#up election 2022 public opinion

[redgoldsparks]

My very last comic for The Nib! End of an era! Transcription below the cut. instagram / patreon / portfolio / etsy / my book / redbubble

The first event I went to with GENDER QUEER was in NYC in 2019 at the Javits Center.

So many of the people who came to my signing were librarians, and so many of them said the same thing: "I know exactly who I want to give this to!" Maia: "Thank you for helping readers find my book!" While working on the book, I was genuinely unsure if anyone outside of my family and close friends would read it. But the early support of librarians and two American Library Association awards helped sell two print runs in first year.

Since then, GENDER QUEER been published in 8 languages, with more on the way: Spanish, Czech, Polish, French, Italian, Norwegian, Portugese and Dutch.

It has also been the most banned book in the United States for the past two years. The American Library Association has tracked an astronomical increase in book challenges over the past few years. Most of these challenges are to books with diverse characters and LGBTQ themes. These challenges are coming unevenly across the US, in a pattern that mirrors the legislative attacks on LGBTQ people. The Brooklyn Public Library offered free eCards to anyone in the US aged 13-21, in an effort to make banned books more available to young readers. A teacher in Norman, Oklahoma gave her students the QR code for the free eCard and lost her job. Summer Boismeir is now working for the Brooklyn Public Library. Hoopla and Libby/Overdrive, apps used to access digital library books, are now banned in Mississippi to anyone under 18. Some libraries won’t allow anyone under 18 to get any kind of library card without parental permission. When librarians in Jamestown, Michigan refused to remove GENDER QUEER and several other books, the citizens of the town voted down the library’s funding in the fall 2022 election. Without funding, the library is due to close in mid-2024. My first event since covid hit was the American Library Association conference in June 2022 in Washington, DC. Once again, the librarians in my signing line all had similar stories for me: “Your book was challenged in our district" "It was returned to the shelf!" "It was removed from the shelf..." "It was moved to the adult section."

Over and over I said: "Thank you. Thank you for working so hard to keep my book in your library. I’m sorry you had to defend it, but thank you for trying, even if it didn't work." We are at a crossroads of freedom of speech and censorship. The future of libraries, both publicly funded and in schools, are at stake. This is massively impacting the daily lives of librarians, teachers, students, booksellers, and authors around the country. In May 2023, I read an article from the Washington Post analyzing nearly 1000 of the book challenges from the 2021-2022 school year. I was literally on route to a festival to talk about book bans when I read a startling statistic. 60% of the 1000 book challenges were submitted by just 11 people. One man alone was responsible for 92 challenges. These 11 people seem to have made submitting copy-cat book challenges their full-time hobby and their opinions are having an outsized ripple effect across the nation. WE NEED TO MAKE THE VOICES SUPPORTING DIVERSE BOOKS AND OPPOSING BOOK BANS EVEN LOUDER. If you are able too, show up for your library and school board meetings when book challenges are debated. Send supportive comments and emails about the Pride book display and Drag Queen story hours. If you see a display you like– for Banned Book Week, AAPI Month, Black History Month, Disability Awareness Month, Jewish holidays, Trans Day of Remembrance– compliment a librarian! Make sure they feel the love stronger than the hate <3

Maia Kobabe, 2023

The Nib

[mariacallous]

The tragedy of New York Mayor Eric Adams, who’s facing a dizzying number of investigations targeting him and his inner circle, was foreseeable. Indeed, it was foreseen. 

“We all know you’ve been investigated for corruption everywhere you’ve gone,” a rival candidate said to the then-Brooklyn borough president during a mayoral debate in 2021. “You’ve achieved the rare trifecta of corruption investigations.”

That didn’t deter Democratic voters, and Adams — an ex-cop and native son of the city who ran on his biography and a promise to restore public safety after crime rates and fears shot up during the pandemic — eked out a victory in the party’s closed primary, which made him a sure thing to be the city’s 110th mayor and just its second Black one. 

nce that was official, Adams proclaimed himself the “future” and the “face of the new Democratic Party.” He also started publicly partying all night at clubs, sometimes with felonious friends, when he wasn’t talking about how God had told him 30 years ago he’d be the mayor in 2022 and should share that good news with the world — something he’d never publicly mentioned before winning the election. 

The new mayor immediately brought in a crew of cronies with sullied records, including a deputy mayor for public safety overseeing the NYPD, Phil Banks, who’d abruptly retired as the chief of department in 2014. 

Banks left that post about a year before it came out that he’d been an unindicted co-conspirator in a case involving two guys who went to prison for bribing the previous mayor. One of them testified they’d treated the police chief to plane trips around the world and the services of a prostitute when they weren’t smoking cigars and storing their diamonds in the chief’s office at One Police Plaza. 

Banks, who’s denied any wrongdoing but says he regrets the association, had his home hit and his phones seized in the FBI’s synchronized early-morning raids last week. Again, he said through an attorney he’s done nothing wrong. 

Those raids, though, are a sign that this new probe is far enough along for prosecutors to go public with it — and get a federal judge to sign off on their concerns that the deputy mayor for public safety and the police commissioner might destroy evidence if given the opportunity. 

Last week’s raids were reportedly distinct from earlier raids of top Adams allies in two previously reported probes being conducted by two different federal prosecutors, who both needed sign-off from Justice Department bosses in Washington, D.C., to go after the mayor of America’s biggest city. 

There’s the ongoing investigation into Adams’ travel and ties to Turkey, along with campaign cash that appears tied to the Turkish government. And the ongoing investigation into Adams’ travels and ties to China, along with campaign cash given through secret donors. The mayor had his cellphone seized by FBI agents last year as part of that case. 

And now two new investigations that appear to be about influence schemes involving Adams’ appointees at the highest levels of his police department and administration steering public money to family members.

In just three years, Adams has bested his old corruption probe trifecta: There are now four separate, though possibly overlapping, federal investigations targeting his inner circle and the mayor himself.

No one has been charged with any wrongdoing in those investigations, and Adams says he always follows the law while asking the public to respect the process and withhold judgment. 

New Yorkers might know more soon, as the feds have already impaneled at least one grand jury. With the city’s primary next June, prosecutors are up against long-standing Justice Department guidelines about not having cases interfere with elections.

But New Yorkers are already rendering a verdict in the court of public opinion. Adams at the end of last year hit the lowest approval rating ever recorded for a New York mayor as voters have been choking on all this smoke, also including the corruption trial of his former buildings commissioner, the guilty pleas from members of a crew including another ex-cop and old friend of the mayor’s for their own straw-donor scheme involving his campaign, and the guilty plea of a Chinese billionaire who also sneaked money into his campaign, as well as those of other American politicians. 

Tim Pearson, another ex-cop and old friend of Adams’ who now runs a shadowy new mayoral oversight agency, also had his phones seized by the FBI last week. Pearson has been accused in multiple civil suits of ruining the career of a police officer who wouldn’t sleep with him and the supervisors who tried to protect her while hunting for “crumbs” of his own from city contracts. Taxpayers are covering his legal bills at the mayor’s behest and over the objections of the city’s former top lawyer, who was then pushed out. 

