#indo elections

[yyuuraii]

don't ask your Indonesian friends what happened in February 14th 2024

[bruhstation]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY DEAR SENJA🩵🩵🩵🎉🎉

MENGUCAPKAN DARI SAYA YANG BEDA NEGARA SEMANGAT PEMILU Eh salah SELAMAT ULANG TAHUN!!!

TERIMA KASIH BANYAK SHIKA…… enak banget di negara sebelah nggak harus berhadapan dengan pemilu ngakak ini HALF JOKING everyday this post becomes more and more realistic

[1080gb]

Fuck mary kill Indonesia's presidential candidates I'll go first

[kesarijournal]

Pakistan Selections 2024 & its perpetual tightrope destiny

In the grand theater of South Asian politics, Pakistan’s post-election scenario is shaping up to be less of a triumphal procession and more of a high-wire act over a pit of economic despair, political vendettas, and regional brimstone. As the newly minted government takes the stage, one can’t help but admire the audacity—or is it naivety?—of stepping into the limelight where the plot twists rival…

[selamat-linting]

WHY ARE YOU, A SHORT HAIRED WOMAN, WROTE A SONG ABOUT FORBIDDEN LOVE WITH NO OBVIOUS PRONOUN HM

[rk82199]

Elections in Nepal begin today; a new parliament and provincial legislatures will be chosen.

Elections in Nepal begin today; a new parliament and provincial legislatures will be chosen.

A great many Nepalese started deciding on Sunday to choose another parliament and commonplace congregations in the midst of tight security, wanting to end the political unsteadiness that has tormented the country for over 10 years and hindered development. The surveying began at 7 am nearby time at north of 22,000 surveying communities and will close at 5 pm. The counting of the votes will start…

[max1461]

Thinking about different websites...

The worldview of redditors is really Bronze Age or perhaps Iron Age in a truly interesting way. Deeply transactional, concerned with honor and commanding honor, with everything founded on property relations. The comments of any AITA post will evince this. It is "patriarchal" not in the sense of being misogynistic (which it sometimes is and sometimes isn't), but in the sense that it is structurally like the morality of the archetypal Patriarch of the isolated family unit, very Indo-European. The Man who rules his own little kingdom, his family, and who deals with other such Men through a certain kind of economically-inspired honor code. Most redditors are liberal enough that they deal with their spouses as other Men though, and indeed with their children once they reach a certain age. But I think even this has some historical precedent.

It's all about who has the Right to do what, you see, it's about who can and who can't and who must. Very Norse, very Bronze Age, very Indo-European. The redditor sees themself (actually or aspirationally) as on top and as agentic. They speak positively of learning hard lessons and of teaching hard lessons. Their world is a world of contracts, not abstract and mathematical but specific and personal.

This is notably not the ideology of 4chan, which anyone who's been on that site much should know. 4chan's ideology is much less confident in itself. The 4channer sees themself as beneath, not on top, either with acceptance or with resentment. Frantz Fanon might have something to say about it. The 4channer is the subaltern.

And here? I was going to say that tumblrianas are somewhat domesticated, but I don't think this is exactly right. It's more like the world-sense of eunuchs in a harem, desperate for stimulation. Scholastic (though not scholarly) and estranged from the world—from normalcy—for reasons they can't escape. And they know this, and have mostly elected not to try. "Eh", say they, "I will read about life in one of my books," or perhaps just as commonly "I will simulate an outside-life in here with the other eunuchs, and it will be better than what they can make on the outside anyway". Maybe that's true; it probably depends on you and your eunuch crew.

I don't think I'm any of these types of guy. I've spent more of my life as a lurker than a poster. Lurkers are a whole other type of deal.

This is of course all "bullshit" you must understand.

[tomorrowusa]

Right now is the time to get involved in the defeat of America's most dangerous enemy since the Cold War.

The traditional election season, starting on Labor Day, is a thing of the distant political past. And considering the magnitude of the threat to democracy, even waiting for the end of the primary season may be too late.

