming. I don’t know how those same people stop the bleeding, and if they can’t, America and the world are in real, real trouble.

But we all have to remember that we have a choice to make in just a few months. Right now, and probably on election day, the choice is between Joe Biden and Democracy, or Donald Trump and Fascism. It’s stark, it’s clear, it’s binary, and I can not believe that it is even a question. I just hope that there are enough voters out there who will understand that we do have a choice. The options suck, but we do have a choice.

Please choose Democracy. Please choose America. Please choose the future world our children will inherit from us.

[ryanmattaofficial]

Save Of Children President Donald Trump Announcement Today

[genderqueerpositivity]

I absolutely cannot wait for this election cycle to be over because genuinely what the fuck. I keep drawing parallels to the 2016 election because there are just so many similarities, but what I haven't said much about yet are the ways in which things are worse.

Having the majority of people I know or randomly encounter be Trump supporting Republicans is absolutely wild now, because sometimes they will just drop the most unhinged comments you could possibly imagine into casual conversation as if they're simply commenting that the grass is green or the weather is nice today, and every time it gives me this bizarre sensation like I am somehow the one living in a different plane of reality.

The Democrats are intentionally bringing undocumented people into the country and giving them drivers licenses so they can vote in the upcoming November election, and unless Donald Trump wins and is allowed to carry out his mass deportation plan the United States will never again have a Republican Christian president.

Joe Biden has been using the US military to release chemicals into the atmosphere for the past four years which have the ability to affect the weather in order to trick the American public into believing that climate change is real.

The attack on Donald Trump at his rally was rally a plot enacted by The Deep State, a secret group of powerful liberals who are running the country behind the scenes, and they don't want Trump to win in November because he is too powerful for them to control.

Joe Biden was replaced by a secret identical body double when he allegedly had Covid several weeks ago, and the double is the one who really dropped out of the election, gives all of his speeches, and does all of his interviews now for him.

Those are just the ones I heard last week.

And the reactions I get when contradicting these wild takes range from rage to mocking to a bizarre persecution complex. In 2016 and even in 2020 I was able to have a lot of productive conversations with many people who disagreed with me greatly on major issues, and that is largely not happening this time. If I dare to disagree, they turn to anger, attack me personally, or cry immediately that I'm denying their right to free speech. When bringing up my actual lived experiences with certain issues, I've been dismissed immediately as emotional and brainwashed. There is no room for discourse or discussion anymore, it has broken down.

I know that we've been going out of our way to call them weird, but we're not really talking about fringe weirdo conspiracy theorists anymore, we're talking about your neighbors and my coworkers and your aunt and the guy behind me in line at Aldi. These people are everywhere, they're 100% serious about believing in this shit, and they're voting Republican in November come hell or high water, truth be goddamed.

You know, the lives of millions and millions of women, LGBTQ+ people, undocumented people, and other marginalized peoples are at stake in this election but it feels increasingly like reality is at stake too.

"Alternative facts" sounded outrageous seven years ago...now they've made it a way of life. Unless we can correct course, and rapidly, it isn't going to get better.

[mrs-stans]

Sebastian Stan Tells All: Becoming Donald Trump, Gaining 15 Pounds and Starring in 2024’s Most Controversial Movie

By Daniel D'Addario

Sebastian Stan Variety Cover Story

It started with the most famous voice on the planet, the one that just won’t shut up.

Sebastian Stan, in real life, sounds very little like Donald Trump, whom he’s playing in the new film “The Apprentice.” Sure, they share a tristate accent — Stan has lived in the city for years and attended Rutgers University before launching his career — but he speaks with none of Trump’s emphasis on his own greatness. Trump dwells, Stan skitters. Trump attempts to draw topics together over lengthy stem-winders (what he recently called “the weave”), while Stan has a certain unwillingness to be pinned down, a desire to keep moving. It takes some coaxing to bring Stan, a man with the upright bearing and square jaw of a matinee idol, to speak about his own process — how hard he worked to conjure a sense Trump, and how he sought to bring out new insights about America’s most scrutinized politician.

“I think he’s a lot smarter than people want to say about him,” Stan says, “because he repeats things consistently, and he’s given you a brand.” Stan would know: He watched videos of Trump on a loop while preparing for “The Apprentice.” In the film, out on Oct. 11, Stan plays Trump as he moves from insecure, aspiring real estate developer to still insecure but established member of the New York celebrity firmament.

We’re sitting over coffee in Manhattan. Stan is dressed down in a black chore coat and black tee, yet he’s anything but a casual conversation partner. He rarely breaks eye contact, doing so only on the occasions when he has something he wants to show me on his iPhone (cracked screen, no case). In this instance, it’s folders of photos and videos labeled “DT” and “DT PHYSICALITY.”

“I had 130 videos on his physicality on my phone,” Stan says. “And 562 videos that I had pulled with pictures from different time periods — from the ’70s all the way to today — so I could pull out his speech patterns and try to improvise like him.” Stan, deep in character, would ad-lib entire scenes at director Ali Abbasi’s urging, drawing on the details he’d learned from watching Trump and reading interviews to understand precisely how to react in each moment.

“Ali could come in on the second take and say, ‘Why don’t you talk a little bit about the taxes and how you don’t want to pay?’ So I had to know what charities they were going to in 1983. Every night I would go home and try not only to prepare for the day that was coming, but also to prepare for where Ali was going to take this.”

Looking at Stan’s phone, among the endless pictures of Trump, I glimpse thumbnails of Stan’s own face perched in a Trumpian pout and videos of the actor’s preparation just aching to be clicked — or to be stored in the Trump Presidential Library when this is all over in a few months, or in 2029, or beyond.

“I started to realize that I needed to start speaking with my lips in a different way,” Stan says. “A lot of that came from the consonants. If I’m talking, I’m moving forward.” On film, Stan shapes his mouth like he can’t wait to get the plosives out, puckering without quite tipping into parody. “The consonants naturally forced your lips forward.”

“If he did 10% more of what he did, it would become ‘Saturday Night Live,’” Abbasi says. “If he did 10% less, then he’s not conjuring that person. But here’s the thing about Sebastian: He’s very inspired by reality, by research. And that’s also the way I work; if you want to go to strange places, you need to get your baseline reality covered very well.”

