#but no I have to choose between a far right conservative and trump who wants to wage war with Mexico and China AND iran now | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bydesignmiral · 2 years

Text

Far cry 5 cheats ps5

#Far cry 5 cheats ps5 movie#

#Far cry 5 cheats ps5 pro#

#Far cry 5 cheats ps5 Ps4#

#Far cry 5 cheats ps5 series#

While Far Cry’s emergent gameplay recipe remains addictive, there is a certain amount of sameness to it. It’s not The Witness, but these simple challenges allow for quiet moments of thought amidst all the chaos. The name of the quest is the clue, and after swimming to the other side of the lake you’ll find a sniper perch placed just right for peering through a back window in the shed at the lock which can be shot off, providing you access. On one of these sidequests, called Long Shot Lockpick, the goods are locked away in a shed high up on stilts overlooking a lake. To complement the combat, some light environmental puzzle solving is required to find lucrative treasure stashes. Hey, I tried.I like games with big possibility spaces. One of my funniest moments was when I rescued a woman being held hostage by the cult and, just as she was thanking me, a wolverine jumped on her face out of nowhere and mauled her to death. That’s not a complaint – I like games with big possibility spaces. That story takes place on an open-world map that, in true Ubisoft fashion, is packed with so much to find and so much happening at any given time it’s easy to get distracted from the mission at hand. Instead of leaning on stereotypes, the people you encounter are well-written, and most are charismatic and funny. Rural America isn’t being ridiculed or laughed at here.

#Far cry 5 cheats ps5 movie#

The vibe is more like an ‘80s action movie that happens to be set in a conservative state. But the story doesn’t seem to be making any grand statement about current events or political ideologies. There are a few things you can point to as commentary on rural America’s relationship with guns and the Second Amendment, and I’ve encountered one character who is a satire of a stereotypical Trump supporter (he has a mission called Make Hope Great Again). Now, is Far Cry 5 an especially political game? I don’t think so. There are also a few original gospel songs sung by the cult choir that are both catchy and creepy. While most of the original soundtrack is the pretty standard action movie stuff you might hear in an episode of 24, the menu music is a very pleasant bit of acoustic Americana that I would listen to even if I weren’t playing. unless you die a lot.The vibe is like an ‘80s action movie that happens to be set in a conservative state. But this being a first-person game, you won’t see much of yourself in the campaign anyway. The one exception is a Far Cry Primal-style caveman/woman outfit, which is fun – I wanted to see more of that. You unlock more as you progress, so it’s not as dire as it initially appears, but they are few and far between and rarely much more than a shirt or jeans.

#Far cry 5 cheats ps5 series#

Alas, it’s merely a cosmetic decision, as either way your character will be mute (so there’s no custom voice acting) and most people will refer to you as “The Deputy.” And for a series as bonkers as Far Cry, the customization options here are a little conservative. I like that, for the first time in a Far Cry game, you can choose between a male or female protagonist and do some light customization. But the story ends up in an unforgettable place, making this an open-world adventure that is worth seeing through to completion. He doesn’t have any particularly memorable lines, and his motivation for wanting to end the world is murky. This dark corner of Montana is controlled by a man named Joseph Seed, a zealot leader who hasn’t left quite the same impression on me that Vaas or Pagan Min did in the previous two Far Cry games.

#Far cry 5 cheats ps5 Ps4#

Rounding out my technical complaints would be long load times – upwards of 60 seconds – on both PS4 and PS4 Pro, a couple glitched missions I had to restart, and the one time Far Cry 5 completely froze on me. You can also count the number of unique cultist goon faces on one hand, so expect to be shooting the same faces over and over.

#Far cry 5 cheats ps5 pro#

In fact, other than resolution on a 4K TV, there isn’t a stark difference between the PS4 and the Pro at all. Even on the PS4 Pro, it’s hard not to notice all the magically appearing trees as you stroll through the wilderness. It’s generally good enough, but I was sometimes distracted by the pop-in caused by the density of the landscape. Even comparing it to another recent open-world Ubisoft game, it’s not quite as attractive as Assassin’s Creed Origins. With all of that scenery and action, Far Cry 5 is a nice-looking game, but it isn’t on the same level as, say, Horizon: Zero Dawn. Being stranded and hunted by well-armed militia was a very cool moment.

#Far cry 5 cheats ps5

0 notes

beguines · 3 years

Text

Podcast Recommendations for Christian Mystics, Religious Leftists, and Others:

Descriptions are taken from the podcasts/their websites, not written by me. Some of these I enjoy or recommend more than others, but tastes vary. Favorites of mine are starred. These recommendations aren't considered an endorsement of all the content within, even those that I consider my favorites. I hope this list can be helpful for some!