The worst president in our history is, arguably, stronger within the leadership ranks of the Republican Party than he has ever been. He is now the most dangerous presidential candidate in U.S. history. As a consequence, the great question before the rest of us is whether enough of us are ready to do whatever is necessary to defeat this threat as we have all those that have come before. Sadly, there is reason to believe that this time we may not meet the challenge. Right now, Donald Trump is one of two people who could be our next president. The race, at the moment, between him and President Joe Biden, is too close to call.

The people with their heads up their ass over Biden's age are either hypocrites or dissemblers. On Inauguration Day 2025, Donald Trump will be 95.66% of Joe Biden's age. And Trump will also be older in January of 2025 than Biden was upon assuming office in 2021. Biden may have a lifelong stutter but he is still grounded in reality in a way the narcissistic nepo baby Donald Trump never was.

Joe Biden by any objective metric has been one of the most successful presidents in modern U.S. history. He has led the creation of more major legislative initiatives benefiting the American people than any president in 60 years. He oversaw the creation of more than 14 million jobs during his first three years in office. He has brought down inflation and reduced the prices of vital medicines to affordable levels. He has restored American leadership worldwide, expanded our vital alliances like NATO, and stood up to our enemies. All presidents face challenges and make missteps. But it is hard to deny that in the wake of the U.S. economic recovery, the passage of the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the CHIPs and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, the expansion of NATO, and the creation of new Indo-Pacific alliances, Biden’s record is formidable. That a president with this record is in a horse race with a candidate who is a menace to the country, who led an insurrection, who is a pathological liar whom courts have found to be a fraud and a rapist, and who has no real ideas, no credible policy proposals, no record of actually ever achieving anything for the American people is chilling.

In normal times, over 40% of US voters would NOT pick a notorious sex offender for president. But these are not normal times.

You would have thought that the sight of mobs carrying Trump flags and weapons and chanting for the death of Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021, would have been alarm enough. You would have thought the same of Trump’s Access Hollywood tape, in which he confessed his impulse to abuse women. You would have thought the two dozen women who accused him of abuse would have had that effect. Even if none of those things were quite warning enough, you would have thought the findings in the E. Jean Carroll case would have been enough. After all, respected federal judge Lew Kaplan wrote, “The fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused—indeed, raped—Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established and is binding in this case.” It should have been enough. But so far, it has not been.

And who would have thought that the party of Ronald Reagan is now led by a stooge of the Evil Empire?

You would have thought that Trump reaching out on national television to our Russian adversaries for aid during the 2016 campaign would have been enough. You would have thought the conclusive findings of every major U.S. intelligence agency that Russia sought to aid Trump’s campaign would have been enough. You would have thought that Robert Mueller’s finding 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice by Trump would have been enough. You would have thought Trump kowtowing to Vladimir Putin and taking his word over that of our intelligence and law enforcement communities would have been enough. You would have thought his illegally withholding aid to Ukraine to seek dirt on Joe Biden would have been enough. You would have thought his impeachment for that would have been enough.

Are you willing to spend more time and money than in previous election cycles to end a major threat to Western democracy and to undermine homegrown fascism for at least the rest of this decade?

So, ask yourself, is that enough to make you do more than you have done? Is that enough to commit for the next 10 months to do more than you have ever done during an election year? To give more? To canvas more? To spread the word more? To help get voters to the polls? To ensure every member of your family, your friends, your co-workers do the same? The stakes are too high to do less than everything you can.

I rarely quote Margaret Thatcher and would probably disagree with at least 90% of her views. But she did know something about winning elections and combating the USSR. If she was good for just one thing, it's for this observation in a speech made in her retirement.

[N]o battles are ever finally won; you have to go on winning them by example and by being prepared to defend your way of life against those who would attack it.

If we learn just one thing from the Trump threat, it's that we can never rest on our past laurels. A slacker democracy is one which will not outlast a determined demagogue.

Civic involvement by pro-democracy citizens is absolutely necessary to maintain freedom.