A little later, Stan passes me the phone again to show me a selfie of him posing shirtless and revealing two sagging pecs and a bit of a gut. He’s pouting into a mirror. If his expression looks exaggerated, consider that he was in Marvel-movie shape before stepping into the role of the former president; the body transformation happened rapidly and jarringly. Trump’s size is a part of the film’s plot — as Trump’s sense of self inflates, so does he. In a rush to meet the shooting deadline for “The Apprentice,” Abbasi asked Stan, “How much weight can you gain?”

“You’d be surprised,” Stan tells me. “You can gain a lot of weight in two months.” (Fifteen pounds, to be exact.)

Now he’s back in fighting form, but the character has stayed with him. After years of playing second-fiddle agents of chaos — goofball husbands to Margot Robbie’s and Lily James’ characters in “I, Tonya” and Hulu’s “Pam & Tommy,” surly frenemy to Chris Evans’ Captain America in the Marvel franchise — Stan plunged into the id of the man whose appetites have reshaped our world. He had to have a polished enough sense of Trump that he could improvise in character, and enough respect for him to play him as a human being, not a monster.

It’s one of two transformations this year for Stan — and one that might give a talented actor that most elusive thing: a brand of his own. He’s long been adjacent enough to star power that he could feel its glow, but he hasn’t been the marquee performer. While his co-stars have found themselves defined by the projects he’s been in — from “Captain America” and “I, Tonya” back to his start on “Gossip Girl” — he’s spent more than a decade in the public eye while evading being defined at all.

This fall promises to be the season that changes all that: Stan is pulling double duty with “The Apprentice” and “A Different Man” (in theaters Sept. 20), in which he plays a man afflicted with a disfiguring tumor disorder who — even when presented with a fantastical treatment that makes him look like, well, Sebastian Stan — can’t be cured of ailments of the soul. For “A Different Man,” Stan won the top acting prize at the Berlin Film Festival; for “The Apprentice,” the sky’s the limit, if it can manage to get seen. (More on that later.)

One reason Stan has largely evaded being defined is that he’s never the same twice, often willing to get loopy or go dark in pursuit of his characters’ truths. That’s all the more true this year: In “The Apprentice,” he’s under the carapace of Trumpiness; in “A Different Man,” his face is hidden behind extensive prosthetics.

“In my book, if you’re the good-looking, sensitive guy 20 movies in a row, that’s not a star for me,” says Abbasi, who compares Stan to Marlon Brando — an actor eager to play against his looks. “You’re just one of the many in the factory of the Ken dolls.”

This fall represents Stan’s chance to break out of the toy store once and for all. His Winter Soldier brought a jolt of evil into Captain America’s world, and his Jeff Gillooly was the devil sitting on Tonya Harding’s shoulder. Now Stan is at the center of the frame, playing one of the most divisive characters imaginable. So he’s showing us where he can go. The spotlight is his, and so is the risk that comes with it.

Why take such a risk?

The script for “The Apprentice,” which Stan first received in 2019, but which took years to come together, made him consider the American dream, the one that Trump achieved and is redefining.

Stan emigrated with his mother, a pianist, from communist Romania as a child. “I was raised always aware of the American dream: America being the land of opportunity, where dreams come true, where you can make something of yourself.” He pushes the wings of his hair back to frame his face, a gold signet ring glinting in the late-summer sunlight, and, briefly, I can hear a hint of Trump’s directness of approach. “You can become whoever you want, if you just have a good idea.” Stan’s good idea has been to play the lead in movies while dodging the formulaic identity of a leading man, and this year will prove just how far he can take it.

“The Apprentice” seemed like it would never come together before suddenly it did. This time last year, Stan was sure it was dead in the water, and he was OK with that. “If this movie is not happening, it’s because it’s not meant to happen,” he recalls thinking. “It will not be because I’m too scared and walk away.”

Called in on short notice and filming from November 2023 to January of this year (ahead of a May premiere in Cannes), Stan lent heft and attitude to a character arc that takes Trump from local real estate developer in the 1970s to national celebrity in the 1980s. He learns the rough-and-tumble game of power from the ruthless and hedonistic political fixer Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong), eventually cutting the closeted Cohn loose as he dies of AIDS and alienating his wife Ivana (Maria Bakalova) in the process. (In a shocking scene, Donald sexually assaults Ivana in their Trump Tower apartment.) For all its edginess, the film is about Trump’s personality — and the way it calcified into a persona — rather than his present-day politics. (Despite its title, it’s set well before the 2004 launch of the reality show that finally made Trump the superstar he longed to be.)

And despite the fact that Trump has kept America rapt since he announced his run for president in 2015, Hollywood has been terrified of “The Apprentice.” The film didn’t sell for months after Cannes, an unusual result for a major English-language competition film, partly because Trump’s legal team sent a cease-and-desist letter attempting to block the film’s release in the U.S. while the fest was still ongoing. When it finally sold, it was to Briarcliff Entertainment, a distributor so small that the production has launched a Kickstarter campaign to raise money so that it will be able to stay in theaters.

Yes, Hollywood may vote blue, but it’s not the same town that released “Fahrenheit 9/11” or even “W.,” let alone a film that depicts the once (and possibly future) president raping his wife. (The filmmakers stand behind that story. “The script is 100% backed by my own interviews and historical research,” says Gabriel Sherman, the screenwriter and a journalist who covers Trump and the American conservative movement. “And it’s important to note that it is not a documentary. It’s a work of fiction that’s inspired by history.”) Entertainment corporations from Netflix to Disney would be severely inconvenienced if the next president came into office with a grudge against them.

“I am quite shocked, to be honest,” Abbasi says. “This is not a political piece. It’s not a hit piece; it’s not a hatchet job; it’s not propaganda. The fact that it’s been so challenging is shocking.” Abbasi, born in Iran, was condemned by his government over his last film, “Holy Spider,” and cannot safely return. He sees a parallel in the response to “The Apprentice.” “OK, that’s Iran — that is unfortunately expected. But I wasn’t expecting this.”

“Everything with this film has been one day at a time,” Stan says. The actor chalks up the film’s divisiveness to a siloed online environment. “There are a lot of people who love reading the [film’s] Wikipedia page and throwing out their opinions,” he says, an edge entering his voice. “But they don’t actually know what they’re talking about. That’s a popular sport now online, apparently.”

Unprompted, Stan brings up the idea that Trump is so widely known that some might think a biographical film about him serves no purpose. “When someone says, ‘Why do we need this movie? We know all this,’ I’ll say, ‘Maybe you do, but you haven’t experienced it. The experience of those two hours is visceral. It’s something you can hopefully feel — if you still have feelings.’”