Encountering Silence: Encountering Silence explores the beauty and importance of silence from many angles, not just the religious/spiritual/mystical, but also reflecting on the psychology of silence, silence and the arts, silence and politics, silence and education… the list goes on. For a topic that we often don't devote a lot of time and energy to, silence certainly has an important (if quiet!) role in all our lives. ⭐

Faith & Capital: Faith and Capital is a show inviting Christians to participate in the struggle for emancipation from the system of capitalism. ⭐⭐⭐

The Liberation Theology Podcast: A weekly look at the basic concepts of Latin American liberation theology with David Inczauskis, SJ. ⭐⭐⭐ (A great introduction to liberation theology for those who are perhaps less familiar with the subject; episode 4 in particular explores the tensions and relationship between Christianity and Marxism.)

Turning to the Mystics: Turning to the Mystics is a podcast for people searching for something more meaningful, intimate and richly present in the divine gift of their lives. James Finley, clinical psychologist and Living School faculty, offers a modern take on the historical contemplative practices of Christian mystics like Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. Leaning into their experiences can become a gateway to hope, healing and oneness. Together with Kirsten Oates from the Center for Action and Contemplation, they explore listener questions and examine their own paths as modern contemplatives in this beautiful and broken world. ⭐⭐⭐

Deus Ex Musica: Hosted by Delvyn Case, the Deus Ex Musica Podcast explores the many fascinating intersections between music and the Christian faith. Each episode features a guest who discusses their journey as a musician and a Christian, then dives deeper into their work.

PTR (Post-structuralist Tent Revival): Continental philosophy, theology, useless commentary on various issues. (This was a particularly good episode)

On Being: A Peabody Award-winning public radio show and podcast. What does it mean to be human? How do we want to live? And who will we be to each other? Each week a new discovery about the immensity of our lives. Hosted by Krista Tippett. (As On Being has a massive archive, here's one of my favorite episodes)

Sufi Heart: The Sufi Heart podcast with Omid Safi features teachings and stories about a sacred tradition of love, one that manifests outwardly as justice and inwardly as tenderness. Drawing primarily on the wisdom of the Islamic tradition as well as the legacies of the Civil Rights movements and other wisdom teachings, Omid invites you to a meditation on the transformative power of love and recalling the necessity of linking healing our own hearts with healing the world. ⭐⭐⭐ (Episodes one through five are particularly special to me and I love to revisit them. Omid Safi has the most wonderful, melodic voice and I could listen to it forever.)

Another Name for Every Thing: Another Name for Every Thing with Richard Rohr is a conversational podcast series on the deep connections between action and contemplation. Richard is joined by two students of the Christian contemplative path, Brie Stoner and Paul Swanson, who seek to integrate the wisdom amidst diapers, disruptions, and the shifting state of our world.

Homilies with Richard Rohr: From time to time Fr. Richard speaks at his local parish, Holy Family Church, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The Magnificast: Started in the wake of Donald Trump’s inauguration in the United States, The Magnificast is a podcast exploring Christianity and the political left. A lot of people around the world are looking for ways to resist growing reactionary trends, but don’t know where to start. We think the Christian tradition and the tradition of leftist politics provide unique resources, historical examples, and theoretical tools for engaging these problems in ways that go beyond the usual conservative/liberal divide that characterizes a lot of Christian and political discourse. Inspired by Mary’s song of praise, we talk about how to fill the hungry with good things and send the rich away empty. ⭐⭐⭐ (There are too many good episodes to pick and choose what to highlight. They have some great ones about unions and organized labor that I would recommend to anyone who is less familiar with these things!)

Homebrewed Christianity: Our job us to get you the best audiological ingredients so you can brew your own faith. Each episode centers around an interview with a different thinker, theologian, or philosopher. ⭐ (A great listen for people who are more interested in intense dives into theological topics.)

Things Not Seen: Conversations about culture and faith. Things Not Seen is an independent radio show and podcast that features in-depth interviews with nationally recognized guests. Each week, we welcome authors, musicians, politicians, filmmakers, and more.

Lonely Mountain Mystics: For those finding faith or losing it; for those who feel they no longer fit where they once did. For those who have been hurt, helped, broken or healed by faith experience and find that their current spiritual journey has led them wandering some place wild, unknown and far from home; you’re not alone. "A podcast for the spiritually homeless", the show follows the hosts conversations about faith, love, and how to practice them.

Public Theologians: As public theologians, Jerran and Casey believe that everything about us says something about God and something about the world. The late theologian James Cone phrased it like this: "theology is political language. What people think about God, Jesus Christ, and the church cannot be separated from their own social and political status in a society." While silence on issues that have been deemed by religious talking heads as secondary matters (from poverty to war to movements) will always be an easier route, we know that there has to be a better way. We’re here to push for that better way.

Bread and Rosaries: A UK podcast about Christianity and the left. (This is a relatively new podcast that I have yet to listen to, but what a great name!)