[zvaigzdelasas]

12 Sep 23

On September 4, the Japanese Supreme Court ruled that Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki is legally obligated to approve the relocation of a U.S. military base from the Okinawan district of Ginowan to Henoko district in the prefecture’s Nago city. The decision follows Tamaki’s years-long legal battle to prevent the relocation after landfill work, which began in 2018, unearthed the fact that a significant portion of the sea floor where the base is being built was too soft to support the original construction plan. In April 2020, the Japanese Defense Ministry’s Okinawa Bureau attempted to submit a revised building plan to account for the soft ground, which civil engineers described as “soft as mayonnaise,” but that was rejected by Tamaki in November 2021, after he claimed there was “insufficient research” into whether the revised plan would be feasible. Previous geological surveys indicated that the seabed was so soft that the base is likely to continuously sink. Tamaki claimed that “it was unacceptable to proceed with the construction of a new base that has no prospect of being completed.”[...]

Tamaki won a second four-year term in September 2022 by defeating Sakima Atsushi, who had the backing of the Liberal Democratic Party, which controls Japan’s government. Notably, Sakima was supportive of the U.S. base in Henoko. Tamaki’s re-election, while expected, thus highlighted how contentious the U.S. military still remains for the local populace given the unequal burden placed on Okinawa by U.S. bases.

While only accounting for 0.6 percent of Japan’s territory, the prefecture houses 70 percent of the 50,000 U.S. troops in the country[...] Okinawa has a crucial role in both Washington and Tokyo’s security posture toward China[...]

Despite that, many Okinawans have called for a reduction of military personnel on the island. A 2022-2023 public opinion poll conducted by researchers at several universities, including the University of the Ryukyus, found that nearly 70 percent of local residents think the heavy concentration of U.S. military personnel in Okinawa is “unfair.”[...]

the fortification of Japan’s defenses through Okinawa is also being used to counter [...] Russia and North Korea.[....]

it is highly unlikely that the Japanese prime minister will give in to the demands of the Okinawan people for a reduce U.S. military presence. This will ensure that anti-U.S. military sentiment will remain high on the island as Japan-U.S. security cooperation continues to strengthen.

14 Sep 23

[mariacallous]

On the same day U.S. President Joe Biden hosted the first-ever United States-Japan-Philippines summit at the White House, a much less conspicuous meeting to strengthen the U.S. alliance network in the Indo-Pacific took place a few blocks away.

On April 11, New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken convened for talks at the State Department, declaring in a joint statement that their two countries are “working more closely than ever.” In almost any other case, this could be dismissed as meaningless diplomatic boilerplate. But in this case, it was a clear sign that a new era in New Zealand’s foreign policy was underway. Given that U.S.-New Zealand relations have long been strained—in part because Wellington charted a China-friendly course—the meeting was the latest example of Beijing’s behavior in the region driving countries into Washington’s welcoming arms.

The frostiness between New Zealand and the United States dates back to the 1980s, when a Labour government in Wellington declared its part of the Pacific a nuclear-free, disarmed zone and refused to allow port visits by U.S. nuclear-powered submarines. The Reagan administration, in turn, suspended U.S. obligations to New Zealand under the Australia-New Zealand-United States security treaty. The estrangement lasted many decades as New Zealand parted ways not only with the United States but also neighboring Australia to pursue a nonaligned foreign policy.

Relations began to thaw in 2010, when New Zealand Prime Minister John Key’s government signed the Wellington Declaration, which called for elevated strategic engagement and practical cooperation with the United States in the Pacific. Two years later, the two countries followed up with the Washington Declaration, which specifically strengthened defense cooperation and lifted a Reagan-era ban on New Zealand warships in U.S. ports—while leaving Wellington’s nuclear-free zone intact.

