Also the New York Times: "We have to represent both sides so we are fair, it doesn't matter if one side are fascists, they're still deserving of being represented."
Also the New York Times: "We have to represent both sides so we are fair, it doesn't matter if one side are fascists, they're still deserving of being represented."
But it's not a situation ripe for abuse. You can't just call yourself a girl and get on girl sports, there's requirements. And should we be limiting the very very few trans girls in sports because someone COULD abuse it? By that same logic we shouldn't have social security because someone COULD abuse it.
Also sports will always attract people who have advantages based on who they are. Michael Phelps is a great example but so is anyone who plays basketball who's over 6ft. Cis women can be super tall, should they be kept from playing because they're so much taller than the other players?
And also, trans girls are girls, you saying that she shouldn't get opportunities set aside for girls is misgendering her even if you use the right pronouns. Why shouldn't she get the same opportunities when she puts in the work just like the other girls?
I hope this leads to being able to have a Proton sheets or whatever name the Google sheets equivalent will be.
There's definitely more than should be done but let's examine how the article is framing what Harris said at the debate. "Harris noted that she supported a bipartisan border bill, which would have “put 1,500 more border agents on the border” to help “stem the flow of fentanyl coming into the United States.” She added, “I know there are so many families watching tonight who have been personally affected by the surge of fentanyl in our country.”" is what the article says. This makes it seem like she was saying that the new border agents would have stopped the fentanyl and that without them it would flow across.
But here's what she actually said about the border bill "And that bill would have put 1,500 more border agents on the border to help those folks who are working there right now over time trying to do their job. It would have allowed us to stem the flow of fentanyl coming into the United States. I know there are so many families watching tonight who have been personally affected by the surge of fentanyl in our country. That bill would have put more resources to allow us to prosecute transnational criminal organizations for trafficking." This is her saying not that the border agents would have stemmed the fentanyl coming across the border, like the article frames, but that the border bill itself would have done that which makes sense since it includes money for investment of tech that makes it easier to detect fentanyl at legal border crossings.
Should she be better on this and be talking more about how fentanyl comes in almost exclusively through legal border crossings and through US citizens? Yes. But she was NOT saying that the border agents themselves would have done it. The framing of the article on her words is just wrong.
He should fucking resign 100% although I have no idea who would replace him in the last 4 months of the administration especially since the secretary of state is a senate approved position.
The bill definitely has far more bad than good. I just didn't appreciate Truthout cutting out the context to the quote from Harris. Taking quotes out of context or, like Truthout is doing here, introducing your own context to it by cutting out large parts of the sentence and joining two sentences together to make something appear different than it actually is, is not good journalism.
If someone left their partner to be with you, they're capable of leaving you to be with someone new.
Real leftists understand the principles of harm reduction. Voting for Harris, as voting for Biden would have done, has the outcome of reducing harm compared to trump winning. Sure, there will still be harm, but it'll be less, and that's incredibly important. It's basically the same foundation behind how we need to help drug addiction. Although Harris will likely cause even less harm than Biden.
Chances are that the "leftists" arguing for the purity test of Harris are people who aren't truly at risk in this election. They won't have their basic human rights torn apart if trump wins. They're leftists in name only.
Im trans and I have multiple trump people in my neighborhood. My partner and I have agreed us putting up either pride flags or Harris signs would simply make ourselves targets since we live in a red state and county. I don't want people like this to put me on a list so they can come and attack the house if their fascist leader comes into power. Something that while they would want to do, I'm not positive they'd actually have the guts to do.
Regardless, this shit terrifies me.
Highly unlikely this is what the civil war would be like. It's not a state v state thing necessarily although that might be a small part of it. In the first civil war, the south unified and its people largely supported the war, except their slaves. It's unlikely something like that will happen again. It's not impossible but unlikely.
What is much more likely is rural v city. Even in red states, cities are blue and will often vote for blue policies. Rural areas are where things get dicey. They've been largely left behind by the surge in industry and general expansion of the capitalist economy we currently have (they've had a lot of businesses (including grocery stores) close because more people are leaving, and their rural towns are frequently having their hospitals close leaving large swaths of areas where the nearest hospital is an hour away). As such, they've got a grudge against the cities. What's likely to happen is rural counties and their local governments trying to cut off their food supply, starving the cities to win the battle. There's tons more possibilities, but this one I think is the one that's got the highest likelihood.