So many of Adams’ problems seem to involve the gap between his mantra of “stay focused and grind” and his need to swagger and test limits. 

Polling shows New Yorkers still like much of his agenda but don’t like him or how he’s executing it. He keeps repeating “crime is down” but not saying down from when or how much, and the data is mixed and most New Yorkers don’t really believe him. 

It hasn’t helped that Adams’ police department is increasingly unhinged in its public communications, with one reporter at the cop-friendly New York Post getting attacked this week as a “f---ing scumbag” and the official NYPD account even giving me the wannabe Trump-y nickname “Harry ‘Deceitful’ Siegel” earlier this year. 

No wonder Democratic challengers are lining up to take on Adams next year, assuming he’s still there, in what would be the first contested primary against a Democratic incumbent since David Dinkins upset Ed Koch in 1989. 

Asked at a news conference Tuesday what he would do if he were indicted, Adams said he intended to remain as mayor and run for re-election before adding that he wouldn’t engage with hypotheticals.

The tragedy of Eric Adams is that he’s done this to himself.

[qqueenofhades]

Hi just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully respond to these anon messages. I work in dc w a fairly wonky set and i cant overstate how haunted the DC Professional Thought Havers are by the spectre of the "low propensity voter." I think these ppl (myself included LOL) thought we had everything figured out ahead of the 2016 elections and then never recovered from the way it ended up going......i feel like in all the years that followed.....the liberal bubbles.....the coastal elites.......the hillbilly elegies......the real america....the ohio diners....the pennsylvania diners.......the polls......the 2020 horserace....while part of an earnest attempt to understand What Happened, were primarily self-indulgent, self-flagellation for being "out of touch" bc of a self-diagnosed "elite" status that then turned into ANOTHER myopic view of the world, just opposite, where the "libs" are hapless and everyone else remotely to the left are primarily victims to the unstoppable supernatural forces of the Right. Then in 2020 the narrative flipped AGAIN and once again, instead of taking the opportunity to expand a worldview and having the bravery to confront their own shortcomings, the opinion havers and wonks and beltway pressers have decided to groupthink their way into writing off democracy altogether. Its BEYOND frustrating to see! Like damn volunteer at a soup kitchen or smthn instead of being obsessed w the fact that i vote lol

Yes, and there are several reasons for that. First, despite all the factors that contributed to Trump's shock win in 2016 (anti-Clintonism, white backlash to Obama, general low voter enthusiasm, Russian disinformation, etc) we should never forget that until James Comey decided to announce 10 days before the election that he was reopening the EEEEEEEMAILS case, even though we all knew there was nothing there, she was leading fairly comfortably in the polls. And while we will never know how the 2016 election would have gone without that, which imho was one of the most unforgivable acts of blatant sabotage by a public official in American history, it's also true that we saw her poll averages start sliding almost in real time, as people who hadn't really been keen on voting for her anyway decided firmly not to and Trump was able to scrape out 16,000 votes across PA, MI, and WI to take the Electoral College. Which... we all remember how we felt that night, right? (Or in my case, early morning, since I was overseas?) We don't, we really, really don't want to feel that way again. Just saying.

As such, the media (which had already beat up Clinton nonstop during the BUT HER EEEEEMAILS saga) drastically overcorrected and as you say, began writing endless angsty handwringing pieces about Trump Voters in Rural Ohio Diners and giving endless sympathetic airtime to how "economically left behind" they felt, regardless of the fact that open racism, especially Obama backlash, was and remains the principal animating feature of Republican politics (since their only economic platform is that which makes very rich people even richer and Democratic economic policies are the only ones actually targeted at helping ordinary people). The hangover was so strong that even when Democrats had a massive 2018 midterm result and flipped the House blue for the first time since the post-ACA backlash lost it in 2010, the Conventional Wisdom was now beyond any doubt that Democrats were doomed for a generation or something, and not that Trump had squeaked out a fluky win (while losing the popular vote) due to endless Russian/Comey/third party-etc interference and wasn't actually that powerful. Even in 2020 when Biden was leading fairly steadily and things were going to hell with Covid, etc. etc. TRUMP IS UNSTOPPABLE, TRUMP IS GOING TO WIN.

(And now. Like. I know Trump thinks Trump won in 2020, as do a large majority of his cultists, but that doesn't mean he did.)

Even after that, when Roe went down in 2022, that made no difference to the RED WAVE COMING!!! narrative, and the amount of smug white male pundits insisting that abortion just wasn't very important and people weren't going to base their entire vote on it reached truly disgusting levels. We're now seeing the same thing with the constant "people won't vote for democracy and/or abortion rights" blast, when as you say, this narrative has just been completely made the fuck up by a lot of groupthinking DC media who are determined that this time, Trump really is going to win and then they get to be principled chroniclers in opposition or something. Not to mention, the basic principle of "democracy and abortion rights are good" do in fact win by thumping margins every time they're on the ballot, including in deep red states. But there is literally not a single piece of empirical evidence despite the massive amounts of it supporting the truth (i.e. that Democrats are doing historically well in competitive elections since 2018 and there's not really a major reason to think this will change in 2024) that will get the media to change the "Democrats in disarray and Biden Iz Doomed" horserace BS they so love. They don't like Biden because he's boring and competent and just does the job without being insane, because it's totally a great idea to treat American government like a reality show! (Recall the infamous comment by the CBS CEO who literally said that Trump was bad for America but great for CBS, because he pulled in high ratings and therefore lots of money and visibility for CBS. We live in the worst timeline.)

As such, the mainstream media has a vendetta against Biden, is determined that this time Trump is super definitely going to win and everyone will see how genius they are, and not-so-secretly wants Trump back because a) he's good for money and ratings, and b) because the media conglomerations are owned by oligarchs who have a vested interest in making sure that Democrats and their policies never get too popular. Notice how the once self-proclaimed centrist independent Elon Musk has turned into a rabidly alt-right fanboy ever since the Democrats really got serious about taxing billionaires as a key part of their platform. Likewise, insisting that Biden Iz Doomed makes Democrats nervous (and thus more likely to tune in) and Republicans gleeful (and thus more likely to tune in), so there's literally no incentive for the media to even try to report things accurately. You could create a very different narrative of the 2024 election if you just remotely bothered to write about things that have actually happened as they have actually taken place, rather than bending over backward to insist that Biden being four years older than Trump is a worse crime than 91 felony indictments, 2 impeachments, 1 insurrection, 450 million dollars and counting in punitive jury verdicts, more major criminal trials coming down the pipe, and just demonstrably being the worst human being alive in so many ways. I mean. Wow.

The good news, as I said in my other post, is that when people actually vote, these utter bullshit narratives get routinely blown out of the water, and that's a good thing. Because it turns out that unlike Super Smart Beltway Pundits' Super Smart Predictions, the average American does actually like democracy and freedom for women to make their own personal healthcare decisions, and they vote accordingly. So while yes, it's being made harrowingly much harder than it needs to be because of how much the media simply refuses to report that basic fact, and there is no amount of evidence that will convince them otherwise, at least we're trending in the right direction and, if we all pull our weight, can do it one more time. I realized the other day that I hadn't heard a fucking peep about Ron DeSantis in the last two months, and oh, how glorious it was. I yearn beyond words for the day (God willing, soon) when the same is true of Trump as well.