The rapprochement also survived the transition back to a Labour Party prime minister, Jacinda Ardern. In fact, the Ardern administration doubled down on the new policy. In 2022, Ardern became the first New Zealand prime minister to attend a NATO summit. Her Labour successor, Chris Hipkins, did so again in 2023. At these summits, New Zealand’s leaders expressed serious concerns about not only Russia but China as well, with Ardern in 2022 stating: “China has in recent times also become more assertive and more willing to challenge international rules and norms. Here, we must respond to the actions we see.”

Criticizing Beijing is a new tactic in New Zealand’s playbook. In 2008, the two countries signed a free trade agreement—Beijing’s first with a Western state. Since then, New Zealand has generally focused on business ties while ignoring or minimizing China’s worsening repression at home and rising assertiveness abroad. To its ostensible Western allies, Wellington’s “supine” attitude toward China was unnerving. In 2018, a Canadian government report called New Zealand the “soft underbelly” of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network, which also includes Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Wellington might have continued on this course, were it not for Beijing’s own actions that made it think twice about engaging—a clear trend that most recently pushed the Philippines to seek closer military relations with Japan and the United States. In New Zealand, it was the discovery of widespread Chinese political interference in the 2017 national elections that began to shift the China narrative from opportunity to concern. It also turned out that a Chinese-born member of the New Zealand Parliament until 2020, Jian Yang, who sat on the foreign affairs, defense, and trade committee, was not only once a member of the Chinese Communist Party but also worked as a trainer of People’s Liberation Army spies. These incidents, as well as Beijing’s turn to bullying smaller countries in the region, awakened New Zealand to the potential geostrategic threat posed by China, including in its own neighborhood.

These developments prompted Ardern to go against the grain of her country’s dovish China policy. In May 2022, New Zealand became a founding member of the Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework—a limited policy that seeks to enhance trade and investment relations among friendly countries, not including China, while stopping short of being an actual free trade agreement. Addressing China directly, Ardern and Biden agreed in Washington that “the United States and New Zealand share a concern that the establishment of a persistent military presence in the Pacific by a state that does not share our values or security interests would fundamentally alter the strategic balance of the region and pose national-security concerns to both our countries.” A month later, New Zealand also joined the Biden administration’s Partners in the Blue Pacific—a group of countries coordinating on Pacific islands strategy, including Australia, Britain, and Japan.

Wellington’s harder line on China now permeates the government. In July 2023, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade issued a new strategic foreign-policy assessment that cited Beijing’s growing assertiveness throughout the Indo-Pacific region as the “primary driver of strategic competition,” adding that the “risk of a shift in the strategic balance in the Pacific is now a present and serious concern in the region.” One month later, Wellington released a first-ever National Security Strategy, arguing that Beijing has become “more assertive and more willing to challenge existing international rules and norms.” A simultaneously released defense strategy implied increased defense spending to meet the emerging China threat.

More recently, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and his conservative coalition government, elected in October 2023, are sending strong signals that they plan to stay on this track, in spite of previously promoting China-friendly policies. The appointment of Peters as foreign minister, for example, does not bode well for Beijing. In 2018, Peters was the mastermind behind Wellington’s Pacific reset strategy designed to counter Beijing’s growing clout in the Pacific islands region. In a recent speech, Peters questioned the very basis of Wellington’s foreign policy: progressivism and nonalignment. While this policy has played especially well in the postcolonial, post-Cold War Pacific islands region, Peters seems intent on trading it in for aligning New Zealand in great-power competition against China.

Specifically, Peters has called for Wellington to elevate its role in Five Eyes, the Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) security pact, and NATO. AUKUS could soon see New Zealand cooperating on nonnuclear security topics, including cyberwar, hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, undersea capabilities, and others. On his first overseas visit in Australia, Luxon strongly suggested that Wellington was moving forward on AUKUS cooperation. Defense Minister Judith Collins has been more circumspect on AUKUS, but her recent contacts with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell have deepened the intrigue.

Peters also confirmed this month that New Zealand is pursuing a formal partnership program with NATO. If the agreement is concluded before Luxon’s participation in the NATO summit this summer, it would be another monumental shift in Wellington’s foreign policy away from nonalignment and toward integration with other democratic nations.