After graduating from Rutgers in 2005, Stan found his first substantial role on “Gossip Girl,” playing troubled rich kid Carter Baizen. Like teen soaps since time immemorial, “Gossip Girl” was a star-making machine. “It was the first time I was in serious love with somebody,” he says. (He dated the series’ star, Leighton Meester, from 2008 to 2010.) He feels nostalgic for that moment: “Walking around the city, seeing these same buildings and streets — life seemed simpler.”

Stan followed his “Gossip Girl” gig with roles on the 2009 NBC drama “Kings,” playing a devious gay prince in an alternate-reality modern world governed by a monarchy, and the 2012 USA miniseries “Political Animals,” playing a black-sheep prince (and once again a gay man) of a different sort — the son of a philandering former president and an ambitious former first lady.

When I ask him what lane he envisioned himself in as a young actor, he shrugs off the question. “I grew up with a single mom, and I didn’t have a lot of male role models. I was always trying to figure out what I wanted to be. And at some point, I was like, I could just be a bunch of things.”

Which might seem challenging when one is booked to play the same character, Bucky Barnes, in Marvel movie after Marvel movie. Bucky’s adventures have been wide-ranging — he’s been brainwashed and turned evil and then brought back to the home team again, all since his debut in 2011’s “Captain America: The First Avenger.” Next year, he’ll anchor the summer movie “Thunderbolts,” as the leader of a squad of quirky heroes played by, among others, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Florence Pugh. It’s easy to wonder if this has come to feel like a cage of sorts.

Not so, says Stan. His new Marvel film “was kind of like ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’ — a guy coming into this group that was chaotic and degenerate, and somehow finding a way to unite them.”

Lately, knives have been out for Marvel movies as some have disappointed at the box office, and “Thunderbolts,” which endured strike delays and last-minute cast changes, has been under scrutiny.

“It’s become really convenient to pick on [Marvel films],” Stan says. “And that’s fine. Everyone’s got an opinion. But they’re a big part of what contributes to this business and allows us to have smaller movies as well. This is an artery traveling through the system of this entire machinery that’s Hollywood. It feeds in so many more ways than people acknowledge.” He adds, “Sometimes I get protective of it because the intention is really fucking good. It’s just fucking hard to make a good movie over and over again.”

Which may account for an eagerness to try something new. “In the last couple of years,” he says, “I’ve gotten much more aggressive about pursuing things that I want, and I’m constantly looking for different ways of challenging myself.”

The challenge continued throughout the shoot of “The Apprentice,” as Stan pushed the material. “One of the most creatively rewarding parts of the process was how open Sebastian was to giving notes on the script but also wanting to go beyond the script,” says Sherman, the screenwriter. “If he was interested in a certain aspect of a scene, he was like, Can you find me a quote?” he recalls.

Building a dynamic through improvised scenes, Stan and Strong stayed in character throughout the “Apprentice” shoot. “I was doing an Ibsen play on Broadway,” says Strong, who won a Tony in June for his performance in “An Enemy of the People,” “and he came backstage afterwards. And it was like — I’d never really met Sebastian, and I don’t think he’d ever met me. So it was nice to meet him.”

Before the pair began acting together, they didn’t rehearse much — “I’m not a fan of rehearsals,” Strong says. “I think actors are best left in their cocoon, doing their work, and then trusted to walk on set and be ready.” The two didn’t touch the script together until cameras went up — though they spent a preproduction day, Strong says, playing games in character as Donald and Roy.

After filming, both have kept memories of the hold their characters had on them. They shared a flight back from Telluride — a famously bumpy trip out of the mountains. “He’s a nervous flyer, and I’m a nervous flyer,” Stan says. Both marveled at the fact that they’d contained their nerves on the first day of shooting “The Apprentice,” when their characters traveled together via helicopter. “We both go, ‘Yeah — but there was a camera.’”

Stan’s aggressive approach to research came in handy on “A Different Man,” which shot before “The Apprentice.” His character’s disorder, neurofibromatosis, is caused by a genetic mutation and presents as benign tumors growing in the nervous system. After being healed, he feels a growing envy for a fellow sufferer who seems unbothered by his disability.

Stan’s co-star, Adam Pearson, was diagnosed with neurofibromatosis in early childhood. Stan found the experience challenging to render faithfully. “I said many times, I can do all the research in the world, but am I ever going to come close to this?” Stan says. “How am I going to ever do this justice?”

Plus, he had precious little time to prepare: “He was fully on board, and the film was being made weeks later,” director Aaron Schimberg says. “Zero to 60 in a matter of weeks.”

The actor grappled for something to hold on to, and Pearson sug gested he refer to his own experience of fame. “Adam said to me, ‘You know what it’s like to be public property,’” Stan says.

Pearson recalls describing the experience to Stan this way: “While you don’t understand the invasiveness and the staring and the pointing that I’ve grown up with, you do know what it’s like to have the world think you owe them something.”

That sense of alienation becomes universal through the film’s storytelling: “A Different Man” takes its premise as the jumping-off point for a deep and often mordant investigation of who we all are underneath the skin.

The film was shot in 22 days in a New York City heat wave, and there was, Schimberg says, “no room for error. I would get four or five takes, however many I could squeeze out, but there’s no coverage.”

Through it all, Stan’s performance is utterly poised — Schimberg and Stan discussed Buster Keaton as a reference for his ability to be “completely stone-faced” amid chaos, the director says. And the days were particularly long because Oscar-nominated prosthetics artist Michael Marino was only able to apply Stan’s makeup in the early morning, before going to his job on the set of “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel.”

“Even though I wasn’t shooting until 11 a.m., I would go at like 5 in the morning to his studio, or his apartment,” Stan recalls. The hidden advantage was that Stan had hours to kill while made up like his character, the kind of person the world looks past. “I wanted to walk around the city and see what happened,” Stan says. “On Broadway, one of the busiest streets in New York, no one’s looking at me. It’s as if I’m not even there.” The other reaction was worse: “Somebody would immediately stop and very blatantly hit their friend, point, take a picture.”

It was a study in empathy that flowed into the character. Stan had spoken to Pearson’s mother, who watched her son develop neurofibromatosis before growing into a disability advocate and, eventually, an actor. “She said to me, ‘All I ever wanted was for someone to walk in his shoes for a day,’” Stan recalls. “And I guess that was the closest I had ever come.”

