#medicare made clear

[lifeandinsurances]

Your Medicare Coverage Guide for 2023

[lizardsfromspace]

The factchecking this cycle has been so profoundly incompetent that it's finally getting some real backlash, but the extent of it really should be clear. So much of factchecking is not based in reality, but in a kind of contorted moon logic that can find true claims to be false and false ones to be true based on wildly inconsistent reasoning.

But this one really shows off some of the base assumptions of modern factchecking, and also bc it got a community note which is funny:

Let's take this one by one

The idea that quotes have any options but "he said it" or "he didn't say it". It is a binary, maybe with a third option of "it was clipped wildly out of context", but something you see constantly now is the idea that quoting someone's direct words without deceptive editing or removal of context can somehow be false

Pointlessly noting that it's from 2016, and that it's not clear if he currently believes it. What the hell does that matter to the question of if he said that in 2016? People understood that the "dig up someone's tweets from when they were 17" thing was inane, but they counter-balanced by apparently deciding that citing anything someone said more than about six months ago is Misinformation if we don't have objective evidence they would say the exact same thing now, even if there's no evidence they believe anything else. Analyzing someone's high school tweets and analyzing something the literal President said seven years ago are not equivalent

Noting that he walked it back following criticism. You see this constantly, too. Again, what does that matter to the question of if he said it? But this is just taken as a given now: if someone gets blowback and says "whoops I didn't mean it", that should be taken at face value. Effectively, Politifact is letting Donald Trump self-factcheck Donald Trump: their only evidence (and I read the article too) this is at all false is that Donald Trump said Donald Trump didn't really mean the words he said, so they must agree with the judgment of Donald Trump that Donald Trump was treated so unfairly here.

A general confusion over what factchecking is. If you're asked "did Donald Trump say this in 2016?", your sole job is to determine if he really said that in 2016. It's not to divine if he, deep in his heart, still believes it now. That's completely irrelevant.

The two guiding principles of modern factchecking are this: one, it's strongly rumored - and also, obvious to everyone literate - that the major factchecking sites have either standing orders to find equal numbers of lies on both sides, or are staffed by people who think it's their job to hold both sides equally to account (the exception is Snopes, whose writers are just terrible at their jobs). In the name of this, Donald Trump can say something on camera only for it to be judged false, while a Democratic politician can be excoriated for mildly rounding down a figure in a speech. A factchecking website once determined that saying climate change was a threat to life on this planet was a lie, because climate change won't kill all life on this planet. Politifact's lie of the year one year was a Democrat saying a Republican plan would "end Medicare as we know it", which was judged to be a lie because it wouldn't literally end Medicare completely. Figurative language needs to be scoured, comments said directly on camera need to be made fuzzy. This makes factchecking sites worthless at factchecking, because what even is this?

It's not true that Donald Trump will refuse to accept the election results, because he's merely said he won't accept, and has said if he loses, it's only because the election was fraudulent. Okay, what, do you demand that people prove he said his plans in exact words? What is the actual, functional difference between "he said he won't accept it" and "he said if he loses it's because he won and they stole it from him, and he won't commit to saying he'll accept it"? What are you talking about, who is this for? When you go to the Logic and Reason Site for Debunking & end up having to puzzle out their convoluted logic and reasoning to understand anything, the plot's been lost a bit

The other is the idea that context is exonerating. Any context at all. If they said they didn't mean it, partially false. If they walked it back, partially false. If they said it was taken out of context, partially false. If they said it a certain number of years ago, partially false. If there's a longer video, even if it shows functionally the same thing, pants on fire, five pinocchios.

Again, we have footage of Trump saying this, and the footage in the ad is unedited, and the factchecking website is declaring something that OBJECTIVELY HAPPENED WITH HARD EVIDENCE IT HAPPENED didn't really happen bc we don't know his heart, maybe he believes something different now, we simply can't know for certain. But we do know for certain. Because "false" at least used to mean "didn't happen". But factchecking sites are now on those Beyond Belief definitions of "true" and "false" I guess

But the real problem here is that they just accept anything someone being factchecked says at face value. Because, and I can't believe I'm saying this

It seems like the people paid to determine if other people are lying...have forgotten that people lie sometimes

[batboyblog]

Things Biden and the Democrats did, this week.

January 19-26 2024

The Energy Department announced its pausing all new liquefied natural gas export facilities. This puts a pause on export terminal in Louisiana which would have been the nation's largest to date. The Department will use the pause to study the climate impact of LNG exports. Environmentalists cheer this as a major win they have long pushed for.

The Transportation Department announced 5 billion dollars for new infrastructure projects. The big ticket item is 1 billion dollars to replace the 60 year old Blatnik Bridge between Superior, Wisconsin, and Duluth, Minnesota which has been dangerous failing since 2017. Other projects include $600 million to replace the 1-5 bridge between Vancouver, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, $427 million for the first offshore wind terminal on the West Coast, $372 million to replace the 90 year old Sagamore Bridge that connects Cape Cod to the mainland,$300 million for the Port of New Orleans, and $142 million to fix the I-376 corridor in Pittsburgh.

the White House Task Force on Reproductive Healthcare Access announced new guidance that requires insurance companies must cover contraceptive medications under the Affordable Care Act. The Biden Administration also took actions to make sure contraceptive medications would be covered under Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. HHS has launched a program to educate all patients about their rights to emergency abortion medical care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. This week marks 1 year since President Biden signed a Presidential Memorandum seeking to protect medication abortion and all federal agencies have reported on progress implementing it.

A deal between Democrats and Republicans to restore the expand the Child Tax Credit cleared its first step in Congress by being voted out of the House Ways and Means Committee. The Child Tax Credit would affect 16 million kids in the first year and lift 400,000 out of poverty. The Deal also includes an expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit which will lead to 200,000 new low income rental units being built, and also tax relief to people affected by natural disasters

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted for a bill to allow President Biden to seize $5 billion in Russian central bank assets. Biden froze the assets at the beginning of Russia's war against Ukraine, but under this new bill could distribute these funds to Ukraine, Republican Rand Paul was the only vote against.