From a U.S. perspective, it is easy to get overly excited by these developments and conclude that a restored ANZUS alliance is near. But New Zealand and the United States still seem far apart on restoring a formal alliance, and there have been no public indications that any such step is afoot. A signal of this magnitude to China that New Zealand is siding against it is probably a bridge too far for Wellington, which still seeks to maintain a healthy economic relationship with Beijing and not endanger economic growth.

Still, Wellington’s strategic pivot is good news for Washington and its allies—even if it is still unclear how, exactly, New Zealand’s pivot will support concrete U.S. objectives in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. However, the United States should temper its expectations: New Zealand is likely to continue to preserve productive relations with China while it emphasizes the importance of stronger security ties with Washington.

[simply-ivanka]

Trump Was Good for America’s Alliances

He pushed NATO to spend more on defense, expanded the Quad and facilitated the Abraham Accords.

By Alexander B. Gray Wall Street Journal April 3, 2024

Foreign-policy experts are predictably fretting over Donald Trump’s re-election campaign. They fear that the former president threatens the alliances and partnerships that have sustained global peace since 1945. Should Mr. Trump return to the White House, the thinking goes, he will be unconstrained by the guardrails that prevented him from torpedoing America’s alliances in his first term and will permanently damage both U.S. security and the international order.

This narrative concedes a point that undermines its premise: The U.S. alliance system didn’t crumble during Mr. Trump’s first term. On the contrary, the Trump administration strengthened relations with partners in the Indo-Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and the Mideast. Anyone who believes that Mr. Trump was once bound by conventional wisdom but won’t be again—and will wreak havoc on the global order he ostensibly detests—hasn’t been paying attention.

To understand Mr. Trump’s record, recall what he inherited. The Obama administration’s disastrous “red line” in Syria, its ill-conceived Iranian nuclear deal, its failure to deter or respond adequately to Russia’s 2014 aggression against Ukraine, its toleration of Chinese malign activity in the South and East China seas, and its promise of a “new model of great-power relations” with Beijing had brought U.S. relations with allies and partners like Japan, Taiwan, Israel, the Gulf Arab states and much of Eastern Europe to a historic low point. Much of Mr. Trump’s tenure was spent not simply repairing those relationships but expanding them in innovative ways.

Mr. Trump appalled many foreign-policy veterans, who thought his rhetoric threatened the world order. In one sense, that fear was absurd: Nearly every American administration has publicly scolded North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries for shirking their defense-spending commitments. Mr. Trump did likewise—and, perhaps unlike his predecessors, was seen as willing to take decisive action to secure change. Through public and private cajoling—also known as diplomacy—he secured a commitment from NATO members to beef up their contributions. From 2017 through 2021, nearly every signatory raised defense spending, contributing substantially to the alliance’s ability to respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

These efforts resulted in a significant redistribution of U.S. forces from legacy bases in Germany to facilities in Poland and the Baltic states, where they are far better positioned to deter Moscow. Along with NATO allies, Mr. Trump provided long-sought Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine, imposed sanctions against malign Russian actors, and worked with partners to stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would have increased European allies’ energy dependence on Russia. These weren’t the acts of a retrograde isolationist; they were the work of a pragmatist seeking novel solutions to 21st-century challenges.

The administration’s goal of strengthening America’s standing in the world bore fruit, including the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab states, a significant upgrade to the Quad alliance among the U.S., India, Australia and Japan, stronger diplomatic relations with Taiwan thanks to unprecedented cabinet-level visits and record arms sales, and an unexpected deal between Serbia and Kosovo.

At each step, Mr. Trump asked his staff to think of creative ways to resolve issues that had bedeviled their predecessors for decades. Doing the same things over and over and expecting different results rightly struck the president as insane.

After three years of press adulation over America’s supposed return to the world stage under President Biden, one might ask: What have Americans and the world gotten from a supposedly more alliance-friendly U.S. president? So far, a catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the failure of American deterrence in Ukraine, an Iranian nuclear breakout inching ever closer, and an accelerating Chinese threat toward Taiwan. Allies in the Mideast, Eastern Europe, and Asia have begun to chart their own course in the face of an uncertain U.S. trumpet.