Another possibility that is scary, but is highly dependent on the party of the people in power, is the government using their power to actually strike the cities, like in Syria where Assad bombed and used chemical weapons on his own people. Syria is actually a pretty good example of what more modern civil wars are like, or can be like. Governments v rebels and militias, and cities v rural (although there's much less rural land in Syria).
If you're interested, the podcast It Could Happen Here has a great first season where they go over possible disasters including a civil war and a pandemic (it was actually made in 2019 so before covid). It's really helpful and can teach a lot, especially for an outsider from across the pond. It also does a lot better job giving an explanation and actual sources.
Hope this helps since it didn't seem like you were getting a real answer.
Fuck the New York Times. They have routinely platformed bigots and claimed "well we have to represent both sides." My rights are not something to be debated. Harris has been far more supportive of trans folk than I realized, I don't think she would do this. But with this article and the insistent need for the New York Times to platform transphobic assholes, I think I'm finally going to talk my mother into getting rid of her subscription.
If anyone wants to learn more about Harris and her not so mixed background on trans rights, here's a great article my partner found recently and shared with me. I'm using a Tumblr link to get around the medium paywall and I don't know how to get around the paywall otherwise. Here's that direct medium link if anyone can get around it.
I have a step grandfather who is super far right but insists he’s a democrat and that he’s the only true democrat in the family since he was elected as a democrat judge in a rather conservative area in Ohio in the 80s or 90s. He has also said the only thing he can do to save the country is to vote for crazy fascist republicans. Insists he knows how to run a government better than everyone in the family as well all because he was a judge.
One of my favorite thing to do with him is talk about something that impacts me and not tell him that it impacts me directly until after he’s been super shitty about it. Once I say it impacts me he then backtracks and tries to say that he still fully believes in the things he believes in but that he didn’t mean me, he meant the other ones. That my situation was different for no reason. He’s a piece of shit who my family expects me to respect, but I have many times purposefully been disrespectful because someone like him deserves negative respect.
Fucking Chemtrails. I have MS and one of the times I was in a physical rehabilitation clinic, relearning how to walk, I had a nurse who believed in chemtrails. She asked if I realized that my MS was caused by chemtrails. I was taken aback. I was actively playing civ with a friend who heard my side of the conversation. After she said that, I had a short conversation with her about how chemtrails aren't real. She said "Well I guess all those congressional hearings I watched were fake." To which I said that we are never going to agree on this and it's better to just stop talking so we don't have an argument. She basically agreed and thankfully she was gone by the time I needed my MS meds that evening. Chemtrails are BS and yet so many people believe they're real, even in professions that should understand they're not real, that it is genuinely depressing.
This article was written by Jeff Charles. A podcaster and political contributor who has appeared on fox News and Newsmax. He's also anti sensible gun control, transphobic and believes being trans is just ignoring biology, believes that schools should ban books that have "ideology" in them (anything queer), thinks kids are being indoctrinated just because it occasionally comes up that there are different ways of being a person, says he's an anarchist but will say libertarian sometimes to avoid "making people think he's crazy" but just doing that shows that he doesn't actually understand what anarchism is (or how crazy some libertarians are), and also talks about how the left wants Americans to be dependent on the state (all social programs). He's also on point for some things, specifically things that most libertarians ascribe to, like fuck cops and anti drug war. But like most libertarians, he only believes in his "do whatever you want and leave me alone" mentality when it lines up with his personal beliefs.
I don't disagree that there are black voters who are frustrated with the dems, but this is not a very good article and is written by an ass who has to push the idea so he can continue to be brought onto Fox News and Newsmax to talk about it and so his site gets new subscribers. Subscribers that have to pay 50 bucks a year for his premium content. Which I'm honestly surprised doesn't cost more. He's also partnered with Doni Anthony who has his own site/substack, which when you're on the landing page, the second article is, well, it requires subscribing and I'm not gonna do that. But it's about a bill called the Inclusive Democracy Act of 2023 which is about restoring voting rights to people with criminal records/felonies who have done their time, the article is about the "hidden" reason the democrats support the bill, which is a far right conspiracy that average voters would never vote for a democrat so they have to make new voters to be able to win. It's all baseless conspiracy stuff and is the same thought process for the "illegal immigrants voting" conspiracy.