The Senate passed the "Train More Nurses Act" seeking to address the critical national shortage of nurses. It aims to increase pathways for LPNs to become RNs as well as a review of all nursing programs nationally to see where improvements can be made

3 more Biden Judges were confirmed, bring the total number of Judges appointed by President Biden to 171. For the first time in history the majority of federal judge nominees have not been white men. Biden has also appointed Public Defenders and civil rights attorneys breaking the model of corporate lawyers usually appointed to life time federal judgeships

[thingstrumperssay]

In case I didn't make this clear enough, I'm going to be voting for Biden again in November. The fact that I have to explain why to some people makes me sick.

If you've read anything from Project 2025, you'll know that republicans don't want you to have any rights. They want to ban interracial and gay marriage. They want to ban all forms of contraception. They want to ban women from having rights. They want to get rid of social security and medicare.. Well, there's about 920 pages listing everything they want to get rid of that you can read yourself.

Yeah, of course I'm pissed off over Biden's response to Israel committing genocide against all Palestinians who are still trapped in Palestine.

But really think about it for two fucking seconds- Trump got impeached the first time for trying to take weapons away from Ukraine. Now that the Supreme court that he packed made it legal f him to be a fucking monarch if he gets elected again he won't only stop aiding Ukraine, but he'd turn around and give those weapons for Russia. At best he won't be doing anything with Israel because he'd be too busy sucking off his buddy Putin. At best you'd be trading one genocide for another. And nobody will stop him because he'll have total presidential immunity until the day he dies.

Even if RFK was a viable option, not enough people will vote for him anyway. But he's an anti-vaxxer and a sexual harasser, so he's not even a good option anyway.

Republicans are hoping that you'll forget what Trump's supreme court did to your rights and focus on Israel long enough to get Trump back into power.

Not enough people are scared shitless by this.

[ms-cellanies]

ENDING SOCIAL SECURITY IS LETTING THOSE OF US WHO RELY ON OUR SOCIAL SECURITY TO JUST DIE.

REPUBLIKKKANS WANT SENIORS TO DIE

[scientia-rex]

Good morning! I have a question. When I look up info about vitamin D, I come across many claims that people generally don't get enough of it. In a recent episode of Maintenance Phase, however, the hosts called it a "scam" or overblown, at least (I don't remember the exact wording). So, like, what's the deal with vitamin D? Do Americans get enough of it?

Probably, mostly. At the very least, people should be tested before starting repletion. It probably has a role in osteoporosis treatment and prevention, BUT how much to take and what form and when is HOTLY debated and frequently conclusions are changing.

Just to take you on a spin through the most recent Cochrane reviews (THESE ARE NOT SINGLE STUDIES, in case any of the research-naive out there want to get pissy about them; look up what a Cochrane review actually is before trying to shit on it; also note that I did NOT say this will cover every fucking person and every hypothetical they can come up with, jesus CHRIST):

No role for vitamin D in asthma

Insufficient evidence to recommend it in sickle cell

Raising vitamin D levels in cystic fibrosis patients is not beneficial

No evidence of benefit of vitamin D in MS

Supplementing vitamin D in pregnancy may have small benefits but also risk of harms

No clinically significant benefit from vitamin D supplementation in chronic pain

Insufficient data on vitamin D in inflammatory bowel disease, but no evidence of benefit

No evidence of benefit of vitamin D supplementation in liver disease

Vitamin D does not appear to prevent cancer in general population

No evidence for benefit in supplementation of vitamin D in premenopausal women to prevent bone density loss

Possible small mortality benefit of D3, but not D2, in elderly patients, but also increased risk of kidney stones and hypercalcemia

Vitamin D alone ineffective, but combined with calcium may be effective, in preventing bone fractures in older adults

Insufficient evidence for vitamin D improving COVID-19 outcomes

Now, vitamin D plus calcium in people who have post-menopausal bone density loss does seem to prevent fractures. This is why doctors routinely recommend it. However, dosage and formulation are still debated as data are insufficient, and uncertainty still large.

So, do you need to supplement? Probably not. There is some fairly weak evidence that vitamin D supplementation may help with depression, but I would argue that it's going to be most relevant in people with pre-existing deficiencies, which Medicare is just hellbent on not letting me test for anymore. They've narrowed the coverage codes for testing so now even know vitamin D deficiency isn't considered a good enough reason to test. So Medicare has very clearly decided it's not relevant, for whatever that's worth, I spit on their graves, etc. Of course, then you get into the question of what counts as a deficiency, which we also really don't know.

And to be clear, I wasn't looking through the Cochrane review results with an angle--those are most of the first page of search results on their site, with the only one skipped being similar to another one I mentioned, and I stopped when I got bored. These should not be paywalled, as I am not logged into anything and I can read it all, so try clicking the side menu on the right if you have trouble getting into the weeds.

If anything, running through this little exercise has made me less likely to recommend vitamin D supplementation, so do with that what you will.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lisa Needham at Public Notice:

It’s been barely a week since conservatives on the US Supreme Court radically upended the balance of power between the branches of government, giving the federal courts the exclusive power to interpret statutes rather than deferring to agency experts. And we’re already seeing impacts on the ground. Right-wingers have been in the habit of running to their preferred courts to get regulations overturned, but the decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which officially destroyed agency deference, will make it easier — even routine — to block every Biden administration rule they don’t like.  Lawsuits to invalidate specific rules had been proceeding through the federal courts before Loper Bright, generally arguing that agencies exceeded their authority in promulgating a rule. These lawsuits exist in no small part because the Supreme Court made it clear they would destroy Chevron deference for years now, with Justice Neil Gorsuch having led the way well before his appointment to the Court. 

Trump appointee Sean Jordan, who sits in the reliably hard-right Eastern District of Texas, was so eager to block a Biden administration’s overtime rule that he dropped his decision the same day Loper Bright came out. It runs 36 pages and mentions Loper Bright multiple times, which means either Jordan was so confident of the Supreme Court decision that he either wrote it in advance or he hurried to stuff Loper Bright into his already-written opinion. Jordan’s opinion also rests heavily on dictionary definitions rather than expertise from the Department of Labor, which issued the rule. So now, the rule that would have made 4 million more Texas workers eligible for overtime, and thus more pay, is blocked thanks to a hurried read of a SCOTUS opinion and Webster’s Dictionary. 