[odinsblog]

Musk reactivated the accounts of Brazilian far-right politicians Carla Zambelli, Gustavo Gayer, and Nikolas Ferreira. Ferreira, a Bolsonaro supporter, openly questioned the security of Brazil’s electronic voting machines, even though he won his local legislative race.

“All of these names have been problematic for years on social media,” says Flora Rebello Arduini, campaign director at the nonprofit advocacy organization Ekō. “They've been pushing for the far-right and election misinformation for ages.”

When Musk purchased Twitter in 2022, later renaming it X, many activists in Brazil worried that he would abuse the platform to push his own agenda, Arduini says. “He has unprecedented broadcasting abilities. He is bullying a supreme court justice of a democratic country, and he is showing he will use all the resources he has available to push for whatever favors his personal opinions or his professional ambitions.”

Under Musk, X has become a haven for the far right and disinformation. After taking over, Musk offered amnesty to users who had been banned from the platform, including right-wing influencer Andrew Tate, who, along with his brother, was indicted in Romania on several charges including with rape and human trafficking in June 2023 (he has denied the allegations). Last month, one of Tate's representatives told the BBC that "they categorically reject all charges."

A 2023 study found that hate speech has increased on the platform under Musk’s leadership. The situation in Brazil is just the latest instance of Musk aligning himself with and platforming dangerous, far-right movements around the world, experts tell WIRED. "It's not about Twitter or Brazil. It's about a strategy from the global far right to overcome democracies and democratic institutions around the world," says Nina Santos, a digital democracy researcher at the Brazilian National Institute of Science & Technology who researches the Brazilian far right. “An opinion from an American billionaire should not count more than a democratic institution.”

This also comes as Brazil has continued working to understand and investigate the lead-up to January 8, 2023, when election-denying insurrectionists who refused to accept right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro’s defeat stormed Brazil’s legislature. The TSE, the country’s election court, is a special judicial body that investigates electoral crimes and is part of the mechanism for overseeing the country’s electoral processes overall. The court has been investigating the dissemination of fake news and disinformation that cast doubt on the country’s elections in the months and years leading up to the storming of the legislature on January 8, 2023. Both Arduini and Santos believe that the accounts Musk is refusing to remove are likely connected to the court’s inquiry.

“A life-and-death struggle recently took place in Brazil for the democratic rule of law and against a coup d'état, which is under investigation by this court in compliance with due legal process,” Luís Roberto Barroso, the president of the federal supreme court, said in a statement about Musk’s comments. “Nonconformity against the prevalence of democracy continues to manifest itself in the criminal exploitation of social networks.”

Santos also worries that Musk is setting a precedent that the far right will be protected and promoted on his platform, regardless of local laws or public opinion. “They are trying to use Brazil as a laboratory on how to interfere in local politics and local businesses,” she says. “They are making the case that their decision is more important than the national decision from a state democratic institution.”

Though Musk has claimed to be a free-speech advocate, and X’s public statement on the takedowns asserts that Brazilians are entitled to free speech, the platform’s application of these principles has been uneven at best. In February, on order of the Indian government, X blocked the accounts Hindutva Watch and the India Hate Lab in India, two US-based nonprofits that track incidents of religiously motivated violence perpetrated by supporters of the country’s right-wing government. A 2023 study from the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard found that X complied with more government takedown requests under Musk’s leadership than it had previously.

In March, X blocked the accounts of several prominent researchers and journalists after they identified a well-known neo-Nazi cartoonist, later changing its own terms of service to justify the decision.

—Elon Musk Is Platforming Far-Right Activists in Brazil

[foreverlogical]

In a New York Times profile of the Michigan Republican Party, state Rep. Lisa McClain offers a quintessentially stoic midwestern insight about the ailing state party that perfectly sums up the GOP's national dynamic too.

“It’s not going real well," McClain told the Times' Nick Corasaniti.

“The ability to raise money," she continued, "we’ve got a lot of donors sitting on the sideline. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact. It’s just a plain fact. We have to fix that.”

Though McClain was assessing the divide between the state's monied benefactors, such as former Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, and its Trumpy grassroots activists, she may as well have been talking about national GOP donors' frantic search for a savior as the MAGA grassroots coalesce around Donald Trump for the 2024 nomination.

In fact, Corasaniti's piece—an anatomy of GOP dysfunction encapsulated by the Republican Party in a Rust Belt swing state—mirrors rifts emerging across the country at both the state and national levels. Corasaniti portrays a party coming apart at the seams after its drubbing in the '22 cycle in a state where Republicans roundly lost the gubernatorial contest, every statewide executive office (e.g., attorney general and secretary of state), and control of both legislative chambers. A hat trick, if you will.

The key cast of characters includes:

Tudor Dixon, 2022 gubernatorial nominee, Bible-thumper, anti-abortion activist, and former right-wing news host.

Fervent 2020 election deniers Kristina Karamo and Matthew DePerno, 2022 GOP nominees for secretary of state and attorney general, respectively.

Meshawn Maddock, former co-chair of the Republican Party and leader of Women for Trump, who has been charged in the fake elector scheme.

The DeVos family, longtime Republican Party donors and Michigan establishment heavyweights.

Every one of those is effectively a stand-in for similarly situated Republican players in GOP apparatuses around the country.

Following Michigan Republicans' midterm election implosion, a round of rapid-fire finger-pointing broke out, with MAGA party officials blaming Dixon for a toxic near-total abortion ban position and soft fundraising, Dixon blaming both the party and old-guard donors for her campaign's collapse, and party officials chastising donors for insufficiently funding their cuckoo election-denying candidates.

Corasaniti writes:

A state party autopsy days after the election, made public by Ms. Dixon, acknowledged that “we found ourselves consistently navigating the power struggle between Trump and anti-Trump factions of the party” and that Mr. Trump “provided challenges on a statewide ballot.”

True enough. On the national stage, every 2024 Republican hopeful but Trump is presently trying to thread the needle of enthusing high-dollar donors while managing to peel away pro-Trump voters open to alternatives.Campaign Action

Back in Michigan, establishment type Dave Trott, a retired GOP congressman and former state party donor, dished about the Republican elite's distrust of former GOP co-chair Maddock, a MAGA activist.

"Meshawn was never connected to the donor base, and so having her as the vice chair [of the party] for a lot of us was a showstopper,” Trott explained. "We just knew she would never be someone that would be rational in her approach to state party politics."

In response, Maddock expressed a reciprocal lack of trust in the party's establishment muckety-mucks.

“The state party needs the wealthy RINOs who often fund it to come to terms with what the actual voters on the right want,” Maddock told the Times. Wealthy donors, she added, need to treat the base "with an ounce of respect for once.”