“The Apprentice” forced Stan, and forces the viewer, to do the same with a figure that some 50% of the electorate would sooner forget entirely. And that lends the film its controversy. Those on the right, presupposing that the movie is an anti-Trump document, have railed against it. In a statement provided to Variety, a Trump campaign spokesman said, “This ‘film’ is pure malicious defamation, should never see the light of day and doesn’t even deserve a place in the straight-to-DVD section of a bargain bin at a soon-to-be-closed discount movie store, it belongs in a dumpster fire.” The campaign threatened a lawsuit, though none has materialized.

Asked about the assault scene, Stan notes that Ivana had made the claim in a deposition, but later walked it back. “Is it closer to the truth, what she had said directly in the deposition or something that she retracted?” he asks. “They went with the first part.”

The movie depicts, too, Ivana’s carrying on with her marriage after the violation, which may be still more devastating. “How do you overcome something like this?” asks Bakalova. “Do you have to put on a mask that everything is fine? In the next scene, she’s going to play the game and pretend that we’re the glamorous, perfect couple.” The Trumps, in “The Apprentice,” live in a world of paper-thin images, one that grows so encompassing that Donald no longer feels anything for the people to whom he was once loyal. They’re props in his stage show.

“The Apprentice” will drop in the midst of the most chaotic presidential election of our lifetime. “The way it lands in this extremely polarized situation, for me as an artist, is exciting. I won’t lie to you,” says Abbasi.

When asked if he was concerned about blowback from a Trump 47 presidency, Stan says, “You can’t do this movie and not be thinking about all those things, but I really have no idea. I’m still in shock from going from an assassination attempt to the next weekend having a president step down [from a reelection bid].”

Stan’s job, as he sees it, was to synthesize everything he’d absorbed — all those videos on his phone — into a person who made sense. This Trump had to be part of a coherent story, not just the flurry of news updates to which we’ve become accustomed.

“You can take a Bach or a Beethoven, and everyone’s going to play that differently on the piano, right?” Stan says. (His pianist mother named him for Johann Sebastian Bach.) “So this is my take on what I’ve learned. I have to strip myself of expectations of being applauded for this, if people are going to like it or people are going to hate it. People are going to say whatever they want. Hopefully they should think at least before they say it.”

It’s a reality that Stan is now used to — the work is the work, and the way people interpret him is none of his business. Perhaps that’s why he has run away from ever being the same thing twice. “I could sit with you today and tell you passionately what my truth is, but it doesn’t matter,” he says. “Because people are more interested in a version of you that they want to see, rather than who you are.”

“The Apprentice” has been the subject of extreme difference of opinion by many who have yet to see it. It’s been read — and will continue to be after its release — as anti-Trump agitprop. The truth is chewier and more complicated, and, perhaps, unsuited for these times.

“Are we going to live in a world where anyone knows what the truth is anymore? Or is it just a world that everyone wants to create for themselves?” Stan asks.

His voice — the one that shares a slight accent with Trump but that is, finally, Stan’s own — is calm and clear. “People create their own truth right now,” he says. “That’s the only thing that I’ve made peace with; I don’t need to twist your arm if that’s what you want to believe. But the way to deal with something is to actually confront it.”

[deadpresidents]

On the cliffs of Normandy, in a small holding area, the President of the United States was looking out at the English Channel. It was only six weeks ago, on the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings, and President Biden had just finished his remarks at the American cemetery atop Omaha Beach. Guests had been congratulating him on the speech, but he didn't want to talk about himself. The moment was not about him; it was about the men who had fought and died there. "Today feels so large," he told me. "This may sound strange -- and I don't mean it to -- but when I was out there, I felt the honor of it, the sanctity of it. To speak for the American people, to speak over those graves, it's a profound thing." He turned from the view over the beaches and gestured back toward the war dead. "You want to do right by them, by the country."

Mr. Biden has spent a lifetime trying to do right by the nation, and he did so in the most epic of ways when he chose to end his campaign for re-election. His decision is one of the most remarkable acts of leadership in our history, an act of self-sacrifice that places him in the company of George Washington who also stepped away from the presidency. To put something ahead of one's immediate desires -- to give, rather than to try to take -- is perhaps the most difficult thing for any human being to do. And Mr. Biden has done just that.

To be clear: Mr. Biden is my friend, and it has been a privilege to help him when I can. Not because I am a Democrat -- I belong to neither party and have voted for both Democrats and Republicans -- but because I believe him to be a defender of the Constitution and a public servant of honor and of grace at a time when extreme forces threaten the nation. I do not agree with everything he has done or wanted to do in terms of policy. But I know him to be a good man, a patriot and a president who has met challenges all too similar to those Abraham Lincoln faced. Here is the story I believe history will tell of Joe Biden. With American democracy in an hour of maximum danger in Donald Trump's presidency, Mr. Biden stepped in the breach. He staved off an authoritarian threat at home, rallied the world against autocrats abroad, laid the foundations for decades of prosperity, managed the end of a once-in-a-century pandemic, successfully legislated on vital issues of climate and infrastructure and has conducted a presidency worthy of the greatest of his predecessors. History and fate brought him to the pinnacle in a late season in his life, and in the end, he respected fate -- and he respected the American people.

It is, of course, an incredibly difficult moment. Highs and lows, victories and defeats, joy and pain: It has been ever thus for Mr. Biden. In the distant autumn of 1972, he experienced the most exhilarating of hours -- election to the United States Senate at the age of 29. He was no scion; he earned it. The darkness fell: His wife and daughter were killed in an automobile accident that seriously injured his two sons, Beau and Hunter. But he endured, found purpose in the pain, became deeper, wiser, more empathetic. Through the decades, two presidential campaigns imploded, and in 2015 his son Beau, a lawyer and wonderfully promising young political figure, died of brain cancer after serving in Iraq.

Such tragedy would have broken many lesser men. Mr. Biden, however, never gave up, never gave in, never surrendered the hope that a fallen, frail and fallible world could be made better, stronger and more whole if people could summon just enough goodness and enough courage to build rather than tear down. Character, as the Greeks first taught us, is destiny, and Mr. Biden's character is both a mirror and a maker of his nation's. Like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, he is optimistic, resilient and kind, a steward of American greatness, a love of the great game of politics and, at heart, a hopeless romantic about the country that has given him so much.

Nothing bears out this point as well as his decision to let history happen in the 2024 election. Not matter how much people say that this was inevitable after the debate in Atlanta last month, there was nothing foreordained about an American President ending his political career for the sake of his country and his party. By surrendering the possibility of enduring in the seat of ultimate power, Mr. Biden has taught us a landmark lesson in patriotism, humility and wisdom.