What this mean is that anytime a business doesn’t like a federal rule, it can just sue. It promises to be a free-for-all. Three hospitals in New Jersey sued HHS the day Loper Bright came down, saying the agency’s interpretation of a statute governing Medicare reimbursement is unlawful. In another case, filed before Loper Bright, a trucking company challenging the Biden administration’s rule that addressed misclassification of independent contractors filed a memorandum on July 2 arguing that Loper Bright means the court should not defer to the Department of Labor’s interpretation of the law. The next day, Trump appointee Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas enjoined enforcement of the Biden administration’s rule prohibiting non-compete agreements but limited the injunction to the plaintiffs, which are various pro-business groups like the Chamber of Commerce. 

[...]

Bigotry from the bench

Unsurprisingly, much of the assault on administration rules relates to any regulation that would protect transgender people. Four days after Loper Bright was handed down, another Trump appointee, Judge John W. Broomes in Kansas, enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing its Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs rule in Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming. The Department of Education spent two years finalizing the rule, which would have prohibited discrimination based on gender identity under Title IX.  The unofficial text of the rule, which runs 1,577 pages with supporting material, is jam-packed with legal analysis. Hundreds of pages are spent explaining how the DOE considered and addressed public comments and the document details the mental health impact of discrimination against LGBTQ students. 

Broomes’s expertise is in natural resource law, a background that does not lend itself to a detailed understanding of Title IX, sex discrimination, or gender identity. But none of that matters. His opinion sneers about “self-professed and potentially ever-changing gender identity” and insists that things like using correct pronouns for students and allowing them to use the bathroom that conforms with their gender identity is an issue of “vast economic” significance. Given that the only costs of the rule are things like updated administrative guidance and perhaps hiring additional Title IX staff, the idea it is a vast economic question is, to put it politely, a reach. Instead, Broomes sided with the conservative plaintiffs, including Moms for Liberty and an Oklahoma student who asserted that using the correct pronouns for other students violated her religious beliefs. Because of this mix of conservative state litigants, private anti-trans groups, and an Oklahoma student, the extent of Broomes’s injunction is even weirder than the patchwork blocking of the HHS rule.

Besides blocking the rule entirely in four states, the rule is also blocked for the schools attended by the members of two private plaintiffs, Young America’s Foundation and Female Athletes United, and all schools attended by the children of members of Moms for Liberty. So now, if you are a transgender student unlucky enough to attend school anywhere in the country where a child of a Moms for Liberty student also attends, you’re out of luck. If your school is free of children of book-banners, you get the protection of the federal rule — unless you live in Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, in which case it doesn’t matter what school you go to.  Over at Law Dork, Chris Geidner has a good rundown of not just how the courts are sledgehammering LGBTQ rights, but also how having courts, rather than regulators, make these decisions results in an uneven patchwork of rulings over a Health and Human Services rule that prohibited health care providers from discriminating based on gender identity. Only five days after Loper Bright was issued, three separate federal courts issued rulings blocking parts of the HHS rule. There’s no chance that William Jung, a Trump appointee to the federal district court for the Middle District of Florida, hadn’t already written most of his decision before Loper Bright was issued, but the case gave him far more ammunition. Fung’s ruling in Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services blocked part of the Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities rule from going into effect — but only in Florida. 

The Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ruling by the judicial activist MAGA Majority on the Supreme Court is having devastating consequences.

[kp777]

By Julia Conley

Common Dreams

Aug. 16, 2024

Proposals to lower housing, childcare, and healthcare costs for millions of families are "a welcome step in the right direction," said one advocate.

After announcing earlier this week that U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris plans to take on corporate price gouging with the first-ever federal ban in the food and grocery industries, the Democratic presidential nominee's campaign on Friday unveiled details about Harris' broader economic agenda, making clear to advocates that she is focused on lowering numerous costs facing working households.

Along with a four-year plan to boost housing construction, provide financial help to first-time homebuyers, and rein in predatory corporate landlords, Harris announced plans to lower medical costs and provide financial assistance to new parents and families raising young children.

The proposals, which Harris is expected to officially announce at a campaign event in Raleigh, North Carolina on Friday, send the message that "the days of 'what's good for free enterprise is good for America' are over," Felicia Wong, president of the progressive think tank Roosevelt Forward, toldThe Washington Post.

"Harris has made a set of policy choices over the last several weeks that make it clear that the Democratic Party is committed to a pro-working, family agenda," Wong said.

Within Harris' plan to lower healthcare costs, the vice president will include proposals to expand Medicare's cap on prescription drug costs at $2,000 annually to all Americans and to place a limit of $35 per month on insulin. Both policies are provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and currently apply only to Medicare recipients. As the Postreported, allowing all Americans to benefit from the price limits "could face resistance from the pharmaceutical industry and Republicans," who have fought to block Medicare drug price negotiations that were also included in the IRA.

Harris said she would work to expedite those negotiations, the first round of which yielded lower costs for 10 widely used medications that were announced by the Biden administration on Thursday.

"Policies that lift up families will always be popular with voters. Working people want to see action from our federal government to address sky-high costs."

The vice president would also work closely with states to cancel medical debt for millions of people "and to help them avoid accumulating such debt in the future, because no one should go bankrupt just because they had the misfortune of becoming sick or hurt," said the Harris campaign. "This plan builds on Vice President Harris' leadership in removing medical debt from nearly all Americans' credit reports and in helping secure American Rescue Plan funds to cancel $7 billion of medical debt for up to 3 million Americans."

The final plank of the economic plan announced on Friday was focused on "cutting taxes for the middle class," the campaign said, with the vice president pledging to restore and expand child tax credits. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's campaign has been focusing on the issue in recent weeks as vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) has come under fire for his criticism of people who don't have children and for his absence from a Senate vote on expanding the existing child tax credit, which nearly the entire GOP Senate caucus voted against.

The Harris campaign said the vice president would restore the expanded child tax credit that provided a credit of up to $3,600 per child for middle- and lower-income families; the program was passed as part of the American Rescue Plan in 2021, but expired at the end of that year due to opposition from the Republican Party and conservative Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.), then a Democrat.

Harris would also push for a further "historic expansion of the child tax credit: providing up to $6,000 in total tax relief for middle-income and low-income families for the first year of their child's life when a family's expenses are highest—with cribs, diapers, car seats, and more—and many parents are still forced to forgo income as they take time off from their job."

Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said the proposal would also work hand-in-hand with Harris' housing plan to "positively impact families' ability to pay rent."

Vance earlier this week called for boosting the child tax credit—currently $2,000 per year—to $5,000, but Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who proposed a package last month that would have raised the cap on the credit for low-income families, said Vance's failure to vote on the legislation exposed him as "a phony."

"If JD Vance sincerely gave a whit about working families in America, he would have shown up in the Senate a week and a half ago and voted for my proposal to expand the child tax credit and help 16 million low income kids get ahead," said Wyden. "He didn’t even care enough to use his platform to call on his Senate Republican colleagues to support it."

Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, said that with plans to extend tax cuts that disproportionately benefited corporations and the wealthy, "Trump and Vance are going to look out for bosses and billionaires, while Harris and [Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim] Walz are showing working people that they have their backs."

"Policies that lift up families will always be popular with voters. Working people want to see action from our federal government to address sky-high costs," said Mitchell. "By committing to take on greedflation, lower prescription drug costs, and make housing more affordable, Kamala Harris is listening to the voters she needs to turn out in November."

A Data for Progress poll late last month showed that 75% of Americans support slashing prescription drug prices, 79% support making corporations pay their fair share in taxes, and 58% support restoring the expanded child tax credit.

Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, called Harris' economic agenda "a welcome step in the right direction, particularly with its focus on tackling corporate price gouging, reining in predatory corporate landlords, reducing prescription drug prices, and providing real relief to working families burdened by medical debt."

"However, to truly address the root causes of economic inequality, we must push for comprehensive reforms that dismantle the structural issues enabling corporations to exploit consumers and workers," said Geevarghese. "The Harris-Walz plan's proposals are critical first steps, but the progressive movement will be watching closely to ensure these policies are not only enacted but rigorously enforced to deliver the meaningful change that Americans desperately need."

[afeelgoodblog]

The Best News of Last Week - March 6, 2023

🐎 - News That'll Make You Say "Neigh" to Negativity: My Weekly Positive Roundup

1. Drugmaker Eli Lilly caps the cost of insulin at $35 a month, bringing relief for millions

Eli Lilly will cap the out-of-pocket cost of its insulin at $35 a month, the drugmaker said Wednesday. The move could prompt other insulin makers in the U.S. to follow suit.

The change, which Eli Lilly said takes effect immediately, puts the drugmaker in line with a provision in the Inflation Reduction Act, which in January imposed a $35 monthly cap on the out-of-pocket cost of insulin for seniors enrolled in Medicare.

2. Over 7,500 Pot Convictions Expunged in Missouri

More than 7,500 individuals in Missouri have had their prior marijuana-related convictions expunged with recreational cannabis now legal in the state.

The expungement is the latest byproduct of the constitutional amendment that was approved by Missouri voters last fall, which legalized pot for adults and cleared the way for Missourians to have their records cleared.

3. Scientists cure 22 year old former race horse's behavioral disorders after 15 years of symptoms

A team of international researchers from Italy and Brazil published findings earlier this month in the science publication Veterinary and Animal Science in which they reported a “successful outcome of four weeks-therapy with CBD” in a clinical case involving a 22-year-old Quarter horse that was experiencing behavioral disorders.

The clinical case study was a collaboration between investigators from the Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences at the University of Bologna in Italy and the Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences at the University Metodista of São Paulo in Brazil. At the heart of the study was a 22-year-old mare subject that was reportedly suffering from “chronic crib-biting and wind-sucking,” which are common behavioral disorders in horses for various reasons, including but not limited to poor welfare

4. Clean energy record: More than 40% of US electricity now comes from carbon-free sources

Power from zero-carbon sources made up a full 41% of the U.S. electricity mix in 2022, a record-breaking number that has increased almost every year since 1990.

That mix includes power from nuclear plants, hydroelectric dams, solar and wind. With nuclear and hydropower relatively unchanged for years at about 19% and 10% respectively, the majority of the increase has come from the rapid build-out of solar and wind power, whose costs have plummeted in the past two decades. 

5. ‘Cruelty-free’ circus replaced animals with holograms

Holograms of horses run in circles. The Circus Roncalli stopped using wild animals in its shows in the 1990s. Circus Roncalli was among the first circus acts in Europe to stop using animals in acts.

6. New UN brokered High Seas Treaty Places 30% of Ocean into protected areas by 2030 after decades of talks

The High Seas Treaty places 30% of the seas into protected areas by 2030, aiming to safeguard and recuperate marine nature.

The agreement was reached on Saturday evening, after 38 hours of talks, at UN headquarters in New York. The negotiations had been held up for years over disagreements on funding and fishing rights.

7. 'Heroic' Wirral student rescues dog from Manchester canal

Watch the video here:

https://twitter.com/feelgoodnws/status/1632323139454550018

- - -

Lastly, I opened a Youtube account. Subscribe for more wholesome videos. That's it for this week. If you liked this post you can support this newsletter with a small kofi donation:

Buy me a coffee ❤️

[mariacallous]

Presidential debates have impact when they address questions and concerns about the candidates that are top of mind for voters. As the crucial presidential debate began, in a race that was statistically dead even, both candidates had work to do.

Kamala Harris faced three key challenges. First, 37% to 42% of voters in some swing states knew virtually nothing about her except that she serves as Joe Biden’s vice president. Filling in this gap, or at least beginning to, was job one. From the very first minutes of the debate, it was clear that she knew she had to define herself and that she did—as a child of the middle class who, in contrast to Trump, was not given $400 million to start a business. In addition, she repeatedly came back to her experience as a prosecutor.

Second, Harris has shifted her position on many important issues—health care (Medicare for All), climate change (fracking), and immigration (decriminalizing border crossings), among others—since she ran for the nomination in 2020. This left people wondering, what kind of Democrat is she—a classic California progressive or the next generation of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden-style center-left? She had to persuade voters that the new version of Kamala Harris is the one they will get if she is elected.

Here her performance was more mixed. She explained her shift on fracking but didn’t give as clean and crisp an answer as she could have on other issues where Trump has accused her of flip-flopping. However, she defended the Biden administration and her participation in the bipartisan immigration legislation that Trump killed, she let the audience know that both she and Tim Walz are gun owners who have no intention of taking away people’s guns, and she pushed back against the charge that she was weak on crime by emphasizing her experience and record as a prosecutor who put criminals behind bars.    