The same could be said of national Republican donors who have never crossed paths with actual base voters and apparently still believe Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin can save them from Trump.

That same mutual distrust and disgust between establishment Republican donors and state party officials is also playing out in Georgia, where popular Republican Gov. Brian Kemp warned well-heeled donors earlier this year they could "no longer rely on" the state Republican Party to win elections. Kemp has effectively built a parallel political apparatus after urging donors to abandon the pro-Trump state party.

And then there are the anti-abortion zealots pointing fingers at everyone else for their own deeply unpopular position. Dixon's support for a strict abortion ban doomed her candidacy, just like the efforts of Ohio Republicans to ban abortion there sank an anti-abortion ballot measure earlier this month.

Following that loss, the nation's premier forced birther group, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life 

America, castigated establishment Republicans and the business community for not pulling their weight in the battle to pass the measure, which would have significantly raised the bar for enshrining abortion protections in Ohio's constitution.

All across the nation, the Republican Party is reckoning with the deal it cut with the devil. In swing states like Michigan and Georgia, red states like Ohio, and nationally, the GOP is cracking up as different factions variously cling to or reject Trump. The damage done may not be fully realized until voters cast their ballots next year, but the Republican Party is entering 2024 in a position so precarious that it almost defies historical comparison.

[truth4ourfreedom]

HOW MUCH THE NRA AND THE 'EVIL' GUN LOBBY SPENDS EACH YEAR.

The popular narrative from prohibitionists is that the lack of legislative support for various gun control schemes is due to aggressive lobbying. The story goes that “blood money” from the National Rifle Association and other gun lobby efforts along with the firearm industry has a stranglehold on elected officials who are just pining to do “the right thing” but are being drowned out by all the cash.

How much money is actually spent by the NRA on lobbying? How does this compare to lobbying efforts from elsewhere?

Statista is a German online platform specializing in data gathering and visualization in German, English, Spanish, and French. The company provides statistics and survey results presented in charts and tables. Its main target groups are business customers, lecturers, and researchers, offering subscriptions to a database of companies in the same manner as Bloomberg L.P.

Statista’s data partners include the Federal Statistical Office, the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research, the OECD, and the German Institute for Economic Research. Other partners include the Financial Times and Fortune. Financial Times Germany named them among the winners of the start-up competition, Enable to Start.

Major U.S. Political Lobbying

The big three in major U.S. political lobbying are Pharmaceuticals/Health Products ($357 million per year), Electronics Manufacturing ($180 million per year), and Insurance ($153 million per year.)

Major annual lobbying expenditures in the United States

www.statista.com/statistics/257364/top-lobbying-industries-in-the-us

Critical note: Statista felt compelled to add the following footnote to this chart:

The NRA and lobbying: One of the most famous lobbying organizations in the United States is the National Rifle Association (NRA), which lobbies lawmakers in favor of gun rights. However, despite this, it only spent around 2.2 million U.S. dollars on lobbying expenditures in 2020.

Apparently, they received so many inquiries as to why the NRA wasn’t included in that chart above they included the answer right underneath: the NRA spends a marginal fraction on lobbying compared to the actual big spenders.

NRA (bottom) compared to the actual big lobby efforts.

Gun Lobby Money:

The NRA typically spends a few million dollars per year on lobbying. From 1998-2022, the most the NRA spent on lobbying in a single year was just over $5 million. Most years it’s between 1.5-2.5 million.

www.statista.com/statistics/249398/lobbying-expenditures-of-the-national-rifle-associaction-in-the-united-states/

The National Shooting Sports Foundation also lobbies. In 2023, according to federal records, the NSSF spent the most in lobbying in its 60-year history: $5.4 million on federal lobbying, slightly more than the NRA’s all-time annual record amount.

Anti-Gun Lobbying:

Firearm prohibitionists claim there is some large grassroots movement to push for legislative restrictions. It turns out that many anti-gun organizations are astroturfing fronts funded as tax deductions by a small group of very wealthy donors. These “organizations” provide no services with all funding received as contributions.

As an example, “March for Our Lives” bills itself as a grassroots movement of young people working to restrict gun ownership under the guise of safety. In reality, this is a front group funded by a few dozen donors. According to public tax documents for March for Our Lives, the group is funded almost entirely by large tax-deductible donations in excess of $100,000 with less than 1% of all donations from people donating less than $5,000. Nearly 100% of “March for Our Lives” income is Contributions serving as a tax deduction for donors and no Program Services are offered. Contrast this to the NRA’s public tax records where nearly half of the income is from Program Services and about a third is from Contributions.

Lobby Money Breakdown

Pharmaceutical companies spend the most on lobbying, much more than any other industry or sector. Pharmaceutical companies spend more on lobbying than second and third place (Electronics Manufacturing and Insurance) combined. Novo Nordisk, the maker of the obesity drug Ozempic, has spent $10 million per year just to lobby for that one drug with their primary effort pushing for the passage of the proposed Treat and Reduce Obesity Act which would emphasize regular prescription by doctors to patients for Ozempic. That doesn't count the $100 million Novo Nordisk has spent in advertising this drug to the general public.

Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford, appointed to the current Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, has declared that “obesity cannot be treated with exercise and good diet” and is pushing for more pharmaceutical interventions. This push is for drug interventions such as Ozempic. Prior to this appointment, Dr. Stanford had been a paid consultant for Novo Nordisk.

[mitigatedchaos]

Regarding Chevron

From what I understand, the new 'Chevron Deference' ruling does not state that congress cannot delegate authority to the executive agencies, it just requires that congress actually delegate that authority.

I don't think it means that congress itself needs to set the ppm lead levels, just that the laws authorizing the agency's actions say they can regulate lead or even just heavy metals, etc.

a - The Moderates

For both parties, we can think of a district's representative as being roughly in the middle of the range of opinion of the party's primary voters in that district, with some natural variation based on individual circumstances and with different districts having different opinions.

That produces a party's extreme representatives, and a party's moderate representatives.

Nerf the filibuster by requiring representatives to actually keep talking the entire time (apparently it used to be this way and isn't anymore?), and peel off some moderates, and you can update federal regulation.

b - Friend-Enemy Politics

The problem I see is from friend-enemy politics.

Under friend-enemy politics, every institution that's roughly aligned with the other guys is "enemy infrastructure" to be captured, looted, or destroyed. Democracy is no longer a decision among family or friends about how to best proceed, but a long-rolling, low-intensity conflict.

In order to peel off moderate Republicans, there have to be moderate Republicans. There can't be moderate Republicans if the Democratic platform is that Republican voters or Republican voting demographics are not "fellow Americans," but the center of an identitarian threat narrative. If any power that's given up will be weaponized, then the appropriate stance is to not give up any power.

c - To Govern

Public investment (provided it is actually investment), social insurance (provided it is actually insurance), and regulation (to reduce externalities, improve information for market actors, or make it easier to make contracts, including by reducing search and legal enforcement costs), are all natural parts of governing. There are reasons for Republican officials to agree to a well-regulated market, with sound infrastructure investments, and for voters to treat them according to whether they can deliver.