The point is that an article is only as reliable as the author is, and this author is just crap.
Well, this past weekend, he talked as if it was his last show, that they were "gonna put the padlocks on the building and close us down" and that he knew they were going to do that because his powers told him so, powers from God. They even did a greatest hits with guests like Roger stone, Steve bannon, and Nick Fuentes and best of all, Flat Earth Dave (not really best of all but it was a hell of a segment). They also had actual clips of past times Alex has been, well, Alex. He also pretty clearly got drunk during the show. But this isn't the end for him. He'll just go work for his dad doing the exact same thing. As Alex has frequently said, his dad is basically his only sponsor now. So whatever happens to infowars, this isn't the end of Alex Jones. Even if it should be.
Obviously, the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Mainly movies for me because I haven't read them. Extended editions, obviously.
But also, I adore the mass effect trilogy. Yeah, the rpg elements get gradually watered down, and the third ones ending isn't the best, but it's still an absolutely amazing Trilogy that I replay yearly. And it all came out in 5 years! Nowadays, single games have 5 years of dev time, at least. In my eyes, it's as perfect as it can be....Once it's been modded a bit.
The IDF: "Oh no! They're reading! Only Hamas reads!"
Yes, because it is "quiet" when you feature your hatred of trans people in multiple speeches at your national convention.
They will take away our care, they claim it's about kids, but its not. They just don't think we should be allowed to exist at all.
Here's the page. There's moments of specifics, and moments where I wish there was a bit more detail. But overall, now people shouldn't be able to say she doesn't have any policy positions. They still will though.
He's a fucking christofascist. He doesn't think gay sex should just be illegal, he thinks anyone who is queer should be killed because they are sinning against God. Even if he hasn't openly called for that, a key tenant of his faith is that. He's a terrible person who has just gone a bit under the radar so the Republicans could shove him through quickly.
It's so nice having my rights be shat on on such a high profile stage. They really can't handle that trans people exist and have always existed, and they might even find some of us attractive.
I also really appreciate the article talking about the bullshit myth that trans athletes have some kind of advantage in sports. I don't usually see that.
Breaking: Rich tech guy thinks that the energy draw from rich tech projects is nothing to worry about.
This article was written by Douglas Mackinnon. A political consultant who has written for multiple publications including Fox News. Here's a quick list of article headlines he's written there: "Latest wave of wokeness to hit west point reveals one simple solution", "Woke left will erase american history unless we stop them", "A 'Star Wars' story: How can I get a job as a woke ‘activist’?", "We must speak to save our founding fathers from the woke left", "Bidens nasa launches new mission to planet woke", and "Moms for liberty shows spirit that would make the founding fathers proud".
If these article headlines haven't made it obvious, this man is not worth paying attention to. Talk about biden being a bad candidate all you want but don't use pieces of shit who are focused on "wokeness" to hide their idiocy and bigotry.
Also, biden is not going to be replaced at the convention. Not gonna happen. But if you're putting forward the idea of it happening, you better bring with it an idea of who should replace him.
This article is shit, return2ozma, you can do better.
A good way to make your queer employees feel like their "comfort levels" don't matter. I guess only bigots matter at this school.
This is the same kinda thing that happened recently with Ohio and Michigan republicans where they were discussing how they intend to ban all gender affirming care for literally everyone. It's almost like the Republicans are bigots and monsters who want to enact their bigotry and awfulness on the country.
“I vowed to destroy the woke mind virus after that, and we’re making some progress."
Fucker may as well have said "I vowed to destroy my entire reputation and we're making some progress."
Fuck off bigot. She's cis. Doesn't matter how she looks.
I know this is just rescheduling to schedule 3, and that legalization would be preferred. But this is still huge. Millions of people have in their renting lease that they can't consume schedule 1 drugs inside of their home, and that includes people in legal states. This would allow millions of people to consume weed in their homes without fear of eviction. I was almost evicted once because of my consumption in a medical state, this decision would have saved me so much stress. This is progress, and shows that we can keep pushing towards legalization and that it will impact things even if it takes a little time.
Ozma, you've posted a variety of not super negative articles about democrats and Harris recently. Are you feeling okay? Do you have a fever?
(This is a joke)
Carlson "proof" was that a producer of his show who is also gay said so. Saying about his producer, "Gays all keep close track of that stuff.” I didn't know that gay folk all knew each other. I'm sure Tucker Carlsons producer is a well-connected gay person, totally not just a self-hating gay person who hates their community and anyone who is a part of their community who is well known.