Third, as is the case with every candidate who hasn’t previously occupied the presidency, Harris had to convince swing voters that she has what it takes to serve effectively as the nation’s chief executive and commander-in-chief. Simply put, they needed to be able to see her as big enough to be president, a barrier that some previous candidates, such as Michael Dukakis in 1988, failed to cross.

Harris passed this test easily. She never got flustered, she made her points concisely and quickly, and she spoke with confidence about traditionally “male” issues like war, defense, crime, and foreign policy.

What did Trump have to do in this debate? Two things.

First of all, he had to come across as someone who is not mean and angry, obsessed with the past and prone to conspiracy theorizing. His campaign aides have urged him to fight Kamala on the issues. Yet, on the stump, Trump can’t seem to stick to the script. He reads the policy portions of his speeches with an obvious lack of enthusiasm and returns often to complaining about alleged ballot fraud in 2020, insulting Harris, and unearthing conspiracy theories that make little sense.

Trump began the debate with the advice from his advisors ringing in his head. His first answer on the economy took aim at the Biden record, one of the issues on which he has held a consistent lead throughout the campaign. But as time went on, his debate performance took the same course as the Trump rallies. He turned nearly every question into an answer about the threats from illegal immigration. Like the economy, this has been a good issue for him, but he did begin to sound like a Johnny One Note on the topic, and it is not clear that this issue is as powerful in swing states like Pennsylvania as it is in border or more Republican states.

Also, as the debate wore on, Trump simply could not stay away from weird stuff. He insisted that Democrats favored killing babies after they were born and allowing abortion in the ninth month. And he repeated a story about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio killing and eating people’s cats and dogs. One of the moderators, David Muir, had to step in to point out that reporters had called Springfield city officials who had investigated the story and found it simply wasn’t true.

The second thing Trump needed to do was differentiate himself from the most extreme stances of his party—many of which are described by his former aides in Project 2025. As he has done in the past, he distanced himself from this document during the debate, claiming “I have nothing to do with Project 2025. I haven’t even read it.” 

Although there are many questionable policies being considered by Trump and the right wing of the Republican Party, such as slapping huge tariffs on U.S. imports and deporting millions of immigrants—by far the most dangerous one for him politically is abortion. On that issue, his answer was, as it has always been, that everything is okay because now the states are deciding it. Not surprisingly, Harris’ attack on abortion was exceptionally strong. She pointed out the many states that have passed highly restrictive abortion policies and, in some cases, have criminalized the behavior of doctors who are providing reproductive services. Abortion rights is the single most helpful issue for the Democrats in 2024.

Republican strategists keep hoping the abortion issue can be buried, but recent steps by Trump allies in Florida and Texas have kept it alive. In the debate, Trump tried to distance himself from the extremes, arguing that he would approve of abortions for rape and incest and even going so far as to say the Florida six-week ban is too short. Nonetheless, the coalition he leads isn’t happy with his nods to moderation, and it is likely many Americans will continue to believe that he would sign a national abortion ban if a Republican Congress sent it to his desk.

In conclusion, there are three kinds of presidential debates. The first is when one candidate lands a knockout blow against the other, as Ronald Reagan did with Jimmy Carter in 1980. The second is when the debate does little if anything to change the flow of the race; the Clinton/Dole debates in 1996 are a good example. The third, intermediate outcome occurs when a debate yields an advantage to one candidate without ending the other’s chance to win, as happened when Mitt Romney bested President Obama in their first debate in 2012.

The first (and perhaps only) debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris falls into this last category. After a month-long Harris surge that erased the advantage Trump had developed over President Biden, the race had stabilized during the past two weeks. This debate seems likely to put new wind in Harris’ sails. Whether it will be enough to propel her to victory in the Electoral College remains to be seen. But her campaign and supporters leave the debate with renewed energy and hope. By contrast, the Trump campaign must reckon with the likelihood that their candidate’s performance pleased his base without rallying many new supporters to his side.

Throughout the race, Trump has enjoyed a solid lead on the question of strong leadership. While he may still hold an advantage, most Americans who watched the debate probably saw in Kamala Harris an adversary who held her ground, went on the attack whenever possible, and refused to be intimidated. This matters.

On the face of it, the Trump campaign has an incentive to seek a rematch. If it does, the Harris campaign will probably insist on rules more to its liking. If not, this debate will stand as the last high-profile event before the November 5 election and as the race devolves into trench warfare—a battle of communications and organization in the states that will decide the outcome.

Finally—in the minutes after the debate closed—the galactically famous singer Taylor Swift announced she would be voting for Kamala Harris. In today’s world, this may be worth as much or even more than Harris’ solid debate performance.

[havegaysex]

Why are you telling people to vote for the guy committing genocide :/

because voting is not an endorsement it's harm reduction.

Trump is going to be at best doing the same as Biden and likely much worse for Palestinians and all the countries suffering from American Imperialism than Biden is.

Republicans want to bring back child labor and get rid of social security, medicare, Medicaid. As someone who is surviving on Medicaid and social security I don't want those taken away. The Republican majority house already put a lot of limits on food stamps in this past term and I don't think we'll still have food stamps if we get a republican Congress and a Republican president.

They've made it pretty clear that if they get a republican Congress and a Republican president they're going to enact project 2025 and call a conference of states and try and take our rights back to the days when only wealthy white men had any rights when women and racial minorities had no rights, they want to make it illegal for LGBT+ folks to safely exist in public and get lifesaving healthcare.

In short

Do I support every single thing Biden has done as president?

No.

Do I like him?

Not particularly. But I'm still voting for him because apathy is not a choice.

Do I think that Joe Biden having another term means that we can actually make more progress for labor rights, trans healthcare, abortion access, advancement of the rights and protections for disabled people and so much more?

Yes absolutely.

Do I think that the genocide in Gaza needs to end and the United States needs to stop sending weapons to israel?

Yes, I think that un restricted flow of humanitarian aid into Palestine needs to happen, the siege needs to stop, and the country of Israel and the United States need to be held accountable at an international level. I think that the soldiers of the IDF/IOF need to be held accountable for their war crimes and pillaging that they continuously post evidence of on social medias. I'm trying to put a read more here so ce I've put a few linked articles and quotes from them.