That requires separating investment from consumption, insurance from extortion, and good regulation (that's aligned with the interests of the broader country) from bad regulation (for regulation, quality is more important than quantity). (That doesn't mean that you can't do consumption spending - consumption spending is just the sort of thing parties will disagree on after accounting for investment.)

That, in turn, requires a focus on reality and a shift away from managing reputation and 'public relations' as the dominant mode.

d - Compromise

Making the agency behavior more closely bound to the law may actually make it easier for legislators to compromise. Collapsedsquid has made it clear in past posts that he doesn't think this sort of thing is important (in the general sense), but I disagree - legislators and political operatives can actually notice what's going on around them, see expansive interpretations of law being used to justify agency behavior beyond what the law-as-written would be expected to authorize, and then adjust their behavior.

The less binding a deal is on future behavior, the more players have to focus on maintaining or improving their relative power position (more zero-sum) instead of making positive-sum deals.

With that said, I find it difficult to estimate what the effects will be - will the party-aligned constellations actually reduce their level of polarization to respond to an environment where getting policy requires negotiation rather than coordinating to influence executive agencies, or will they follow local and internal incentives as we saw with 2014-2022?

As one Twitter user said, "We've been electing legislators to represent us on cable TV."

I think @centrally-unplanned assumes that knowledge-generation and alignment within the political structure for both the left and right in America is utterly cooked for structural reasons (such as the Internet and economic changes), so they won't come together on truth-oriented policy (especially as that might be rather painful - to pick an uncontroversial example, giving the YIMBYs a win might reduce the de facto retirement savings of many Americans, even as it improves things for the younger generations).

[saintmeghanmarkle]

The irony that Labour UK and Hugh Grant wants laws to restrict negative opinions on Meghan Markle across social media &amp; media by u/Negative_Difference4

The irony that Labour UK and Hugh Grant wants laws to restrict negative opinions on Meghan Markle across social media & media If the looney tunes ever dare accuse us of being racist, this post is your clapback and highlights what we can expect in the future. We always knew there was a double standard here but now it is so blatant every where. The whole post references politics and is political. Labour (opposition) is likely to win the UK election. Please skip this post to avoid politics. Saying that, I will be moderating the post for arguments about political parties. (For example, I don't want discussions about which political party has pledged to fix the potholes, try to stick to the scope, this a lenghty post) 6th Dec 2022 Chris Bryant Labour MP with Hugh Grant at University of WestminsterReferencing Christopher Bouzy's Bot Sentinel analysis of hate on social media and the media. https://ift.tt/pxXOQ6N source: https://youtu.be/QECZY1Eh_w4 Labour MP, Chris Bryant and Hugh Grant (Hacked Off) proposals when Labour come into power Credit: Jon Danzig The same Labour got into trouble today for encouraging racist, sexist abuse towards a British black female politician Kemi Badenoch (ruling UK party - Conservatives)https://ift.tt/tuUsnCW - David Tennant ((Dr Who) said Kemi should shut up and not exist. Watch full video here. Dawn Butler, Labour MP (opposition MP) came out in full support of this. https://ift.tt/onS9cF0 people who cant remember, here is a selection of Dawn Butler's tweets in support of Meghan in the past. She is batshit crazy. https://ift.tt/c2pBPj9 course she has ties with Shouty Shola. I believe that there is a picture of them with Ngozi too.https://ift.tt/nmr0aOH you haven't already, watch TRG's (The Royal Grift's) video on how Meghan Markle claimed in the media that she put her sister, Samatha Markle on the fixated persons list. She did this to critical youtubers - Yankee Wally, Murky Meg and According to Taz too. This video has the clip above of Chris Bryant calling out all these Youtubers for hate and baseless negative opinions on Meghan Markle. Seriously, good video and worth the watchMeghan Markle's Legal Headache Is About To Get BIGGER!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UGyizs0Al0TRG gets a lot of heat here for her views ... but it is shocking to see an MP soft launching this agenda at a UK universities. For those thinking, so what? Well this is how most policies are launched... initially in closed member meetings, then universities and then the public. I haven't heard Labour say anything about online protection / censorship laws during any discussions. And now they are literally telling a black british woman to shut up and "not exist". The whole double standard makes me sick. P.S. I tried tweeting this on twitter and it was an awful experience. The stress of the character limit. post link: https://ift.tt/eErngjx author: Negative_Difference4 submitted: June 26, 2024 at 11:44PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

[contemplatingoutlander]

"Far from being exceptional in American history, gun-control regulations are the default. If 'Bruen' was designed to nullify the constitutional basis for many gun laws, it ought to fail."

--Robert J. Spitzer, political science professor emeritus at SUNY Cortland

Robert J. Spitzer, professor emeritus at SUNY Cortland outlines the early--and plentiful--history of gun regulation laws in early American history. Consequently, Clarence Thomas's 2022 Bruen decision might not be the disaster for gun control that some people have thought. Below are some excerpts from the article.

In the summer of 1619, the leaders of the fledgling Jamestown colony came together as the first general assembly to enact “just Laws for the happy guiding and governing of the people there inhabiting.” Consisting of the governor, Sir George Yeardley; his four councillors; and 22 elected “burgesses,” or representatives, the group approved more than 30 measures. Among them was the nation’s first gun law:

"That no man do sell or give any Indians any piece, shot, or powder, or any other arms offensive or defensive, upon pain of being held a traitor to the colony and of being hanged as soon as the fact is proved, without all redemption."

After that early example of gun control came many more laws placing restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms. If guns have always been part of American society, so have gun laws. This fact might come as a surprise to some gun-rights advocates, who seem to believe that America’s past was one of unregulated gun ownership. That view received a big assist in 2022, when the Supreme Court declared in "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen" that the constitutionality of modern gun laws depends on whether they are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In other words, the constitutional standard for any modern gun law boils down to whether you can find a good precedent for it back in the 1700s or 1800s. The advocates’ assumption is that such precedents are few and far between, but thanks to the work of researchers and the digitization of archival material, thousands of old gun laws, of every imaginable variety, are now available for reference. Far from being exceptional in American history, gun-control regulations are the default. If "Bruen" was designed to nullify the constitutional basis for many gun laws, it ought to fail. [...] Throughout this long period in the history of the republic, up until the beginning of the 20th century, gun laws placed conditions or restrictions on weapons access for a wide variety of citizens—in particular, indentured servants, vagrants, non-Protestants, those who refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the government, felons, foreigners, minors, and those under the influence of alcohol. Numerous laws regulated hunting practices, as well as firearms’ carry, use, storage, and transportation; regulated the manufacture, inspection, storage, and sale of firearms; imposed gun licensing; and restricted dangerous or unusual weapons. Despite the Thomas opinion’s claim that “the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century ‘sensitive places’ where weapons were altogether prohibited,” some local authorities outlawed the discharge of firearms in or near towns, buildings, or roads, as well as after dark, on Sundays, at public gatherings, and in cemeteries. In some jurisdictions, any use of a firearm that wasted gunpowder was also an offense. [...] In the post-revolutionary 1800s, as rising violent crime led more people to arm themselves, a total of 42 states (plus the District of Columbia) enacted laws against concealed carry. Three more did so in the early 1900s, so that the total included almost every state in the Union. As many states from the 1700s to 1900s also enacted some form of weapons-licensing law. That’s not all. Over that same period, at least 22 states restricted any gun carrying, including of long guns. Moreover, across the entire period, three-quarters of the states had laws either against “brandishing”—waving a gun around in a menacing or threatening manner—or merely having a weapon on display in public. [...] In addition, even though for much of its history America was an agrarian country...its lawmakers and enforcers were inventive and determined about ensuring public safety. When they perceived a threat to that order from firearms, they passed laws to restrict or prevent them. And back then, by and large, no court struck those laws down. That is what is truly consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. So if we accept the originalist premise of "Bruen," the actual result should be to render a broad array of gun regulations constitutional. [color emphasis added]