Now the question comes to the rest of us. What will we the people do? We face the most significant of choices. Mr. Roosevelt framed the war whose dead Mr. Biden commemorated at Normandy in June as a battle between democracy and dictatorship. It is not too much to say that we, too, have what Mr. Roosevelt called a "rendezvous with destiny" at home and abroad. Mr. Biden has put country above self, the Constitution above personal ambition, the future of democracy above temporal gain. It is up to us to follow his lead.

-- "Joe Biden, My Friend and an American Hero" by Jon Meacham, New York Times, July 22, 2024.

[dchan87]

The day after Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was announced as Kamala Harris’s choice for vice president, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told a crowd of lawmakers in Louisville, Kentucky, that a Harris administration would spell certain doom for the Republican Party. “Let’s assume our worst nightmare—the Democrats went to the White House, the House, the Senate,” McConnell said during his keynote speech at the National Conference of State Legislators Legislative Summit last week, according to Spectrum News. “The first thing they’ll do is get rid of the [Senate] filibuster. Second, you’ll have two new states: D.C., Puerto Rico. That’s four new Democratic senators in perpetuity.”

Puerto Rico will vote on a nonbinding ballot measure in November to determine the territory’s future political status, with voters being given three options, all of which would change its official status: statehood, independence, or independence with free association. It will be the seventh time that the island’s 3.2 million people vote to define their political relationship with the United States. Harris has not yet taken an official stance on the vote.

McConnell insisted that next on the historically moderate Democrat’s agenda would be to place as many liberal justices on the Supreme Court as possible, noting that doing so would be “unconstitutional”—while apparently ignoring the fact that that’s exactly what Donald Trump did to achieve SCOTUS’s current conservative supermajority.

“If they get those two new states and pack the Supreme Court, they’ll get what they want,” McConnell said.

Ultimately, McConnell believes that the Harris-Walz ticket “represents the far left of the Democratic Party.

“And by the way, that’s most Democrats today,” he added.

Following the address, Kentucky Senate President Robert Stivers broke down the Republican perspective on why Harris turned to Walz as her right hand.

“They’re trying to appeal to a rural voter that they have not appealed to in years,” Stivers said, reported Spectrum. “Now, whether they can or they can’t, that becomes a good question, and I think that will be based on the policies that they put forward. And hopefully, that’s what we get into.”

[probablyasocialecologist]

Traditionally, the image of a figleaf was used by artists to cover the body parts (think Adam and Eve) that they were not supposed to show in their paintings. As I use the term, a figleaf is a communicative device that provides just a bit of cover for something that one isn’t supposed to show in public – like racism. To see how this works, let’s first take a closer look at Trump’s call for a Muslim ban. Here is a statement, cast in the third person, that he read aloud in December 2015: Donald J Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. The anti-Muslim message is loud and clear, and not hidden at all. But the end of the statement is the bit that I want to focus on: ‘until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on’. For some people, this phrase provided reassurance that Trump isn’t racist – because a real racist would want to ban Muslims period, not just while we figure out what’s going on. This is a figleaf: it provides just enough cover for the racism that isn’t acceptable to show in public. One reason that figleaves like this work is that many white people accept what the sociolinguist Jane Hill called ‘the folk theory of racism’. This view sets a very high bar for what counts as racist: a racist has to consciously believe in the biological inferiority of people of colour, and intend to be racist. Somebody like this would want to ban Muslims forever, not just temporarily. Similarly, they wouldn’t suggest that ‘some’ Mexican immigrants are good people, as Trump did. Nor would they have a Black friend, or declare themself to be non-racist, this line of thinking goes. A view such as this one makes it very easy for utterances to serve as figleaves for racism. These figleaves allow a voter to continue supporting a candidate who has made a comment that might have worried them. They don’t need to become fully convinced that the candidate is non-racist; it’s enough in many cases to be uncertain about whether the utterance indicates racism. When I examined discussions among Trump supporters online, I found people who worried about Trump’s views on Mexicans being reassured by those who pointed out that he also said some of them are good. ‘I didn’t hear him say anything racist against any race,’ one person posted. ‘What I did hear him say is, “Illegal Mexicans bring drugs, crime, and are rapists, but I’m sure some are good people.” Seriously, whats racist about that?’ Another Tweeted: ‘Trump is not racist … Trump is not against all mexicans just the illegals.’ Another classic form of figleaf involves reporting the words of others, either specifically (‘John Smith says…’) or in a vague, handwavy way (‘Lots of people are saying…’) This is a great way to avoid responsibility for what one is inserting into the discourse. We see this technique in the British politician Enoch Powell’s infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in 1968, in which he described a constituent (a ‘quite ordinary working man’) as saying: ‘In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.’ Reports like these help to normalise the sentiments expressed, while distancing the speaker from them. Figleaves are not for everyone. Some people don’t need them: fully committed racists are happy with blatantly racist comments, no figleaves required. Many people won’t be convinced by them: antiracist activists, for example, will see right through the attempted reassurance. For others, though, they provide just what is needed – a licence to go on supporting the person they feel drawn to.

[decolonize-the-everything]

Let's play who said that

It is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror. It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation. And the current situation offers no prospect that life will improve. Israeli citizens will continue to be victimised by terrorists, and so Israel will continue to defend herself.

Kamala?

No

And the United States, along with our partners in the developed world, will increase our humanitarian assistance to relieve Palestinian suffering. Today, the Palestinian people lack effective courts of law and have no means to defend and vindicate their rights. A Palestinian state will require a system of reliable justice to punish those who prey on the innocent. The United States and members of the international community stand ready to work with Palestinian leaders to establish finance - establish finance and monitor a truly independent judiciary.

Bernie? No

I've said in the past that nations are either with us or against us in the war on terror. To be counted on the side of peace, nations must act. Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to violence in official media, and publicly denounce homicide bombings

Biden?

No

Here's a hint:

🥁

🥁

🥁

It was Republican president George W Bush.

20 years ago.

His campaign:

Bush Kamala began the campaign as the front runner among Republicans democrats due to his name recognition, high funds, and control of the governorship of Texas being CA D.A

The rich pay the most taxes, and the current system weighs the income tax against the upper income brackets. Bush also supported raising the Earned Income Tax Credit, which would primarily benefit the lower brackets of income-tax-affected citizens

The No Child Left Behind Act provides increased funding for schools, while requiring greater accountability for results. It gives parents the option to transfer their children to another school, if the current school is failing. It requires teachers to have a degree specific to the subject they are teaching, which had not been federally required in the past. It also makes high school academic records available to military recruiters.

decreasing the foreign dependence on oil through increased domestic production and the use of non-fossil fuel based energy production methods.