A quote from the article below:

"While our map focuses solely on high school aged youth (age 13-17), some states, such as Oklahoma, Texas, and South Carolina, have considered banning care for transgender people up to 26 years of age. "

I've seen lawmakers in some states try to make it felony punishable by life in prison to get your trans child healthcare to keep them alive because they want to make it illegal for us to exist and a legal for anyone who helps us exist.

some quotes from the article above:

"Led by the long-established Heritage Foundation think tank and fueled by former Trump administration officials, the far-reaching effort is essentially a government-in-waiting for the former president’s second term — or any candidate who aligns with their ideals and can defeat President Joe Biden in 2024. With a nearly 1,000-page “Project 2025” handbook and an “army” of Americans, the idea is to have the civic infrastructure in place on Day One to commandeer, reshape and do away with what Republicans deride as the “deep state” bureaucracy, in part by firing as many as 50,000 federal workers. “We need to flood the zone with conservatives,” said Paul Dans, director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project and a former Trump administration official who speaks with historical flourish about the undertaking. “This is a clarion call to come to Washington,” he said. “People need to lay down their tools, and step aside from their professional life and say, ‘This is my lifetime moment to serve.’” The unprecedented effort is being orchestrated with dozens of right-flank organizations, many new to Washington, and represents a changed approach from conservatives, who traditionally have sought to limit the federal government by cutting federal taxes and slashing federal spending. Instead, Trump-era conservatives want to gut the “administrative state” from within, by ousting federal employees they believe are standing in the way of the president’s agenda and replacing them with like-minded officials more eager to fulfill a new executive’s approach to governing. The goal is to avoid the pitfalls of Trump’s first years in office, when the Republican president’s team was ill-prepared, his Cabinet nominees had trouble winning Senate confirmation and policies were met with resistance — by lawmakers, government workers and even Trump’s own appointees who refused to bend or break protocol, or in some cases violate laws, to achieve his goals. While many of the Project 2025 proposals are inspired by Trump, they are being echoed by GOP rivals Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy and are gaining prominence among other Republicans. And if Trump wins a second term, the work from the Heritage coalition ensures the president will have the personnel to carry forward his unfinished White House business. “The president Day One will be a wrecking ball for the administrative state,” said Russ Vought, a former Trump administration official involved in the effort who is now president at the conservative Center for Renewing America. Much of the new president’s agenda would be accomplished by reinstating what’s called Schedule F — a Trump-era executive order that would reclassify tens of thousands of the 2 million federal employees as essentially at-will workers who could more easily be fired. Biden had rescinded the executive order upon taking office in 2021, but Trump — and other presidential hopefuls — now vow to reinstate it."

"There’s a “top to bottom overhaul” of the Department of Justice, particularly curbing its independence and ending FBI efforts to combat the spread of misinformation. It calls for stepped-up prosecution of anyone providing or distributing abortion pills by mail."

Personally I think that voting for Joe Biden is better than someone who wants to enact this stuff on day one. It's like they read handmaid's tale and want to make that the reality of this country.

"Chapter by chapter, the pages offer a how-to manual for the next president, similar to one Heritage produced 50 years ago, ahead of the Ronald Reagan administration. Authored by some of today’s most prominent thinkers in the conservative movement, it’s often sprinkled with apocalyptic language." Ronald Reagan is a big reason we have a lot of problems we have today with our economy and with a lot more things. The people that supported Ronald Reagan do not need another term in office.

A quote from the article linked below:

"Trump has given no indication that he would be more sympathetic to Palestinian claims, nor that he would place more pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire. “The approach of the United States would be that Israel needs to win this war, it was attacked brutally,” Trump’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, describing how Trump would act. Friedman is now a campaign surrogate for Trump."

Personally I think Trump telling Israel to finish the job is indicators that another Trump presidency doesn't mean that weapons would stop being sent to Israel from United States

I fail to see how another term of Donald trump will be any better for the victims of the ongoing genocide in Palestine than President Joe Biden.

i think our system is absolutely messed up and broken but I don't think abstaining from voting is going to actually help.

[tomorrowusa]

House Republicans may be relieved that they finally have a Speaker after 22 days of infighting. But the rest of the country should worry that there's a far right extremist second in line to the presidency. "MAGA Mike" Johnson is even more extreme than Trump on some issues.

Election denier, climate skeptic, anti-abortion: seven beliefs of new US House speaker Mike Johnson

He tried to overturn the 2020 election In the modern Republican party, supporting Donald Trump’s lie about voter fraud in his defeat by Joe Biden is hardly an outlandish position. But Johnson took it further. After the election, he voiced support for Trump’s conspiracy theory that voting machines were rigged. Later, he was one of 147 Republicans to object to results in key states, even after a pro-Trump mob attacked Congress on January 6, a riot now linked to nine deaths and hundreds of convictions. [ ... ] He was a spokesperson for a ‘hate group’ Before entering politics, Johnson worked for the Alliance Defending Freedom – designated a hate group by the Southern Law Poverty Center, which tracks US extremists. According to the SPLC, the ADF has “supported the recriminalisation of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ+ adults in the US and criminalisation abroad; defended state-sanctioned sterilisation of trans people abroad; contended that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to engage in paedophilia; and claimed that a ‘homosexual agenda’ will destroy Christianity and society”. [ ... ] He opposes LGBTQ+ rights In state politics and at the national level, Johnson has worked to claw back gains made by LGBTQ+ Americans in their fight for equality. In 2016, as he ran for Congress, he told the Louisiana Baptist Message he had “been out on the front lines of the ‘culture war’ defending religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and biblical values, including the defense of traditional marriage, and other ideals like these when they’ve been under assault”. He has since led efforts for a national “don’t say gay” bill, regarding the teaching of LGBTQ+ issues in schools, and is also opposed to gender-affirming care for children. On Wednesday, Rev Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, executive director of the Campaign for Southern Equality, said: “Johnson has made a career out of attacking the LGBTQ+ community at every turn." His positions are out of touch with the clear majority support for LGBTQ+ equality in our country. His new leadership role is just further proof of the dangerous priorities of the GOP and the critical stakes for our democracy – and for LGBTQ+ Americans – in 2024.” [ ... ] He is stringently anti-abortion Johnson has maintained a relatively low profile in Congress but when last year the supreme court removed the right to abortion, Johnson celebrated “a historic and joyful day”. Though Dobbs v Jackson returned abortion rights to the states, Johnson has co-sponsored bills for a nationwide ban. And as he neared his position of power, footage spread of striking remarks in a House hearing. “Roe v Wade did constitutional cover to the elective killing of unborn children in America, period,” Johnson said. [ ... ] He wants to cut social security and Medicare As those comments indicate, Johnson wants to cut programs on which millions rely. Such cuts are widely regarded as a political third-rail – Trump has used the issue to attack Republican presidential rivals, saying only he will defend such benefits – but Johnson is far from alone in wanting to swing the axe. He is an advocate for ‘covenant marriage’ When he married his wife, Kelly, in 1999, the couple agreed to a “covenant” marriage: a conservative Christian idea that makes it harder to divorce. The Johnsons promoted the idea on ABC’s Good Morning America. [ ... ] He is a climate skeptic In 2017, Johnson told voters in his oil-rich home state: “The climate is changing, but the question is, is it being caused by natural cycles over the span of the Earth’s history? Or is it changing because we drive SUVs? I don’t believe in the latter. I don’t think that’s the primary driver.”