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

One of the most well-established patterns in measuring public opinion is that every generation tends to move as one in terms of its politics and general ideology. Its members share the same formative experiences, reach life’s big milestones at the same time and intermingle in the same spaces. So how should we make sense of reports that Gen Z is hyper-progressive on certain issues, but surprisingly conservative on others?

The answer, in the words of Alice Evans, a visiting fellow at Stanford University and one of the leading researchers on the topic, is that today’s under-thirties are undergoing a great gender divergence, with young women in the former camp and young men the latter. Gen Z is two generations, not one.

In countries on every continent, an ideological gap has opened up between young men and women. Tens of millions of people who occupy the same cities, workplaces, classrooms and even homes no longer see eye-to-eye.

In the US, Gallup data shows that after decades where the sexes were each spread roughly equally across liberal and conservative world views, women aged 18 to 30 are now 30 percentage points more liberal than their male contemporaries. That gap took just six years to open up.

Germany also now shows a 30-point gap between increasingly conservative young men and progressive female contemporaries, and in the UK the gap is 25 points. In Poland last year, almost half of men aged 18-21 backed the hard-right Confederation party, compared to just a sixth of young women of the same age.

Outside the west, there are even more stark divisions. In South Korea there is now a yawning chasm between young men and women, and it’s a similar situation in China. In Africa, Tunisia shows the same pattern. Notably, in every country this dramatic split is either exclusive to the younger generation or far more pronounced there than among men and women in their thirties and upwards.

The #MeToo movement was the key trigger, giving rise to fiercely feminist values among young women who felt empowered to speak out against long-running injustices. That spark found especially dry tinder in South Korea, where gender inequality remains stark, and outright misogyny is common.

In the country’s 2022 presidential election, while older men and women voted in lockstep, young men swung heavily behind the right-wing People Power party, and young women backed the liberal Democratic party in almost equal and opposite numbers.

Korea’s is an extreme situation, but it serves as a warning to other countries of what can happen when young men and women part ways. Its society is riven in two. Its marriage rate has plummeted, and birth rate has fallen precipitously, dropping to 0.78 births per woman in 2022, the lowest of any country in the world.

Seven years on from the initial #MeToo explosion, the gender divergence in attitudes has become self-sustaining. Survey data show that in many countries the ideological differences now extend beyond this issue. The clear progressive-vs-conservative divide on sexual harassment appears to have caused — or at least is part of — a broader realignment of young men and women into conservative and liberal camps respectively on other issues.

In the US, UK and Germany, young women now take far more liberal positions on immigration and racial justice than young men, while older age groups remain evenly matched. The trend in most countries has been one of women shifting left while men stand still, but there are signs that young men are actively moving to the right in Germany, where today’s under-30s are more opposed to immigration than their elders, and have shifted towards the far-right AfD in recent years.

It would be easy to say this is all a phase that will pass, but the ideology gaps are only growing, and data shows that people’s formative political experiences are hard to shake off. All of this is exacerbated by the fact that the proliferation of smartphones and social media mean that young men and women now increasingly inhabit separate spaces and experience separate cultures.

Too often young people’s views are overlooked owing to their low rates of political participation, but this shift could leave ripples for generations to come, impacting far more than vote counts.

[source]

[the-eternal-quest-for-balance]

Mike Benz: This is a really extraordinary scandal that really originated in the run-up to the 2020 election, where for the first time ever, the United States of America had a permanent domestic censorship office parked at CISA, as you mentioned, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency at DHS, which used a really devious set to gain long-arm jurisdiction over opinions on the Internet. What they did is they said there’s this thing called critical infrastructure, which ranges from elections to public health to basically any sensitive policy issue. If you make a post online that undermines public faith and confidence in that critical infrastructure, then you are in effect committing a cyber security attack on US critical infrastructure, necessitating a DHS intervention by what way of censorship.

This really dirty trick of calling a cyber censorship, cybersecurity, is how DHS got involved in this business. DHS teamed up with the FBI in the 2020 election. They also created a series of cutouts in the private sector and the academic worlds to serve as the attack dogs for DHS content, for social media content DHS wanted taken down. This was an extraordinary scandal that burst open around 2022. There’s a preliminary scandal that burst open in about 2022.

[darkmaga-retard]

An excellent essay by Jeffrey Tucker

Madhava Setty

Sep 02, 2024

“In 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree….I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it. I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today. Like I said to our teams at the time, I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction – and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.”

—Mark Zuckerberg

What are the implications of this admission from the CEO of one of the largest social media platforms in the world?

Jeffrey Tucker, Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute, an organization that puts out excellent editorial commentary regularly, takes a hard look at the repercussions of our current administration’s unprecedented actions against the freedom of expression in an article (full text below).

Here are the some of the big takeaways:

Outright censorship is only part of the problem. By limiting engagement with a piece of content, users will mistakenly believe that what is offered does not resonate with most people. In other words, if a ton of people have taken the time to watch, listen or read something it will motivate others to check it out. I can personally attest that this is continuing today on another massive platform, YouTube (see below)

Those of us who have been trying to express the problems with the lockdowns, mandates, etc. may have wrongly concluded that the public was too ignorant to understand what was transpiring. The reality is that by limiting exposure to such opinions, people were unaware that there were a lot of qualified voices offering a counter narrative.

The fallout of this form censorship is in our faces right now. Democratic nominee for VP, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz beat Dr. Scott Jensen in a gubernatorial race in 2022. Jensen is a highly credentialed physician who saw through the simplistic “safe and effective” mantra. He lost to Walz by 8%, a substantial margin, but one that likely existed because of the broad suppression of counter narrative voices like his. Had platforms like Zuckerberg’s stayed out of the public debate we would have likely had a different Democratic ticket today as well as a completely different public discussion around the upcoming election.

Independent candidate for POTUS, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has sued the Biden administration for the very same attack on free expression that Zuckerberg is confessing to. While that case continues to be swatted around with injunctions being enforced and then dropped, the FB CEO is publicly confirming Kennedy’s allegations.