In his very first policy statement after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Bush reiterated his intent to place missile attack intervention highest on his list of priorities.

Reminder that normal Republicans aren't much different than a centrist democrat, a lot of people just don't know that or forgot cuz for the last decade democrats have been comparing themselves to Donald Trump.

But policies and speeches like this weren't progressive 20 years ago and they sure as hell aren't progressive now.

If after Trump your standards shifted so far that you'd vote for someone like George W Bush, you did get more conservative as you aged.

[abstractpenny]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can win.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Inspired by the visual language of old Ray Bradbury and Stephen King paperbacks, Justin Metz created this illustration, which may be the first cover without a headline or typography in The Atlantic’s 167-year history. :: The Atlantic

* * * *

Trump suffers emotional break; media pretends it didn’t happen

September 9, 2024

Robert B. Hubbell

Something remarkable happened in American politics over the last two weeks. A major party candidate for president suffered what can only be described as an emotional break or medical emergency that resulted in a sudden acceleration in the deterioration of his already deteriorating cognitive abilities and further loss of control over his delusional impulses. But you wouldn’t know it from reading the stories in the major media outlets—that are obsessing over horse-race polls and debate prognostication.

No, this isn’t just another rant about media coverage. We are at an inflection point: Either the media will meet the moment, or it will abandon the very democracy that creates the conditions that allow it to flourish. Whether the media meets that challenge is no longer our problem. It is a waste of emotional energy and precious time to worry about it. We have real work to do: That of convincing other Americans of the profound unfitness of Donald Trump and his unique threat to democracy.

Against all logic, decency, and common sense, the presidential race remains effectively tied (although Kamala Harris has the momentum, which is a good sign with less than 60 days until election day). Sadly, many Americans will vote for Trump because he is unhinged and out of control. He is an avatar for their anger. It is not a productive use of our time to focus on those voters.

But a substantial portion of the electorate remains undecided. Many say they don’t know enough about our current vice president to vote for her—although they are open to persuasion. Our target is the persuadable undecided voters and those who can’t bring themselves to vote for Trump but aren’t sure they can vote for Kamala Harris.

The media would be sounding the alarm with unremitting urgency in a world with a functioning press. But the media has concluded that it can generate more revenue by keeping the presidential race close. The believe that declaring one candidate to be an unfit megalomaniac at every opportunity would grow tiresome.

So, it is up to us. We must be warriors for the truth. And that means understanding what we have just witnessed over the last two weeks. Yes, it is unpleasant and enervating. We want to look away. That is what Trump wants. He wants us to be weary to the point of numbness and surrender. We cannot let that happen.

As soon as Kamala Harris became the presumptive nominee, Trump began racist and misogynistic attacks unparalleled in the sordid history of American political campaigns. He questioned Kamala Harris’s racial identify and accused her of engaging in sexual acts to succeed as a politician. And then it got worse.

Heather Cox Richardson’s column on Saturday describes the increasing velocity of Trump's descent into madness over the last week, especially his speeches over the weekend. See September 7, 2024 - by Heather Cox Richardson. HCR’s column moved many readers to post Comments in the Sunday edition of this newsletter. HCR writes, in part,

But today’s speech struck me as different from his past performances, distinguished for what sounded like desperation. Trump has always invented his stories from whole cloth, but there used to be some way to tie them to reality. Today that seemed to be gone. He was in a fantasy world, and his rhetoric was apocalyptic. It was also bloody in ways that raise huge red flags for scholars of fascism. [¶¶] [Trump said,] “I better win or you're gonna have problems like we've never had. We may have no country left. This may be our last election. You want to know the truth? People have said that. This may be our last election…. It’ll all be over, and you gotta remember…. Trump is always right. I hate to be right. I’m always right.” [¶¶] Whatever has caused it, Trump seems utterly off his pins, embracing wild conspiracy theories and, as his hopes of winning the election appear to be crumbling, threatening vengeance with a dogged fury that he used to be able to hide.

I urge you to read HCR’s entire column for an exposition of Trump's weekend speeches.

But it gets worse.

After his Saturday speeches, Trump posted the worst fascistic, ugly, megalomaniacal threat ever made by an American politician. He threatened to prosecute his opponents if he wins the 2024 election:

CEASE & DESIST: I, together with many Attorneys and Legal Scholars, am watching the Sanctity of the 2024 Presidential Election very closely because I know, better than most, the rampant Cheating and Skullduggery that has taken place by the Democrats in the 2020 Presidential Election. It was a Disgrace to our Nation! Therefore, the 2024 Election, where Votes have just started being cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny and, WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again. We cannot let our Country further devolve into a Third World Nation, AND WE WON'T! Please beware that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials. Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.

To be clear, Trump is threatening—in advance—to impose “long-term prison sentences .. . . never before seen in this country” on lawyers, election officials, donors, voters, and politicians whom Trump views as opponents.

We must pause on the madness of Trump's threats. They are delusional. The election hasn’t occurred, and he is planning to jail people over fictional cheating. He is using fascistic threats to dissuade eligible voters and election officials from engaging in the election process by suggesting that they will be “sought out, caught, and prosecuted”—as if the legal system is his personal instrument of revenge.

The combined effect of Trump's speech and post on Saturday should have been a watershed moment for journalists covering politics in America. For most of Sunday, no major media outlet commented on the deranged nature of Trump's speech or his post. Mid-afternoon on Sunday, both the Times and WaPo had posted stories about the threats—in the politics section of their coverage. Apparently, neither outlet believes that overt threats of retribution over non-existent election fraud rise to the level of “general news.”

What did rise to the level of “general news”? New polling by the NYTimes, which claimed the race is effectively tied. Although the Times’s results put Trump slightly ahead in the margin of error, its results were an outlier. How did the Times respond to the fact that its results were inconsistent with the trend of polling? It declared that its poll was “high quality,” while other polls taken since the convention in the race were of inferior quality. “There simply haven’t been many high-quality surveys fielded since the convention, when Ms. Harris was riding high.”

So, on a day when Trump's preemptive threat to jail election officials for non-existent fraud should have been the lead story with 48 POINT FONT, the Times placed itself at the center of the universe by highlighting its poll and declaring that its outlier results were correct, and all other polls were inferior.