You'd really have to try hard to find somebody worse than MAGA Mike. But we're not without the power of the vote; we need to use that power every chance we get.

November 7th is Election Day in many parts of the US. Most notably...

Ohio's statewide ballot measure to restore reproductive freedom by placing a woman's right to choose in the Ohio Constitution. A YES vote on Issue 1 takes abortion out of the hands of the gerrymandered GOP legislature.

Kentucky's Democratic governor is up for re-election.

The Virginia legislature is up for election. If Republicans gain control of both chambers they will try to ban abortion; reproductive tyranny is part of the GOP agenda whenever they hold a trifecta in a state. There's also a special election to fill a vacancy for a US House seat in VA-04.

The state legislature in New Jersey is up for election.

There are judicial elections in Pennsylvania including for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. There's also a special election to fill a vacancy in the Penn House of Representatives which is currently tied 101 Democrats – 101 Republicans.

All state offices in Mississippi including governor and legislature are up for election. Surprisingly, polls show the GOP incumbent governor ahead by just 1% with 10% undecided.

Like Mississippi, all state offices in Louisiana are up for election.

Rhode Island has a special election to fill a vacancy for a US House seat in RI-01.

^^^ Those are just the highlights. There are elections of some sort in most states on November 7th.

Republicans may grumble at times, but they always turn out for elections. They have a disproportionate amount of power in the US because they vote while many of their liberal neighbors stay home or become too ideologically persnickety.

Allegedly "moderate" GOP House members ultimately fell in line and unanimously backed a far right Speaker.

Elections at all levels count. Speaker "MAGA Mike" Johnson got his start in politics in the Louisiana legislature. He is now the highest ranking GOP elected official in the US.

There's no such thing as an unimportant election. Vote in the November 7th election and actively encourage like-minded friends, family, and neighbors to do so as well.

Be A Voter - Vote Save America

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Trump's campaign speeches on Wednesday

Trump was not in trial on Wednesday, so he made two campaign appearances. He said many things that were incomprehensible, alarming, and ridiculous. Rather than detail everything, let’s focus on one of the most ridiculous statements: He said he would repeal the Inflation Reduction Act. Doing so would

increase the deficit,

eliminate the $35 per month cap on insulin,

deny access to the Affordable Care Act to millions of Americans,

increase the cap for prescription medications under Medicare D from $2,000 per year to $3,500 per year,

eliminate billions in investments in states and local communities for clean energy projects, and

imperil 150,000+ jobs.

Trump is intent on destroying the accomplishments of the Inflation Reduction Act because it authorized money for the IRS to replace staff that will retire or quit over the next decade. With Trump, it’s always about evading or reducing taxes (and Putin).

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

+

In his rally in Waukesha, WI, Trump explains the decline and fall of Europe and the rise of Russia—because England and France allowed dark-skinned people to swarm London and Paris, whereas Russia is keeping its Central Asian guest workers in place as serfs and sends them to the meat grinder in Ukraine. It's pure racism. And the MAGA crowd loves it. "Look at Paris. Look at London. They're no longer recognizable. I'm going to get myself into a lot of trouble, but you know what? That's the fact, they are no longer recognizable. We can't let that happen here."

[Robert Scott Horton]

+

In describing his fever dream of autocratic powers, Trump said he would take (or allow) the following actions:

Allow states to monitor the pregnancies of women to ensure they comply with abortion bans (a grotesque violation of liberty, privacy, and dignity).

Fire US attorneys who refuse to prosecute defendants targeted by Trump (a violation of US norms dating to the creation of the Department of Justice).

Initiate mass deportations of alleged illegal immigrants using the US military and local law enforcement (neither of which are authorized to enforce US immigration law).

Pardon insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol on January 6.

Prosecute President Biden (for unspecified and non-existent crimes).

Deploy the National Guard to cities and states across America—likely those with predominately Democratic populations (presumably under the Insurrection Act, a deployment would violate the terms of the Act and implementing regulations).

Withhold funds from states in the exercise of his personal discretion (a violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974).

Abandon NATO and South Asian allies if he feels the countries are not paying enough for their own defense.

Shutter the White House pandemic-preparedness office.

Fire tens (hundreds?) of thousands of civil servants and replace them with Trump acolytes with dubious qualifications (other than loyalty to Trump).

Most readers of this newsletter understand the seriousness of Trump's threats and are working tirelessly to prevent a second Trump term. But tens of millions of Americans seem oblivious or apathetic in the face of an imminent and dire threat.

If elected, will Trump succeed in achieving any of his stated goals? No—not if Democrats continue their resistance in the courts, in Congress, in state legislatures, and in the hearts and minds of most Americans.

However, whether Trump succeeds in achieving his stated objectives is beside the point. He will attempt to do so—and his attempts will tear at the fabric of democracy and destroy legal norms that have served as the bedrock of our republic since its founding.