The global foreign-policy elite is sowing needless fear around the world by willfully misrepresenting Mr. Trump’s first term and scare-mongering about a second. Should Mr. Trump return to the White House, there will doubtless be sighs of relief among officials in friendly capitals who remember his time in office. It isn’t difficult to understand why: Mr. Trump’s language may make diplomats uncomfortable, but his actions strike fear among those who matter most to American security: our adversaries.

Mr. Gray is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. He served as chief of staff of the White House National Security Council, 2019-21.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Nick Anderson

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 17, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

APR 18, 2024

Yesterday on the social media site X, formerly Twitter, Miles Taylor wrote: “After 2016, I helped lead the US gov[ernmen]t response to Russia’s election interference. In 2024, foreign interference will be *worse.* Tech[nology is] more powerful. Adversaries more brazen. American public more susceptible. Political leaders across party lines MUST UNITE against this.” 

Taylor served as chief of staff in the Department of Homeland Security under Trump. 

Today, Catherine Belton of the Washington Post reported on a secret 2023 document from Russia’s Foreign Ministry calling for an “offensive information campaign” and other measures that attack “‘a coalition of unfriendly countries’ led by the United States. Those measures are designed to affect “the military-political, economic and trade and informational psychological spheres” of Russia’s perceived adversaries. 

The plan is to weaken the United States and convince other countries, particularly those in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, that the U.S. will not stand by its allies. By weakening those alliances, Russian leaders hope to shift global power by strengthening Russia’s ties to China, Iran, and North Korea and filling the vacuum left by the crumbling democratic alliances (although it is not at all clear that China is on board with this plan).

According to Belton, one of the academics who advised the authors of the Russian document suggested that Russia should “continue to facilitate the coming to power of isolationist right-wing forces in America,” “enable the destabilization of Latin American countries and the rise to power of extremist forces on the far left and far right there,” increase tensions between the U.S. and China over Taiwan, and “escalate the situation in the Middle East around Israel, Iran and Syria to distract the U.S. with the problems of this region.” 

The Russian document suggests that the front lines of that physical, political, and psychological fight are in Ukraine. It says that the outcome of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine will “to a great degree determine the outlines of the future world order.” 

Putin critic Mikhail Khodorkovsky told Belton: “The Americans consider that insofar as they are not directly participating in the war [in Ukraine], then any loss is not their loss. “This is an absolute misunderstanding.”

Media and lawmakers, including those in the Republican Party, have increasingly called out the degree to which Russian propaganda has infiltrated American politics through Republican lawmakers and media figures. Earlier this month, both Representative Michael R. Turner (R-OH), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, warned about Russian disinformation in their party. Turner told CNN’s State of the Union that it is “absolutely true” that Republican members of Congress are parroting Russian propaganda. “We see directly coming from Russia attempts to mask communications that are anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia messages, some of which we even hear being uttered on the House floor.” When asked which Republicans had fallen to Russian propaganda, McCaul answered that it is “obvious.” 

That growing popular awareness has highlighted that House Republicans under House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) have for six months refused to pass a national security supplemental bill with additional aid for Ukraine, as well as for Israel and the Indo-Pacific, and humanitarian aid to Gaza. After the Senate spent two months negotiating border security provisions House Republicans demanded, Republicans killed that bill with the provisions at Trump’s direction, and the Senate then passed a bill without those provisions in February.

Johnson has been coordinating closely with former president Trump, who has made his admiration for Russia and his disregard for Ukraine very clear since his people weakened their support for Ukraine in the 2016 Republican Party platform. Johnson is also under pressure from MAGA Republicans in the House, like Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who oppose funding Ukraine, some of them by making statements that echo Russian propaganda.