The Guardian, as usual, distinguished itself by calling out Trump's deranged behavior as its lead story. See The Guardian, Trump threatens to jail adversaries for ‘unscrupulous behavior’ if he wins.

Perhaps Monday will bring a wave of condemnation and attention that was beyond the capabilities of major media over the weekend. That would be a welcome development. But regardless of whether that happens, it does not excuse us from the task of raising the alarm about Trump's threat to democracy. While we cannot limit our message to the threat to democracy, neither can we normalize or dismiss it or look away.

If we do not convince Americans that Trump is the greatest danger to democracy our nation has ever faced, then every policy proposal designed to improve the lives of all Americans will be meaningless.

It is a tough task to focus on the threat of Trump and the promise of Kamala Harris. But here we are. We must do both. And we aren’t going to get the help we deserve from the media. We must be bold; we must be willing to step outside of our comfort zone; we must speak the truth in words of one syllable (or shorter, if possible).

It seems improbable that the media can continue to ignore Trump's descent into madness and megalomania. But it seems improbable that they have done so to this point. But let’s not invest emotional energy worrying whether they will. It’s up to us. It always has been. But the stakes are higher than they have ever been.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[kp777]

By Jessica Corbett

Common Dreams

Sept. 26, 2023

Open internet advocates across the United States celebrated on Tuesday as Federal Communications Commission Chair Jessica Rosenworcel announced her highly anticipated proposal to reestablish FCC oversight of broadband and restore net neutrality rules.

"We thank the FCC for moving swiftly to begin the process of reinstating net neutrality regulations," said ACLU senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff. "The internet is our nation's primary marketplace of ideas—and it's critical that access to that marketplace is not controlled by the profit-seeking whims of powerful telecommunications giants."

Rosenworcel—appointed to lead the commission by President Joe Biden—discussed the history of net neutrality and her new plan to treat broadband as a public utility in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., which came on the heels of the U.S. Senate's recent confirmation of Anna Gomez to a long-vacant FCC seat.

Back in 2005, "the agency made clear that when it came to net neutrality, consumers should expect that their broadband providers would not block, throttle, or engage in paid prioritization of lawful internet traffic," she recalled. "In other words, your broadband provider had no business cutting off access to websites, slowing down internet services, and censoring online speech."

"Giant corporations and their lobbyists... will try every trick to block or delay the agency from restoring net neutrality."

After a decade of policymaking and litigation, net neutrality rules were finalized in 2015. However, a few years later—under former FCC Chair Ajit Pai, an appointee of ex-President Donald Trump—the commission caved to industry pressure and repealed them.

"The public backlash was overwhelming. People lit up our phone lines, clogged our email inboxes, and jammed our online comment system to express their disapproval," noted Rosenworcel, who was a commissioner at the time and opposed the repeal. "So today we begin a process to make this right."

The chair is proposing to reclassify broadband under Title II of the Communications Act, which "is the part of the law that gives the FCC clear authority to serve as a watchdog over the communications marketplace and look out for the public interest," she explained. "Title II took on special importance in the net neutrality debate because the courts have ruled that the FCC has clear authority to enforce open internet policies if broadband internet is classified as a Title II service."

"On issue after issue, reclassifying broadband as a Title II service would help the FCC serve the public interest more efficiently and effectively," she pointed out, detailing how it relates to public safety, national security, cybersecurity, network resilience and reliability, privacy, broadband deployment, and robotexts.

Rosenworcel intends to release the full text of the proposal on Thursday and hold a vote regarding whether to kick off rulemaking on October 19. While Brendan Carr, one of the two Republican commissioners, signaled his opposition to the Title II approach on Tuesday, Gomez's confirmation earlier this month gives Democrats a 3-2 majority at the FCC.

"Giant corporations and their lobbyists blocked President Biden from filling the final FCC seat for more than two years, and they will try every trick to block or delay the agency from restoring net neutrality now," Demand Progress communications director Maria Langholz warned Tuesday. "The commission must remain resolute and fully restore free and open internet protections to ensure broadband service providers like Comcast and Verizon treat all content equally."

"Americans' internet experience should not be at the whims of corporate executives whose primary concerns are the pockets of their stakeholders and the corporations' bottom line," she added, also applauding the chair.

Free Press co-CEO Jessica J. González similarly praised Rosenworcel and stressed that "without Title II, broadband users are left vulnerable to discrimination, content throttling, dwindling competition, extortionate and monopolistic prices, billing fraud, and other shady behavior."

"As this proceeding gets under way, we will hear all manner of lies from the lobbyists and lawyers representing big phone and cable companies," she predicted. "They'll say anything and everything to avoid being held accountable. But broadband providers and their spin doctors are deeply out of touch with people across the political spectrum, who are fed up with high prices and unreliable services. These people demand a referee on the field to call fouls and issue penalties when broadband companies are being unfair."

Like Rosenworcel, in her Tuesday speech, González also highlighted that "one thing we learned from the Covid-19 pandemic is that broadband is essential infrastructure—it enables us to access education, employment, healthcare, and more."

That "more" includes civic engagement, as leaders at Common Cause noted Tuesday. Ishan Mehta, who directs the group's Media and Democracy Program, said that "the internet has fundamentally changed how people are civically engaged and is critical to participating in society today. It is the primary communications platform, a virtual public square, and has been a powerful organizing tool, allowing social justice movements to gain momentum and widespread support."

After the Trump-era repeal, Mehta explained, "we saw broadband providers throttle popular video streaming services, degrade video quality, forcing customers to pay higher prices for improved quality, offer service plans that favor their own services over competitors, and make hollow, voluntary, and unenforceable promises not to disconnect their customers during the pandemic."

Given how broadband providers have behaved, Michael Copps, a Common Cause special adviser and former FCC commissioner, said that "to allow a handful of monopoly-aspiring gatekeepers to control access to the internet is a direct threat to our democracy."

Rosenworcel's speech came a day after U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) led over two dozen of their colleagues in sending a letter calling for the restoration of net neutrality protections. The pair said in a statement Tuesday that "broadband is not a luxury. It is an essential utility and it is imperative that the FCC's authority reflects the necessary nature of the internet in Americans' lives today."

"We need net neutrality so that small businesses are not shoved into online slow lanes, so that powerful social media companies cannot stifle competition, and so that users can always freely speak their minds on social media and advocate for the issues that are most important to them," they said. "We applaud Chairwoman Rosenworcel for her leadership and look forward to working with the FCC to ensure a just broadband future for everyone."