#resource #theology #podcasts #christianity #islam #these should all be available on just about any platform you use to listen to podcasts!#this took a bit to compile so apologies for any bad links or typos #recs

489 notes · View notes

somethingusefulfromflorida · 3 years

Text

Alternate History: November 22, 1963

If John F. Kennedy survived his assassination attempt in 1963, he would almost certainly win re-election in 1964, so long as he kept Lyndon B. Johnson on as his VP. The Civil Rights Act would be stalled in Congress without Johnson as president to put pressure on conservative Democrats, but its still popular enough that it would become a campaign promise instead. Kennedy defeats Republican segregationist Barry Goldwater with a respectable majority, though not the 60-40 landslide of Johnson in our timeline. The Civil Rights Act passes in 1965 or 1966, and Kennedy commits fewer atrocities in Vietnam (his opponents call him soft or communism even though he was literally shot at by a communist sympathizer, he just doesn’t want to have another military failure like the Bay of Pigs in 62)

In 1968, the Democratic nomination is a two-way race between Lyndon B. Johnson and Kennedy’s own brother and Attorney General Bobby. Johnson and Bobby HATE each other, and they don’t pull any punches; Johnson had a history of opposing civil rights in the 50s, but he was instrumental in helping Kennedy secure the senate votes for filibuster cloture and passage in the 60s. Bobby Kennedy abused his post to act as his brothers personal lawyer, helping cover up some less than reputable decisions. It’s neck and neck going into the primaries. Johnson has more experience, but Bobby Kennedy is younger and more charismatic, and would have John’s endorsement. He would almost certainly be assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan, same as in our timeline, because of his support for Israel. Sirhan was an anti-Zionist Palestinian, and in our timeline he killed Bobby when he was a senator running for president in 1968. If JFK was never assassinated, Bobby would stay on in his cabinet as AG instead of becoming a senator in 64; as AG, he was his brothers main advisor for foreign and domestic policy, so he would be at the forefront of the American response to the Six Day War in 1967 in which the Arab states tried to push Israel into the sea. Sirhan would have even greater motivation to kill him in this timeline for supporting Israel in the war, so Johnson would probably become the Democratic nominee. He would probably still pick Hubert Humphrey as his VP, as he did in our 1964, because Humphrey was a liberal civil rights activist in the senate, also instrumental in passing the Civil Rights Act. Humphrey is closer in line to Bobby Kennedy, so Johnson is able to unite the party following his death.

The Republicans in 68 would be split between the moderates led by New York governor Nelson Rockefeller and the conservatives led by California governor Ronald Reagan. In our timeline, following the total repudiation of Goldwater conservatism in 64, the Republicans picked the middle-of-the-road Richard Nixon (he was their nominee in 1960 but lost to JFK, then lost the governorship of California in 1962, after which he promised to leave politics forever, but rescinded that promise when he saw he could run as the anti-Goldwater with his former boss Eisenhower’s endorsement). In this timeline, he would be considered a political laughingstock for his defeats; everyone would compare him to his very popular and successful opponent JFK, so he wouldn’t stand a chance against either his brother or his VP in 68. In our timeline, Reagan came in second in the Republican primaries, followed by Rockefeller at a distant third. In this timeline, Rockefeller would rocket into first without competition from Nixon. Rockefeller was a liberal Republican (sounds like an oxymoron today, but they used to exist), so he would probably pick Reagan as his VP to balance the ticket, holding onto conservative voters.

1968: Johnson/Humphrey vs Rockefeller/Reagan, it would be very close and would depend heavily on ultraconservative segregationist George Wallace, who ran as a spoiler in our 68, splitting the Democratic vote and giving the presidency to Nixon. Humphrey was a Midwestern Democrat, Wallace a southerner, so they represented two very different sides of the party. In this timeline, both Johnson and Wallace are southerners, so Wallace wouldn’t stand nearly as much a chance; our Johnson and this Kennedy lost the south to Goldwater in 64, but this Johnson would probably be able to crowd Wallace out of the race and run without intraparty opposition. In this case, I think Johnson/Humphrey would win.

1972, Johnson is in very poor health, but the last president to choose not to run for re-election was Rutherford B. Hayes (1877 - 1881). Johnson/Humphrey would run again, this time against Ronald Reagan at the top of the Republican ticket. Reagan didn’t run in our 72 because Nixon was a popular incumbent, but he ran in our 76 and nearly unseated incumbent Ford because he was unpopular for pardoning Nixon. If Reagan picked a moderate as his VP, as he did in our timeline with George Bush, he would probably pick George W. Romney, the outgoing governor of Michigan (and father of Mitt). The Johnson/Humphrey ticket would have a slight incumbency advantage over the Reagan/Romney ticket, but Reagan is still super popular, so there’s probably even odds he gets elected. To make it interesting, let’s say that he wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college; this has never happened to a Republican, they have always been the beneficiary of these loopholes

1824: Democratic-Republican turned National Republican John Quincy Adams loses the popular vote to Democrat Andrew Jackson, but wins the electoral college. I actually approve of this one because Jackson was a genocidal warmonger who inspired Hitler (that’s not hyperbole or Godwin’s law, it’s true, look it up). Jackson won the rematch in 1828

1876: Republican Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel Tilden, and some closed-doors corruption gave him the electoral college by exactly one vote, on the condition that he end Reconstruction and allow the south to rule itself without federal oversight. This created Jim Crow, which haunts us to this day.