While the White House, the Pentagon, and a majority of both chambers of Congress believe that helping Ukraine defend itself is crucial to U.S. security, Johnson has refused to take the Senate measure up, even though the House would pass it if he did. But as Ukraine’s ability to defend itself has begun to weaken, pressure for additional aid has ramped up. At the same time, in the wake of Iran’s attack on Israel last weekend, Republicans have suddenly become eager to provide additional funds to Israel. It began to look as if Johnson might bring up some version of foreign aid.

But discussions of bringing forward Ukraine aid brought not only Greene but also Thomas Massie (R-KY) to threaten yesterday to challenge Johnson’s speakership, and there are too few Republicans in the House to defend him. 

Today, Johnson brought forward not the Senate bill, but rather three separate bills to fund Israel, the Indo-Pacific, and Ukraine, with pieces that House Republicans have sought. A fourth bill will include other measures Republicans have demanded. And a fifth will permit an up-or-down vote on most of the measures in the extreme border bill the House passed in 2023. At the time, that measure was intended as a signaling statement because House Republicans knew that the Democratic Senate would keep it from becoming law.

Johnson said he expected to take a final vote on the measures Saturday evening. He will almost certainly need Democratic votes to pass them, and possibly to save his job. Democrats have already demanded the aid to Gaza that was in the Senate bill but is not yet in the House bills. 

Reese Gorman, political reporter for The Daily Beast, reported that Johnson explained his change of heart like this: “Look, history judges us for what we do. This is a critical time right now…  I can make a selfish decision and do something that is different but I'm doing here what I believe to be the right thing.… I think providing lethal aid to Ukraine right now is critically important.… I’m willing to take personal risk for that.”

His words likely reflect a changing awareness in Republican Party leadership that the extremism of MAGA Republicans is exceedingly unpopular. Trump’s courtroom appearances—where, among other things, he keeps falling asleep—are unlikely to bolster his support, while his need for money is becoming more and more of a threat both to his image and to his fellow Republicans. Today the Trump campaign asked Republican candidates in downballot races for at least 5% of the money they raise with any fundraising appeal that uses Trump’s name or picture. They went on: “Any split that is higher than 5% will be seen favorably by the RNC and President Trump’s campaign and is routinely reported to the highest levels of leadership within both organizations.”

Nonetheless, Greene greeted Johnson’s bills with amendments requiring members of Congress to “conscript in the Ukrainian military” if they voted for aid to Ukraine. 

A headline on the Fox News media website today suggested that a shift away from MAGA is at least being tested. It read: “Marjorie Taylor Greene is an idiot. She is trying to wreck the [Republican Party].” The article pointed out that 61% of registered voters disapprove of the Republican Party while only 36% approve. That approval rating has indeed fallen at least in part because of the performative antics of the extremists, among them the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that made him the first cabinet officer to be impeached in almost 150 years. Today the Senate killed that impeachment without a trial.

As soon as Johnson announced the measures, President Joe Biden threw his weight behind them. In a statement, he said: “I strongly support this package to get critical support to Israel and Ukraine, provide desperately needed humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza, and bolster security and stability in the Indo-Pacific. Israel is facing unprecedented attacks from Iran, and Ukraine is facing continued bombardment from Russia that has intensified dramatically in the last month.

“The House must pass the package this week and the Senate should quickly follow. I will sign this into law immediately to send a message to the world: We stand with our friends, and we won’t let Iran or Russia succeed.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[shiningdesignersreflections]

Mercury: Sweet Doll

Designer's Reflection: Sweet Doll

Obtained: Pinnacle Battles 3

Rarity: SSR

Attribute: Pink/Sweet

Awakened Suit: Heart Stealer

Story - transcripts from Designer's Reflection

Chapter 1 - Telosma

Chapter 2 - Night Bloom

Chapter 3 - When a Flower Withers

Chapter 4 - Dance of Withering

Story - summarized

You meet a telosma flower, and it wants to tell you about its short life.

It grew on a tree in Mercury's Moonlight Garden, and it watched a lot of dinner parties that the CEO would hold. The flower didn't understand people's politics, but the events were still pretty to watch. One night, a girl showed up late to the dinner party. She was Lilith.