[allnaturalapplejuice]

New South Park season will most likely be dropping during election season and this is what I think is gonna happen except I know that none of this actually will happen so really this is what I would do if I was in charge of writing the season.

Obviously this season is gonna have a major focus on the election and will likely be serialized; however, seeing how poorly that went for South Park the last time they were airing regular episodes during an election year in 2016 they have to completely shift gears in order to make this work.

Obviously there's gonna be a plotline following

Mr Garrison and some of the other adults but guess what:

1. That's exactly what they did in 2016 that caused them to have one of their worst rated seasons.

2. I personally don't care about the adults so they are not included in this pitch

So what I think should happen is that the election is paralleled and told via a student body election. Sure, let Mr Garrison and the adults have their real election, but keep it super light and unserious. Something like "About Last Night." (12.12), which is the best election episode and in my opinion, one of their best episodes which it manages to be without focusing on the kids too much or even Randy or any of the main adults.

Anyways, the overarching plot follows Cartman and Wendy's battle for student body president with Cartman of course parodying Trump and Wendy parodying Kamala because everytime I see stuff about Trump talking about Kamala specifically him claiming that she's too afraid to debate him-it reminds me of “The Breast Cancer Show Ever" (12.09) and Cartman and Wendy's fight in that.

Butters would 100% be RFK Jr. and lowkey have his own thing going on where he slowly goes nuts.

Kyle is, as he always is, very vocally anti-Cartman and he is the one to start calling out Cartman as being "weird" which makes

Carman soooo upset and paralleling the real world, Wendy sees this and picks Kyle to be her running mate.

Ok so we've got:

• Cartman as Donald Trump

• Wendy as Kamala Harris

• Butters as RFK Jr.

• Kyle as Tim Walz

Now you’re gonna have to hear me out on this one…

Stan as JD Vance

HEAR ME OUT. Stan gets jealous because he thought Wendy might pick him to be her running mate and feels like his best friend is stealing his gf and his gf is stealing his best friend and there is underlying subtext there but it’s never actually acknowledged. Anyways, in a “Follow That Egg” (09.10)-esque plotline, we see what we should have seen in Snow Day and Stan betrays Kyle and Wendy to side with Cartman. But also because he acted rash and only did it out of revenge, he’s totally in over his head and is an idiot onstage saying nonsense and Cartman slowly regrets his decision, in tandem with the real JD Vance. This way, all of the main 6 characters play important student body election roles except Kenny but when have the writers literally ever given a shit about Kenny?

Kenny shows up a few times as a background character or maybe somehow gets involved with the real US election or is just fully dead for another season.

So who wins?

Because it’s South Park and they can do this, whoever actually wins the election is who wins the student body election, so if it’s the republicans Stan and Cartman win and if it’s the Democrats, Kyle and Wendy wins.

But in the end the true adult election plotline and the student body president election are intertwined and Mr Garrison does some sort of “I learned something today”-esque speech about his boyfriend, and no matter what, Stan goes and apologizes to Kyle and Wendy and regardless of who wins, everyone declares that Cartman is weird.

[unpopularly-opinionated]

So allegedly the pro-Palestine/antisemitic Lefty crowd stormed the US Capitol today after Rashida Tlaib gave a speech in support of Palestine. People are using the term "insurrection", understandably so.

My thoughts: If true, this was as much an "insurrection" as the January 6 nonsense was, I.E. they were huge nothingburger events. I'm not gonna pretend like I didn't just spend the last few years complaining about the over-exaggeration of what happened on Jan. 6 only to turn around and over-exaggerate the same nonsense just because the other side did it.

That being said, if we're still in the business of punishing everyone involved in Jan 6, including Donald Trump, then it is completely inarguable that everyone involved in this event, including Rashida Tlaib, should also be punished if this is true.

Quite frankly, as much as I hate both groups, neither should be punished for what ultimately amounts to fuck all, but if we're going to punish one side for it then we have to punish the other side too.

[carcinized]

Today (July 25, 2024) there has been a lot of backlash against Kamala Harris for her statement regarding pro-Palestine protesters at the capital. I want everyone to read her actual statement:

She condemns violence and antisemitism. Nowhere does she defend Israel and Netanyahu's actions.

Harris was the first member of the Biden administration who called for a ceasefire, though she only requested a temporary one, in a March 2024 speech. While she has been harsh on antisemitism and states that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas, she has continuously expressed concern for citizens of Gaza and Palestine. She also did not attend Netanyahu's recent speech to Congress, though not as an explicit boycott, but due to previous commitments at the time. [Source]. She met with Netanyahu today (July 25, 2024) and says that she discussed "the importance of addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza," including an urgent ceasefire, with him. [Source].

The truth is that, while Harris is not a perfect advocate for a ceasefire, she does not condemn the violence harming innocent lives in Gaza. She also takes an important stand against antisemitism and a normal stance for an elected official against vandalism and burning the American flag.

However, anti-Harris sentiments are stirring up online for her supposedly pro-Israel views. One widespread alleged quote goes, "Our support for Israel will continue." There is seemingly no record of this remark. A quick Google reveals an MSN article titled: "Fact Check: Kamala Harris Said 'Our Support for Israel Will Continue'?" from their fact checking series. They deemed this quote to be false and unfounded.

So how does a fake quote like this stir up such a response? Where does it come from? There's no way to know for sure where this specific quote came from, but this is a perfect moment to remind liberals, especially those involved in online political spaces, of something called troll farms.

There are places where individuals work paying jobs impersonating average people, spouting political opinions, on both sides of the political spectrum, intending to turn political tides through misinformation and inflammation of issues. A study by MIT found that prior to the 2020 election, 140 million Americans were reached by troll farms on Facebook. Only 25% of those reached had followed these accounts. [Source].

Republicans and their allies want to sow disarray in the Democratic party prior to the 2024 presidential election. They know that many liberals are discontent with Biden's response to Israel's aggression, so they want us not to trust Harris, either. This motivates the twisting of words that has happened to Harris today and this week.

Don't fall for it.

Fact check before you repost. Fact check before you post. Use sources when posting your opinions.

It takes 20 minutes to find and read a nonbiased, reputable source, then cross-reference with another source. It takes maybe 5 more minutes to form your own opinion on a topic.

While it may line up with your political views, it may not be true. By sharing this misinformation today, many have unwittingly assisted Donald Trump in lying his way to reelection, while also working against a possible next president who is working towards a ceasefire in Gaza.

Today's widespread misinformation is incredibly disappointing. Start fact checking your sources or we are going to lose every battle we fight.