1888: Republican Benjamin Harrison loses the popular vote to Democratic President Grover Cleveland, the first and so far only sitting president to lost in such a manner. Cleveland would win the rematch in 1892, again becoming the first and so far only president to win a non-consecutive second term. Cleveland won the popular vote three times in a row, a feat only surpassed by FDR’s four terms 40 years later.

2000: Republican George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore. Bush would have lost the electoral college too, but his brother Jeb was the governor of Florida and illegally ordered the state to stop the federally mandated recount. The state was too close to call, and later investigations show that if the recount had continued it would have gone for Gore, giving him the presidency, but Jeb and he 5-4 conservative Supreme Court gave it to George on a technicality; “oh, it’s too late to restart the recount, sorry, better luck next time.”

2016: Republican Donald Trump loses the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton. Trump was divisive because he was an idiot racist sexual predator, and Clinton was divisive because she was a disingenuous career politician who a lot of people hated for a variety of valid but less substantial reasons (Banghazi wasn’t her fault, but she still acted as though she was entitled to the Democratic nomination, like it was her birthright, that anybody who dared challenge her was interfering in Herstory). She lost because of low voter turnout in the rust belt and disproportionate media attention paid to third party candidates; had Johnson and Stein not been taken seriously, she probably would have carried Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania (at least one, maybe two or all three), possibly winning the presidency. Now, whether or not Russia interfered on Trumps behalf and changed votes in those states is unconfirmed; I believed it for a while, but then Biden won them all in 2020, which shows that Clinton was just a historically weak candidate. If Russia could change votes to give Trump a victory in 2016, they absolutely would have done it again in 2020.

In this timeline’s 1972, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson lost the popular vote to Republican Ronald Reagan, but eked by with a slim electoral college victory. Now, our Johnson died on January 22, 1973 of a heart attack, which would be just two days into this Johnson’s second term, but I believe he would have survived slightly longer in this timeline. The presidency ages you; inheriting it in 63 and holding it until 69 definitely put more stress on him than if he had remained VP under Kennedy the whole time. This version of Johnson didn’t fumble Vietnam, so he isn’t despised by the public as he was in our 68 (he was eligible to run for a third term, but chose not to because he didn’t think he had enough support to win). This Johnson would probably survive well into 1973 or maybe even 1974 before dying, giving the presidency to Hubert Humphrey.

In 1976, the Midwestern Humphrey would run with a southerner as his VP. In our timeline, he ran in 1968 and chose northerner Edmund Muskie of Maine, and lost because of southern opposition from Wallace. To secure he south, he would NEED a southerner; if he was going for a moderate he’d pick Georgia governor Jimmy Carter, if he was going for a conservative he’s go with Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia (he would almost certainly pick Carter because Byrd led the filibuster opposition against the Civil Rights Act which Humphrey fought for, making them rivals on the matter). Because Reagan was so popular and got more votes in 72, he would probably become the Republican nominee again; it’s not unlike what the Democrats did in the 50s, running Adlai Stephenson against Dwight Eisenhower in both 1952 and 1956, or our timeline’s Republicans running Richard Nixon in 1960 and 1968. Reagan would pick a conservative as his running mate this time, probably Bob Dole; in our timeline, Gerald Ford picked fellow moderate Nelson Rockefeller as his VP in 74, but replaced him with Dole in 76 because he needed conservative support. I think that Reagan would shuck moderate support after losing in 68 and 72, in favor of a full conservative ticket. Reagan/Dole would defeat Humphrey/Carter in a landslide, ending 16 years of Democratic rule.

In 1980, Reagan/Dole would run for re-election against someone like Teddy Kennedy. In our timeline, Teddy challenged incumbent Carter in the primaries, and just barely lost. In this timeline, he would be he frontrunner, and would have his older brother’s endorsement. JFK would probably live into the early 1990s in this timeline; his sisters all lived to be in their 80s and 90s, but Teddy (his only surviving brother) died in his 70s. John was chronically unhealthy, suffering from Addison’s Disease, so he would probably die younger than Teddy, so 1994 at the latest. At this point, to see who wins we need to look at foreign policy; Vietnam is over, ended by Johnson or Humphrey, both of whom would be likely to reach detente with the Soviets and establish relations with the Chinese as our Nixon had. These are major achievements, but the election would come down to Iran; our Carter lost because he fumbled three Iranian crises in quick succession;

The Revolution: in the 1950s, Iran had a functioning democracy, and as an independent state it decided to distance itself from western powers to preserve Persian interests in the Middle East. Eisenhower overthrew the democracy and installed a pro-America puppet monarchy led by the Shah, who was in turn overthrown by religious extremists in 1979, installing the theocracy we know today run by the Ayatollah. Eisenhower destroyed Iran, and everyone up to and including Carter were complicit.