Tucker speculates that Zuck’s recent admission may be due to the fact that as the head of FB he has one of the best looks at what people are really believing. Could this be a sign that a second Trump presidency is in the offing, despite the polls that assure us that it’s a toss up? If so, given Trump’s assurances that he will dismantle attacks on the First Amendment if elected, it would be better to admit fault now rather than be found guilty in a courtroom later.

It’s my hope that Zuckerberg’s candid letter will prompt other platforms to admit to their complicity in this egregious assault on the foundation of democracy. The reality is that this is a big but first step. The distortion of public debate continues right now.

[sadderbutwisergirrl]

Jim Hightower is an old pro at populist grass roots mobilization. We need to listen to this political elder!

“We’re collecting actions that grassroots people can take, and are collaborating with longtime friends and allies to light a fire under the butts of Democratic Party leaders. We’ll keep you updated on those efforts, but to start, here are two groups to join up with.

Demand Justice has been advocating for the Judiciary Act, which would expand the court by four seats. They’re asking people to call their representatives, and to join their rapid response team. https://demandjustice.org/

We’ve long been a fan of Lisa Graves (you can watch our 2022 Chat ‘n’ Chew episode with her here), and she’s teamed up with the folks at Court Accountability for a new round of intense actions called Justice Can’t Wait.

They’ve shared with us a list of things you can do:

Share the Justice Can’t Wait updated website. https://justicecantwait.org/#

Raise awareness of the seeds being planted by Trump and his allies to deny the results of the 2024 election if it doesn’t go their way. Trump has refused to commit to accepting legitimate election results if he does not win, and his allies are laying the groundwork for election denial through lawsuits and false claims about election fraud.

Urge Congress to pass reforms clarifying the Insurrection Act, which Trump plans to invoke to deploy the military against the American people, on his first day in office. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/trumps-insurrection-act-threat

Share Stand Up America’s Supreme Court Voter website, which aims to educate and mobilize voters on the impact the next president will have on the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. https://www.courtvoter.com/

Educate Americans on the economic threats that the extremist Project 2025 poses. Economic concerns “consistently rank as top issues among likely voters,” and people need to understand the likely consequences and chaos for our economy and American families if Project 2025 affiliates are able to carry out their dangerous agenda. (The NYT article was behind a paywall so I replaced it with this link) https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-is-project-2025-and-why-is-it-alarming/

Join United for Democracy in calling on Congress to rein in the out-of-control Supreme Court. https://unitedfordemocracy.us/get-involved/

Drive home that this is Trump’s Supreme Court. Trump installed the corporatist majority that has taken away women’s fundamental freedoms and stripped away protections for Americans’ health and safety. Even after Trump led an insurrection, the Court that Trump built is now tipping the scales to help him win again in November and protect him from accountability for his actions.

From the Hightower staff: And let’s not forget how the Supremes view actual bribery: as nothing more than a tip or a token of thanks for a job well done. They’re basically creating loopholes to legalize their own corruption!

Stay tuned for more, and let us know what other concrete actions and organizations you’re hearing about—the comments on this post are open to all subscribers. Let’s do this!”

[grammar-antifascist]

In his tell-all book from 2021, former Trump military advisor General Mark Milley repeatedly compared Trump’s tactics and opinions to Nazism.

He called the January 6 insurrection attempt Trump’s “Reichstag” moment, referring to the burning of the Reichstag in 1933, where Hitler used an attack on the German parliament to gain public and political support for the removal of various democratic rights. (Read more about it at the Holocaust Museum)

The Nazis blamed the fire on Communists, Hitler’s biggest political opponents in his early reign, and there has long been speculation that the Reichstag Fire was a false-flag operation by the Nazis themselves to eliminate and discredit those enemies. Hitler used false-flags during the Gleiwitz Incident, so we know he used the tactic. But false-flags are famously hard to prove - it’s the military version of “he said/she said”

Flash forward to the assassination attempt on Trump’s life July 14, 2024

I’m reluctant to call the attack on Trump a false-flag orchestrated by his party to make Trump seem more impressive, because it would be hard to prove one way or another - such a scenario would be covered up, and Trump is well-practiced in cover-ups. But even if it was not a false-flag, and the shooting was indeed a legitimate attempt on his life, Trump and his entourage are known students of Hitler’s rise to power and propaganda techniques. They know that deadly attacks are not just tragedies - they’re opportunities.

I see spin everywhere in the Republican response. Trump’s post-shooting statement that “God alone” saved his life builds himself up as a hero, blessed by Literally God — but it’s also a dig at the Secret Service, who he immediately blamed for not doing more to protect him. The Secret Service is taking a reputation nose-dive right now, with demands about how they could let this happen - but the first voice I heard criticize the Secret Service was Trump. And I’m not quite sure that’s fair.

I don’t like the Secret Service particularly, but I think they are being set up to take the fall for an attack that resulted from Trump’s disregard for his own safety. During COVID, Secret Service agents attached to Trump (who was then-president) expressed their frustrations with Trump for not cooperating with them on pandemic security. In 2022, Trump said that on January 6, he wanted to go down to the riots, into danger, and was stopped by the Secret Service, who openly defied his demands to go down into an active riot zone. Trump has historically repeatedly and deliberately attempted to put himself - and therefore his agents, and followers - in danger, in a country with a gun problem and a temper that he himself exacerbates.

And if it was that hard to keep him secure while he was actually president, it stands to reason he would be harder to secure with fewer agency resources devoted to him.

So, did the Secret Service not do their jobs well, or did they do the best they could with a client who flat out sucks?

I wonder if Trump’s spin doctors developed protocols specifically for assassination attempts. Attempts have happened before. Probably, right? Sorry, got sidetracked

Anyway, the shooter was a registered Republican but his motive and intentions are as yet unknown - and now that he’s dead, we will never really know why he did it. The issue with motive is there’s too many options - was he a disgruntled Republican, a false-flag Republican, a Democrat plant, a troll? Any evidence could be spun any way Trump wants. And the issue with intention is, even with a credible manifesto or evidence, there will be ambiguity in interpretation because the shooter can’t be interrogated to fill in the gaps. So we will never know why.

Regardless of the shooter’s intentions, Trump and his team are going to use this attack to further their political goals. They will use this to pretend he is a hero. He did nothing heroic. He made himself an open target because he knew other people were being paid to jump in front of the bullet for him. He’s a coward; being shot doesn’t change that. Just because someone survived a dangerous situation doesn’t mean they are a worthwhile leader

General Mark Milley said January 6 was Trump’s Reichstag moment - but no one ever said you can’t burn the Reichstag twice

This is a time for leftist resistance to Trump’s narrative propaganda

Trump is myth making and you can prevent it. When someone tries to spin this attempt as Trump being some kind of hero, RESIST.

If they say “Trump is a hero!”

You say: It’s not inherently brave to get shot at. If it was, then every kindergarten who got shot at Sandy Hook was a hero - but they weren’t, were they. They were victims, and so was Trump. Victims of a violence-centric system with no automatic gun regulations that Trump and his supporters built and support

If they say “The Secret Service failed!”