To be clear, I am not attempting to frighten readers of this newsletter. To the contrary, I believe that we can and will defeat Trump—or outlast him, whatever it takes. But the interview confirms that we are not frantic alarmists exaggerating the threat posed by Trump.

No, far from it.

When we challenge the milquetoast, both-siderism reporting of the media or the normalization of Trump by spineless politicians, we are not overreacting. We are sounding the alarm in a responsible, necessary way. For reasons that defy comprehension, our warnings have been unheeded—often dismissed, minimized, or patronized.

We must redouble our efforts. Commit the above list to memory. Copy the URL so you can forward this newsletter or the Time Magazine article to friends, colleagues, and complete strangers who doubt that Trump is a danger to democracy. Pick two or three issues and be prepared to discuss them when the moment arises. We have been warned—and we must act accordingly.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[hero-israel]

I know you don’t like being sent stuff but this really annoyed me and I would like to rant a little. I already replied myself on Twitter but these ppl are literally just insane. Learning Yiddish as ‘anti colonial praxis’ and saying Zionism is antisemitic and attempted to wipe out Yiddish culture as if 1) some of the most dedicated Zionist’s were Yiddish speakers and Ashkenazi and 2) Yiddish was largely preserved thanks to the work of zionists and 3) was largely decreased in usage because of genocide and newer generations learning Hebrew in Israel as a national language/main language of communication and only using Yiddish around their communities, slowly diminishing its use. Unless I’m missing something there was no campaign of exterminating the Yiddish language or culture by Zionists at all.

https://x.com/moontwerk/status/1731673865112133883?s=46&t=EG0815iq-Yl0MxWghs-F_Q

What a pathetic account.

Someone rejecting mainstream Jewish culture and Jewish self-defense, today, because of some pre-Boomer shit from the 1930s? Pathetic. People need to get over shit like that. It is true that the Yishuv and early Israel did discourage or suppress Yiddish media, but that all ended before "Moontwerk"'s parents were born. It was temporary and reversible, and wound up very much reversed. Anyone who wants to address those who made PERMANENT AND IRREVERSIBLE removal of Yiddish culture needs to have the courage to confront goyim, and it is clear that account has none.

Viewing greater engagement with some form of Judaism only as spite against other Jews is also pathetic. The whitewashing of how all the first Zionists spoke Yiddish as their mother tongue, Ben-Gurion very much included, that's pathetic too. And the assertion that Hebrew in Israel is "a colonial language," while Yiddish in Europe is not, is beyond the threshold of stupidity that could ever be worth addressing. "Yiddish in Europe is anti-colonialist" is the Gen Z mutant of the old teabagger war cry "Keep the government out of my Medicare!". We can laugh at them, but it is never worthwhile to explain why, they will never get it.

The most pathetic thing of all is that "Moontwerk"'s performative contempt for normal Jews and Judaism is so transparently a desperate survival ploy, the obscene mirror image of how some German Jews thought they could win their safety through performative ultranationalist loyalty and support for Hitler.

As the insane tankie-left sharpens its fangs, there are those Jews who loudly proclaim they are fine with it as long as it doesn't come after them.

It will work until it doesn't.

[corvidcall]

i understand why people on here are trying to gass us all up about voting for biden but tbh i think the argument of "look at all the good stuff he says he'll do in his first 100 days!" falls a little flat given that

1. implamenting these policies would require the dems to also control congress and the supreme court, and biden has been pretty clear that he doesnt want to ban the filibuster and he doesnt want to do anything about the incredibly corrupt supreme court

2. he hasnt fulfilled a lot of the promises he made in his first campaign (some he tried and failed (due to point 1) and immediately gave up, like student loan forgiveness, some he claimed he'd never had any intention of doing, like the $2k a month until the end of the pandemic) so im not sure why i would believe he'll mean it this time.

3. i saw the debate and i know that mans brain is pudding. i really don't trust joe "we beat medicare" biden to mean anything he says or say anything he means!

like. don't vote for trump OBVIOUSLY. and im not saying dont vote (it doesnt feel impactful, i know, but if it didnt do something, the GOP wouldn't be trying to hard to remove people's voting rights). i AM saying that you know biden has thoroughly fucked it when im out here genuinely excited at the prospect of voting for kamala

[wwarborday]

Interesting to me that some of the people who I see posting more often about how Democrats and Republicans are the same are dead silent about the latest Supreme Court rulings.

I don’t mean this in a disparaging way, but I think it’s very easy to say “both sides are equally bad,” and then sneer every time the Democrats do anything, and point to Gaza to say, “See? I knew it. They’re both as bad. If you vote for Biden, you clearly don’t care about brown people, and if you really wanted to be anti-imperialist, you’d storm the capital like a real commie instead of wringing your hands.”

But why don’t they talk about the Supreme Court rulings which just gutted every federal agency; legalized bribery; and have given a sitting President the legal immunity to do whatever they way? Why wouldn’t you point to those are further examples that “both sides” are bad?

So I did some digging. And I can only speak for the people I’m following, who I will not be naming, so if this seems shady, yeah, that’s fair, but. It was interesting to me that nearly every goddamn “both sides” post was about Democrats. Have you seen that? Have you noticed that? “Look, the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.” And maybe that sounds silly to you, like, well, of course people would only post about the Democrats being as bad as the Republicans, since people only ever try to defend the Democrats, but no-one tries to defend the Republicans. We know they’re the bad guys. If it’s both sides, then it’s important to show that the Democrats are just as bad.

But when not post about it when the Republicans hit lower? In all of the Gaza and Palestine posting, why haven’t I seen anyone mention Trump going on record that he thinks Israel should “finish the job,” and his cabinet made an Israel peace plan in 2020 which included recognizing annexed land as Israel’s, and immediate demilitarization of Gaza? Trump wants to deport non-citizen college protestors. He also wants to ban Gaza refugees from entering the US.

Mike Johnson, speaker of the house, wants to cut Social Security and Medicare entirely. Trump has a meeting at Mar-A-Lago in March to ask oil and gas execs for money in exchange for repairing tax cuts for oil and gas lobbyists. Trump’s Supreme Court have ruled that a President has total immunity doing anything deemed presidential duties.

I feel like people are very quick to say, “both sides,” until the second it’s clear that they are, demonstrably, not the same.