The Oil Shock: the new Islamic Republic of Iran decided it didn’t want to continue giving away oil to the United States as the puppet government had, so exports dried up, exacerbated by a war with Iraq the following year. Oil prices skyrocketed, and we were hit with a global recession.

The Hostage Crisis: a group of pro-revolutionary students took over the US Embassy in late 1979, holding 52 Americans hostage for over a year and a half. Carter eventually negotiated their release, but Reagan got all the credit because they weren’t let go until January 20, 1981, Reagan’s first day in office, making him look like he solved it all by himself.

Reagan was a warmonger who wanted to heat up the Cold War, and it was only because of his VP George Bush that we avoided the apocalypse. Bush specialized in foreign policy, and helped ease tensions with the USSR when he became president himself in our 1988, working with Mikhail Gorbachev to end the Cold War. In this timeline, no Bush means no detente, means we very likely would go to war with Iran over oil, becoming this timelines equivalent to the first Gulf War. Reagan would fight hard to restore the Shah, probably triggering a second revolution and an Iranian Civil War. This very same year, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to try and inch its way closer to the warm water ports of the Indian Ocean, which is an entirely new crisis for him to deal with. In our timeline, he responded to the Soviet invasion by giving money and weapons to the Mujahideen, an anti-communist militia led by none other than Osama Bin Laden. Bid Laden would turn against the US government in the 80s and 90s, bombing and eventually knocking down the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. If Eisenhower destroyed Iran, Reagan destroyed Afghanistan.

BUT, here’s the thing; Iran was our sworn enemy in the 1980s, but our Reagan decided they were a necessary evil in order for him to push his conservative agenda overseas. In 1985, Reagan decided he wanted to overthrow the left wing government of Nicaragua by funding the Contras, a right wing rebel group, but Congress told him he wasn’t allowed to do that. Instead of accepting it, he decided to fund them under the table, selling weapons to Iran to raise the money in secret. This was textbook Treason with a capital T, again literally, not hyperbole. Providing aid to our enemies is the definition of treason, a word that gets thrown around so often that people forget how serious a charge it is. By giving Iran weapons just a few years after the revolution and hostage crisis, Reagan could have gone to jail for life or been executed, but he shifted blame onto some underlings and covered it up, narrowly avoiding impeachment; he and VP Bush would go on to pardon their co-conspirators, so everyone got off scot free.

So, imagine Reagan in this 1980 gaming both sides of the Iran War; propping up a puppet monarchy AND selling weapons to the religious extremists AND sending money to Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan in place of the Nicaraguan Contras. In this timeline, we didn’t have a Nixon presidency, so there was no Watergate Scandal. Whatever Reagan gets into in 1980 would become this timeline’s equivalent, only worse because he wasn’t able to learn from Nixon’s mistakes and cover it all up as thoroughly. If this didn’t tank his re-election chances, he would almost certainly be impeached at the start of his second term. Dole was just some schmuck from Kansas, not the head of he CIA like Bush, so he wouldn’t be able to help Reagan out of this mess. If Reagan resigned like Nixon, Dole would pardon him like Ford, though I suspect Reagan would try to ride out impeachment because he’d rather be acquitted than quit. Our Nixon lost all support from even his own party after Watergate, so it’s likely that this Reagan would have the same disadvantage; our Reagan was beloved by Republicans, and still is to this day (they think he can do no wrong, even though he nuked the middle class and let the obscenely rich take control of every aspect of our lives, socially and economically), so maybe he would still have support, but not as much because in this timeline he would become Nixon. Nixon won in 1972 with a 49 state landslide, but resigned in shame just 2 years later; it’s very likely that his Reagan would follow suit, losing all credibility regardless of how much support he has at the start. It would depend on whether or not the Democrats had the balls to investigate him until they struck oil.

All this time I’ve been assuming that Congress would remain the same throughout this timeline, with longstanding Democratic majorities in both houses, but I failed to account for how vulnerable seats would change in the alternate 1972 and 1982 reapportionments. After 16 years of Democratic rule from 1961 to 1977, Congressional Republicans would likely gain support from the public, maybe even pushing the Republican Revolution of the 90s ahead by a decade or two. Johnson/Humphrey would become Bill Clinton, competent and popular, but the perfect boogeymen for the Republicans to rise up against.

I’ll continue this scenario tomorrow after doing more research to see what the alternate Congress would look like. Going forward from here depends heavily on which party is in power when Reagan goes for a second term during the Iran Crises.