You say: This assassination attempt is not necessarily a sign that the Secret Service agency failed. Trump routinely defies security protocols for his own interests and makes their job harder - maybe he did that here, too. Hell, maybe he orchestrated it - politicians have done so before him - there’s not enough evidence yet to suggest a conspiracy but there’s not enough to suggest anything yet. Maybe Secret Security dropped the ball, maybe they saved his life - but likely it’s both, and until they’re done investigating, it’s premature to form an opinion. Trump already formed one, but we don’t have to

You can stop Trump’s propaganda campaign from spreading by voicing opposition

It’s not much but it’s not nothing. Trump is fighting this hard because he’s lost popularity - don’t let him and his followers control this narrative

[ilhoonftw]

Fjfjfjfjfjfjf what!?!?

let me explain the gyuri boyfriend lore

they started dating in 2019, broke up in 2021

he is the grandson of guy who was once in charge of major construction business so the whole family is rich

they were known for being a noona - dongsaeng couple bc of 7 years age gap.... officially. but then after his car accident he was exposed for ageing himself up 5 years because 'young people aren't treated seriously in business' so in reality they have 12 years age gap 🫣

you'll be the judge. him at 21:

the news about his age came out loong after they broke up, when he announced he's gonna take part in elections and... gyuri subposted him on ig story

On January 12th 2022, KARA Park Gyu-ri posted six letters with an ambiguous meaning on her Instagram story. What she wrote was “loss of humanity”. Some people speculate that she might have written this after knowing about the recent issue related to her ex-boyfriend Song Ja-ho. However, this is just speculation, and there is a possibility that it was written as she wanted to express an opinion on social issues or her personal matter.

june 2021 ... dui

According to media outlets, Gyuri’s boyfriend Song Ja Ho, also known as the eldest grandson of Dongwon Construction founder Song Seung Hun, was caught drunk driving in Cheongdamdong. He reportedly fled the scene after hitting another vehicle in the parking lot. At the time, his blood-alcohol level was high enough for the cancellation of his license. Song is also accused of confinement as he allegedly confined a woman in the car even when she requested to be dropped off.

september 2021 official breakup confirmation (to be fair a lot of korean celeb couples not rarely release breakup announcements late, to the point you have actors talk about their ex on variety shows like they are still dating bc officially they are... all while their new partener co-star promoting the same drama on the same show is watching 🫣 jiyeon's ex did that. there's a whole i think happy together episode that's super awkward to watch... later he married the co-star but they are now divorced and co-parenting)

official reason was 'oh we are both having busy schedules, it's hard to meet'

they both deleted all photos of each other etc from ig right away. and they were a very public couple, they did charity stuff together and were pretty known

before i start the fraud part, gyuri did post on ig that she was unaware of what he was up to 🧐

If I did something wrong, my biggest mistake was not ending things earlier. As I stated in my official position, I am not involved, so I hope everyone writes based on the facts that have been revealed. — Park Gyuri

so basically 2 weeks ago he was released on bail after 7 months of detention

The Seoul Southern District Court’s Criminal Agreement 12th Division granted Song’s bail application on February 5, setting the stage for a trial that involves nearly 14,000 victims and a scam amounting to approximately ₩33.9 billion KRW (about $25.5 million USD).

Song Ja Ho, who ran a shared economy art company, was arrested last July. The charges against him were severe, involving violations of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes. Song was accused of recruiting investors to put money into artworks that he had not secured and then manipulating the market price of a virtual asset known as PicaCoin. Alongside brothers Lee Hee Jin and Lee Hee Moon, Song is suspected of a massive embezzlement scheme that has left thousands defrauded.

The court has set stringent conditions for Song’s bail, including a 200 million won bail bond, a prohibition on leaving the country, the requirement to wear an electronic device for real-time location tracking, and restrictions on his residence. These measures reflect the court’s attempt to mitigate the risk of flight, given the gravity of the accusations. This case is particularly notable because of Song’s high-profile connections and ambitions. Prior to his arrest, Song declared his candidacy for the Seoul Seocho Gu National Assembly by-election, signaling his interest in entering the political arena.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

The MAGA GOP firmly believes that violence and violent threats against their fellow Americans is the surest path to power. As David French explains, that's a huge problem. In 2021, Reuters published a horrifying and comprehensive report detailing the persistent threats against local election workers. In 2022, it followed up with another report detailing threats against local school boards. In my own Tennessee community, doctors and nurses who advocated wearing masks in schools were targets of screaming, threatening right-wing activists, who told one man, “We know who you are” and “We will find you.”

My own family has experienced terrifying nights and terrifying days over the last several years. We’ve faced death threats, a bomb scare, a clumsy swatting attempt and doxxing by white nationalists. People have shown up at our home. A man even came to my kids’ school. I’ve interacted with the F.B.I., the Tennessee Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement. While the explicit threats come and go, the sense of menace never quite leaves. We’re always looking over our shoulders. And no, threats of ideological violence do not come exclusively from the right. We saw too much destruction accompanying the George Floyd protests to believe that. We’ve seen left-wing attacks and threats against Republicans and conservatives. The surge in antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7 is a sobering reminder that hatred lives on the right and the left alike.

But the tsunami of MAGA threats is different. The intimidation is systemic and ubiquitous, an acknowledged tactic in the playbook of the Trump right that flows all the way down from the violent fantasies of Donald Trump himself. It is rare to encounter a public-facing Trump critic who hasn’t faced threats and intimidation. The threats drive decent men and women from public office. They isolate and frighten dissenters. When my family first began to face threats, the most dispiriting responses came from Christian acquaintances who concluded I was a traitor for turning on a movement whose members had expressed an explicit desire to kill my family. But I don’t want to be too bleak. So let me end with a point of light. In the summer of 2021, I received a quite direct threat after I’d written a series of pieces opposing bans on teaching critical race theory in public schools. Someone sent my wife an email threatening to shoot me in the face.

My wife and I knew that it was almost certainly a bluff. But we also knew that white nationalists had our home address, both of us were out of town and the only person home that night was my college-age son. So we called the local sheriff, shared the threat, and asked if the department could send someone to check our house. Minutes later, a young deputy called to tell me all was quiet at our home. When I asked if he would mind checking back frequently, he said he’d stay in front of our house all night. Then he asked, “Why did you get this threat?”

I hesitated before I told him. Our community is so MAGA that I had a pang of concern about his response. “I’m a columnist,” I said, “and we’ve had lots of threats ever since I wrote against Donald Trump.”

The deputy paused for a moment. “I’m a vet,” he said, “and I volunteered to serve because I believe in our Constitution. I believe in free speech.” And then he said words I’ll never forget: “You keep speaking, and I’ll stand guard.”

I didn’t know that deputy’s politics and I didn’t need to. When I heard his words, I thought, that’s it. That’s the way through. Sometimes we are called to speak. Sometimes we are called to stand guard. All the time we can at least comfort those under threat, telling them with words and deeds that they are not alone. If we do that, we can persevere. Otherwise, the fear will be too much for good people to bear.