I was waiting for this to make it's way to lemmy, started reading about them last night. This women's advocacy group is very unknown, the National Womens Defense League. This is their website. When you go to their about section they talk about how they were founded "in 2022 by two political advocates in the wake of the #MeToo collective outcry." But never state who those advocates were anywhere. When you go to their press section they've only been making posts or sharing articles since November of last year. And you then notice they largely focus on positive things Republicans are doing to fight sexual harassment in the state and bad things democrats have done or that they're the accussers themselves, although their are one or two exceptions. They dont really comment on that the republicans are often the most pervasive harrassers out there. Now, if i, a random trans girl from a shitty red state, was running a group like this, I'd focus on both parties but I'd also do everything i could to make it known which party is to blame for the majority, and also poat stories of things democrat women have done to help the cause instead of largely GOP women. They do state they were "Joined by a diverse group of advocates, experienced campaigners, and survivors, NWDL was formed and aligned around a state-level strategy and a nonpartisan approach." So maybe talking about the awfulness of GOP politicians isn't a good look for a nonpartisan group.
Sidenote point. They claim Shapiro was to blame for the sexual harassment case that was brought against one of his cabinet members. They say he covered it up. But Shapiro and his administration found out about the accusation, did an investigation, decided go give a settlement of 300,000 to the accuser, and fired the cabinet member. Doesn't really seem like a cover up except for there was an nda attached. Which isn't the best but, unfortunately, is pretty standard for cases like these. And again, the harasser lost their job. They were not covered for, given excuses for, or in anyway defended or shielded from repercussions. Should there have been an nda? Ideally no, but the guy still faced repercussions. Which is the whole goal here. To hold them accountable and make them lose their jobs.
Anyway, back to NWDL. Their claim to fame is basically a report about how sexual harassers are pervasive in the country with 130 statehouse lawmakers being accused by 359 individuals since 2013, also adding there are probably more since many go unreported. Now this is undoubtedly an important thing to research. But they don't openly give you the report, or give you more information other than those numbers. You have to give them your email and first and last name to actually get the report and I'm not doing that.
So then, this women's group has a seemingly interesting report. And says a lot of good stuff when it comes to it's Commitment to survivors but for a supposedly important institution, they don't like to talk about who actually founded them. I've looked at a lot of these kind of groups, they always say who founded them, even if they're shitty people like Vivek Ramaswamy. So that's pretty fucking suspicious.
They're sponsored by the Center for Transformative Action, which is a group attached to Cornell University. Seems like a legit organization, has a lot of really worthwhile seeming projects. But they also talk about who founded them in their about us section, which the NWDL does not. They seem to be a 501c3 that allows group to apply for financial sponsorship, so it typically allows smaller groups to survive, at least theoretically. Again, they seem to have an slew of projects they sponsor and they all seem important.
Now, when I go to the NWDL section, I finally find out who founded the group. Emma Davidson Tribbs, according to the sight she "has made a career of joining political and social movements at key moments of change to define the next stage of success." Which sounds fine, kinda bandwagony, but hey whenever you jump on the movement is better late than never. But then there's just a bunch of buzzwords and jargon that, while sounds good, doesn't really say much. Her qualifications are "She has been trained as a spokesperson by the Women’s Media Center, completed management training at the Center for Creative Leadership, and is a graduate of the New York Junior League’s Nonprofit Boards Clearinghouse. Emma is a graduate of Illinois Wesleyan University and earned her Master’s Degree in International Development from the University of Bristol." Not bad, still some buzzwords but overall decent. She's also the only person listed here for the groups team. Despite only being co-founder.
Now. I'm not saying Emma isn't an ally and advocate for the cause at all. But why doesn't she have her information on the website of the group she runs? Why did I have to go to the sponsored group to find out she even existed? Could be just a bad site designer but every site for groups like these I've been to has gotten that right so seems weird to get it wrong. I think the thing that bugs me the most is just the focus on only republican efforts to help sexual harrassers. The framing is supposed to be nonpartisan but usually only post stories that highloght how GOP women are working to change things. Which, if you had to select a group of women who excuse sexual harassment the most, GOP women would be the top of the list. Or at least in the top 3.