33 notes · View notes

songtoyou · 4 years

Text

Mr. Evans and the Congresswoman - Part 2

Paring: Chris Evans x Politician Reader

Rating: PG

Word Count: 1,858

Warnings: Political topics such as Biden, Harris, our current White House occupant and the current administration.

Description: It is the week of the DNC and Chris is once again interviewing you for A Starting Point.

A/N: The DNC inspired me to write a second part for this story. This is pure fiction as I do not know what Chris believes when it comes to politics and policy issues. This is a complete work of fiction.

I do not permit my work to be to be posted on any other site without my permission.

Note: Updated for grammar and punctuation edits.

"Hi, Congresswoman Y/L/N?" Chris Evans asked with a smile.

He was once again interviewing you for ASP. This time it was during the week of the Democratic National Convention. Chris and Mark had already talked to other politicians such as Senator Cory Booker and Representatives Ro Khanna and Alma Adams. You were the last elected official he was slated to interview to wrap up the DNC week.

Truthfully, Chris was happy to get the chance to talk with you again. Your previous interview for ASP was such a hit that it garnered a lot of attention from fans and the media. However, it was not because you helped bring more legitimacy and attention for ASP, but instead, Chris found himself genuinely admiring you.

"Hi," you said to Chris, giving a small wave through the Zoom screen. "I told you to call me by my first name."

"I know, but I still want to show respect," Chris responded with a teasing smile. Was he mildly flirting with the congresswoman? Yes, but he had no shame in doing so. "How are you? You are looking well."

"I am doing well. Thank you. How about you?"

"Same. Just trying to stay sane through everything. I'm actually currently in London. Working on a project." Chris admitted.

"Uh oh. You better be staying safe and following the right procedures and protocols," you lightly reprimanded him.

"My fans ratted me out. They found where I was just by the hotel door. Can you believe that? That is some FBI-level investigating, right there. I'd be impressed if I weren't also terrified of the lengths some of these fans will go to scout my location," Chris ranted. He did not understand why he was sharing this with you, but a part of him felt comfortable doing so.

"That…is quite impressive, I must say. Creepy. Scary. But impressive. You need to learn how to put in a Zoom background. It would solve all of your problems," you suggested to him.

"I would, but I'm technology deficient. Maybe I should look up some Zoom tutorials on how to do it. Give it a try."

"There is no try…only do," you advised cheekily.

"Now you're quoting Yoda. A woman after my own heart," Chris replied. He knew he needed to refocus. "So, as you can tell, Mark won't be joining us for this interview. I'm going to hit record if that is okay?"

"Okay. I'm ready when you are," you said.

When the record notification appeared on screen, Chris introduced you and immediately went into the first question.

"How do you think the DNC is going so far, particularly how this year is more of a virtual setting rather than in-person due to COVID-19?"

"Despite not having the big in-person celebration/gathering, I think the virtual setting is working very well. Better than I expected, actually. It gives off a more inclusive and intimate vibe to the DNC that we haven't felt before. I like the whole documentary approach and feel to it," you replied honestly.

"Were you excited that Joe Biden chose Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate?" asked Chris.

"Oh my God! I was so happy that Vice President Biden chose Senator Harris as his running mate. Like, my staff and I were beyond ecstatic. There is no one better to be Biden's running mate than Harris. She is amazing. Such an inspiration. I'm not going to lie, but I'm really excited for the debate between her and Pence."

That made Chris laugh. "Yeah, me too. Senator Harris really knows how to pull all the punches. Her nomination as VP has been met with overall positive response. The Trump Administration and Republican pundits appear to have a hard time painting a negative image of Harris. Why do you think Trump and Fox News are struggling to provide a negative image for her?"

"That is an excellent question. The public's overwhelming response to Harris' nomination is because 1.) she is the first black and south Asian woman to be on a major presidential ticket, and 2.) she is likable and charming. She has this exuberant energy that attracts people to her. You know, black and brown women and girls finally have someone that looks like them running for the second-highest office in the land. That is huge!

"I also have to wonder if people have smartened up in the last four years and won't tolerate the…hypocrisy, sexism, and misogyny…in this case misogynoir that is thrown towards Senator Harris from the media, political pundits, social media bots, etc. So, what we are seeing with Trump and Fox News struggling to attack her is because…well…they just aren't smart. All we have seen from Trump in his attacks against her is that she was mean to Kavanaugh when questioning him during his nomination process. But none of what Trump says holds up because we all know that smart, confident women intimidate him," you finished off your point.

"There is also the left…or more of the progressive left who are unhappy with Biden choosing Harris," Chris spoke up and continued, "They say she is a cop and put people away for weed. That she took kids away from parents when the kid didn't show up for school. That Harris is too conservative. What do you say to that?"