Mercury took an instant liking to her and spent the rest of the party with her. Not only that, but Lilith was a candidate for the queen of Ninir, and he wanted to help her get elected. The telosma flower had no clue why, but it liked Lilith and hoped she would be queen.

But one day, Lilith asked Mercury if he loved her. He said he was just helping her for his own reasons. Lilith declared that she would win the election without him. He found that amusing, since she needed him, and no one else had ever successfully bargained with him.

Still, Lilith walked out, and Mercury needed a new candidate to support. He chose a noble-born girl named Ciciti, who was beautiful but selfish, entitled, and nasty. She wanted to get rid of all the flowers in the garden and replace them with lilies. The telosma flower hated that, as all flowers were beautiful and lovely, not just the boring lilies.

Everything seemed to be going Ciciti's way: she was gaining popularity in the polls, and she was the star of Mercury's dinner parties every night.

About a week later, right at Ciciti's proudest moment, Mercury finally arrived to the dinner party... with Lilith! The two had made some sort of arrangement, and he was back to supporting her as queen. They danced together, all the while admitting to just using each other as political tools.

The telosma flower couldn't help but find the moment sweet and romantic. It threw itself off the tree and scattered its petals, making this moment extra special.

Connections

-There are other "object" narrators in Reflections: Yexiao's drawing comes to life and shares a memory in Spring Forest.

-On the first night of the dinner party, Lilith talks with a poet and is charmed by him. During the Puppet Encounter hell event, the doll Lilibet relives all of Lilith's journey through the other toys, and she talks with a poet toy - and subsequently steals his pen to steal his talent.

-Lilith has another Reflection, Telosma's Kiss, that relates her to the humbly beautiful flower. She begins her life as Lilith and tricks her way into the Glay family.

-In Pinnacle Battles 3, Nikki and friends find an illusion of Mercury dancing with a doll dressed exactly like Lilith. When he detects the "intruders," he sends thorny roses after them instead of telosmas.

-At the end of Voice of Desire, Lilith noticed Mercury and how he was the only one not charmed by her beauty. She made a point after winning the crown that she would do whatever it took to make him love her.

-In his Reflection for Daybreak Overture, Mercury (as a child) meets a nobleman in the countryside who gifted him a beautiful rose garden after his death. Now, Mercury owns two gardens: the Pigeon Rose Garden, and the Ninir Moonlight Garden

Fun Facts

-A telosma is native to the Indo-China region. It grows on trees, and it's a small flower that can range in color from a sunny yellow to a pure white.

-While this Reflection, and the whole game, is fantasy, Mercury is still 124 years old, and Lilith is 16 years old. The age gap is disturbingly huge... and it's worse when you remember the two were acting cutesy at the dinner party in the last chapter.

-Lilith worked alongside Nightbane to become queen, so she truly didn't need Mercury. And since he mentioned that no one had ever gotten him to negotiate before, and we see the two of them at the party, it's possible that Lilith found a way to get him to negotiate after Ciciti started taking over the garden.

[thedogeveryonehates]

It took indo people until after he got elected to learn about his past lmao 🫠🫠

[fragrant-stars]

(cw Indo politics)

Frustrated tbh. Most of these last few months all my election anxiety has been "Jesus fuck I hope that racist pig doesn't win" and now he's probably lost but I don't even get to enjoy it because apparently the guy who is probably gonna win might cause the country to riot and shit like- ah fuck. Can't fucking win.

[indihome-suck]

Hi, I know I just found your blog (indo blog spotted in the wild 😭) and sorry if this is rude but since we're talking abt the election

Forget the presidents for a bit -- is the DPR(D???) sheet always so big??? The ones in my province deadass the size of a double newspaper page. Sadly I can't bring it home, it's actually the perfect size for padding the ground for Idul Fitri....

As far as I remember, there's a looooot of DPRD to choose so it's always been big 😭 at least according to my relatives