So at the end here, I don't necessarily distrust this group, but i haven't been shown they're trustworthy framers of the parties and how they are working toward the cause. Their report is definitely important and i would like to know more if I didn't have to give them my information. And theirs nothing wrong with new advocacy groups being formed, but they should be open about who founded them on their website. I think it's understandable to criticize Shapiro, but it's not like he excused it and kept the guy on staff. If he did then I think they'd have more reasoning. I dunno, it just feels off. I'd be interested in doing more research but I'm not connected to talk to the people I would need to. I look forward to seeing if Shapiro is on the ticket, I imagine if he is, we will hear more about this case.
If I got anything wrong or you notice some incorrect grammar, please comment to let me know so I can fix this. It's hard writing something this long on mobile.
Edit: added the groups name at the start
Just so everyone knows, the DEA is actively reviewing a report from the Department of Health and Human services where they recommended to reschedule weed to a schedule 3. Biden had directed HHS to research to see if it should be rescheduled, so while biden hasn't unilaterally legalized weed (something that would quickly be challenged in court since presidents don't usually have unilateral power for most things), he has definitely been pushing it not be schedule 1. Which, while not legalization, would be a huge step for not just the industry but for all the medical patients out there who have had their doctors refuse to treat them because they use weed for pain.
Dunno if anyone has brought this up but Trump basically never looked at Harris. Even had his face turned her direction and just looked at the moderators. The only time he looked at her was when he was forced to at the start where she went to shake his hand. Dude hates her so much.
"Well if too many people get rights and don't have to worry about making rent or their mortgage payment or affording their groceries and generally able to live comfortably then, well, the people will be weak and babies and think they're equal to us normals!"
I definitely need to learn how to shoot, I did when I was a kid but haven't gone shooting in a long time. Unfortunately, I don't feel safe to actually get armed just because of my own mental health. I do have friends who are armed, though, and they're willing to come help if need be.
I wish Nazis and their ilk weren't surging in popularity right now. We need actual not antisemitic criticism of israel, something we are still getting. But it gets disregarded because of how the nazis have normalized antisemitism to the point that it's hard to distinguish for some people. Incredibly frustrating.
She was attacked and defended herself so she got arrested and her attackers got off completely free. That's some peak school zero tolerance policy bullshit. It's also completely insane she has a 500k bail but Trump, who tried to overturn and destroy our democracy so that he could establish a dictatorship only has 200k. This singular case should be provided when people disagree that Trans people are being attacked and persecuted all across the country.
I wonder if he'll feel that way when he's put on trial on live television and sentenced to death. Or, if that doesn't happen, if he'll feel that way when millions of minorities are killed by trumps brown shirt equivalents or sent to camps to die. Course, he'll probably be dead by the time everything comes to fruition even if he doesn't get sentenced to death cause he's so old.
While there's a lot of fine print reasons, I'd imagine it all goes back to 1 thing. Bigotry.
Okay so neither the CNN article or this article says that they've independently confirmed the reports/when the pictures in the articles were taken which i think is important but most importantly, this was 1989. He was 2-3 months off. This is likely just him misremembering from 35 years ago. He should have said he was there "around" tiananmen square but does that really matter much? CNN heard from a source close to Walz that said “the point Gov. Walz is making when he discusses this is that some folks in the World Teach program discussed dropping out after Tiananmen Square, but he continued on with the program because he believed it was important for the Chinese people to learn about American democracy and American history.” which makes sense.
CNN also said he has exaggerated the amount of trips he took to China saying 30 times once and dozens and dozens another time. They reached out to the Harris campaign who said it was likely closer to 15. When you go to a country that many fucking times it's not surprising to lose count. It's not like you're counting it. It's not hard to lose track. My mom has been to Greece tons of time to visit family but could she say how many times she's been there? Nope. She'd generalize because that's how that goes.
But of course we have to be pedantic and "fact check" this because it's important to be fair and who cares if we ignore some of the shitty things trump said during his rallies or how he's obviously mentally deteriorating, obviously Walz misremembering is so much more important. And obviously this shows it's a big scandal because earlier this year the news said that he said he carried weapons in war and he never served in combat even though he said he carried weapons of war during the war while he was stationed in the European theater. Which is accurate, but did the media care that's what he said? Nope. Walz isn't a consistent liar like Trump and Vance but sure let's equivocate them and Walz.