"All of that is…you know…. Senator Harris one of the most policy progressive senators we have. Her voting record is more progressive than Bernie Sanders. All people have to do is research her time as a district attorney and Attorney General for California to find out what she actually did concerning policy. But as we both know, people nowadays don't know how to critically think, which scares me. Progressives need to look at the overall big picture. This election in November is crucial. We are in the fight for our democracy, for our country, and for our lives…literally."

"I talk with my brother, Scott, all the time about certain political issues," mentioned Chris. "He is a tad more progressive than I am. I can admit that I tend to be more centrist. The district you represent is a mix of blue and red areas; how do you balance opposing views from your constituents?"

You took in a deep breath before you answered. That was a loaded question. Representing a district that was not solely red, or blue could be difficult from time to time. You wanted to be respectful of the different viewpoints from constituents, but maintaining a neutral balance was hard and frustrating at times.

"The majority of Americans are centrist/moderates. You need a balance of both liberal and conservative policies. Bipartisanship is crucially important when developing and passing laws. We are currently seeing an overt of one-sidedness while sabotaging the other side, which is detrimental to our country's growth. It is important to reach across the aisle to talk with those who may have opposing views than you. At the end of the day, people just want to feel that their concerns are heard and valued. We all want to feel that way. So, as an elected official, I make sure to take the time to talk with those in rural areas, along with urban areas, about their issues and concerns," you shared.

"Do you ever get any pushback from Trump supporters in the red areas?" Chris inquired.

"Well, it is important to note that not all residents in rural areas are Trump supporters. They just tend to keep that to themselves. I have actually talked to Trump supporters in blue areas. We can never and should never assume that one area has this type of person and vice versa. I learned that the hard way when I was campaigning for city council early in my career," you revealed to Chris with a small chuckle. "But overall, my constituents will talk with me and have been respectful. Some of the concerns that have been shared with me do fall under the QAnon conspiracy theories, which do disturb me, I'll be honest. Um…when being confronted with someone who has that extreme of ideals, it is important to remain calm and not to come off combative. Meaning that I have to remind myself that I am not quite dealing with a rational person. The only thing that I can do is calmly talk to the person and respond back with facts. Either they listen or brush me off and call me a radical lefty."

"The majority of people are good, like you said," Chris reminded you.

"That's right. It's a good mantra to live by. I think the American people are tired and have been tired for the past four years with this Administration. We need a sense of normalcy and decency. Compassion and empathy, which were two of the big themes during the DNC. This week was a nice reminder that we, as a country, can have that again."

"I agree. Very well said. You always end on a positive. I appreciate that. Thank you, Congresswoman Y/L/N, for taking the time to talk with me. You always provide great insight into the world of politics and your experience as an elected official," said Chris and ended the recording. "That was really great, Y/N. I know Mark, and I really appreciate you taken the time to do these interviews for ASP," Chris added.

"Oh, it is no problem. Like I said before, I like what you both are doing with the site. Are you happy with how everything turned out?" you asked him.

"Yeah… it's…it took a while to just get the website up and running. I know there is still work that needs to be done. Some areas need to be fixed, but with a project like this, we can adjust. There is more room for improvement and growth," Chris communicated to you.

You nodded in agreement. "Politics is a whole different ballgame. Not many people are willing to venture into the field. It can cause a lot of annoyances and headaches. So, hats off to you, my friend," you said, giving Chris a salute.

"Thank you. Well, I better let you go. I know you must have a million things on your plate."

"Ah yes, I have to go and save the United States Postal Service from corruption. Talk to you later, Chris. Take care," you waved goodbye and signed off.

Chris had to admit, he was in awe of you. There was something about you that fascinated him. None of the elected officials he and Mark talked to for ASP had the liveliness you had. You were not jaded or defeated by the system, at least not yet, since you were still considered a junior member of congress. Chris hoped that the energy and enthusiasm you had for politics and helping people would not diminish. When his Uncle Mike was still a congressman, he shared with Chris that D.C. can cause a lot of strain on a person's values and beliefs. "I have seen too many of my colleagues succumb to the pressures of dirty politics," Uncle Mike once said.

Chris just hoped that you would not succumb to those pressures.

#chris evans #chris evans x reader #chris evans x you

67 notes · View notes

matthewstiles · 3 years

Text

Placing Mianite’s Gods on an Ideological Spectrum (but not taking it too seriously)

It sucks to be dead center on an an ideological spectrum. Opinions pull at you from both sides. Politically and religiously, I’m – well, I wouldn’t say I’m a fence sitter because that implies hesitation – but I’m grounded between camps. I’ve been Christian, I’ve been conservative, I’ve been liberal, and now I’m realizing that none of the labels fit me. But I know what does. I like being able to wrap my head around as many viewpoints as possible. I like bringing conflicting ideas together and helping people find common ground. Sure, I voted Democrat this election (and please tell me you did, too). No, I don’t believe in the Christian God. But if you’re a Trump supporter, we can have lunch. If you’re an old friend from church, I miss you and would like to catch up. It struck me today that I might be an Ianitee irl. This is all on a whim, of course. I’m not trying to “sort” myself into her “house” or assign anyone else a Mianite god, for that matter. My point is not to assign a label, but to explore an idea.

The goddess of balance walks a tightrope. She holds a scale. She is both light and dark in a photograph—and therefore, she can also be grey. She’s an impartial judge. Her job, although far grander in scope than mine, isn’t totally unlike what I do for my tiny group of friends on the internet. Her followers might be people who struggle to navigate the warring dualities of their worlds. This makes Prince Andor a bit of a chaotic Ianitee if you think about it. It comes naturally, of course. If the balance leans toward Mianite, then Dianite must bleed into Ianite for the brothers to equalize. The goddess of balance wields both order and chaos. If Mianite reigns, the neutral sister stands with Dianite in bringing chaotic revolution to the doorstep of tyrannical order. Likewise, if Dianite has plunged the world into darkness and fire, Ianite joins with Mianite in building armies and sanctuaries. “We are not pacifists, nor are we vindicators,” Andor said. “We are nature. We are whatever balance demands. We are void and we are hurricane. We are the healer. We are the warrior.” If Dianite had ravaged Ruxomar and Mianite had lay dormant for ten years, a blade in his chest, both Helgrind and Andor may have preached quite different yet still conflicting ideas. As a psychological note, an Ianitee will have a hard time if they’re conflict-avoidant, but they’ll go through Hell if they’re ill-tempered. The magic word is temperance. (See the Temperance arcana in Tarot.) I suppose I might as well go ahead and draw the comparison between an Ianitee and a centrist, a term which may hold some emotional charge for you if you follow politics. Put simply, a centrist holds moderate political views. I don’t identify as a centrist, but the term does describe me, and my refusal to accept the label might serve only to exacerbate the problems a centrist already has. My problem – which a certain type of Ianitee might share – is a lack of belonging. Few people consider you their ally because few have the time or interest to let you engage in the long, convoluted process of proving your character and earning their trust. On the surface you might seem – as I said before – like a fence sitter or even an enemy simply because you refuse to accept a proposed solution. Most people wish even their enemies some amount of good, but when it comes to choosing between friends and enemies, most will choose friends. You might not want to make that choice. You might want to save everyone. If you can’t, you won’t. Your stance may sound sensible once you’ve had time to parse it out, but it’s far smoother on paper than in practice, and it’s nigh impossible to preach “love thy enemy” to a wounded wolf. On the other hand, maybe you are a fence sitter. Maybe you genuinely don’t know right from wrong. Maybe you’re a bit of a nihilist. “Is all this conflict really worth it? Return it all to nothing. Void.” (In your local RP group, ever thought of playing an Ianitee who wants to “End It All?”) But hopefully, you’re more of an existentialist. You see meaning vested in people and their accomplishments. You want to help them find the best meaning for them and you don’t think they’ll do it by veering blindly toward every impulse. Extended streams of impulse gratification can lead to extreme ideological thinking, such as totalitarianism. You don’t want a world full of people who all think the same thing. Again, the magic word is temperance. There’s real importance in having two sides to a system. Take, for instance, the political structure of the United States. Democrats and republicans are ever at war, but what are they really doing under the surface? What are they intended to do? Well, that’s up for debate (some might say “kill each other”), but if we take a broad look at history, a pattern emerges. One party – the party of order, you could say – establishes hierarchy. It defines who is who and who gets what. It puts competent people in positions befitting them and treats the less competent with compassion. That’s if all goes well, but the party of order isn’t impervious to corruption. People who tout themselves as servants of God and the State turn out to be monsters who ravage the environment, the economy, the rule of law, and each other. That’s when – take this with a grain of salt – the party of chaos steps in. At first it calls for change. It articulates and expresses visions for a better order. It doesn’t seem so chaotic now, but as the corruption spreads, unhearing and unyielding, moderates and liberals become radicals. Calm discussions become battles for sweeping change. The rebels rage for equality and take it by massive persuasion or by force. They break up the calcified structure of the old order and drag it back down into the primal, bloody sea from which new order springs. (I’m dipping into Mesopotamian mythology here, and if you’re familiar with the Enuma Elish, you’ll know the significance of what I’m about to say.) Order will return, but it must be guided. Someone must ensure that the reborn world is more just and peaceful than the dead one. We need order within chaos—Yang within Yin—white dot within black swath. I’ve just tried – and perhaps failed – to describe the eternal cycle of order and chaos in terms of real-world society. Now let me place it in a simplistic Mianite shell. Mianite builds hierarchy, Dianite tears it down, and Ianite stands in the middle, bearing two communicating vessels, ensuring that neither too much nor too little blood is spilled in the process of transformation from old to new.

#mianite #analyzing my own stuff almost six years later #it's a process man #prince andor #ianite #dianite

17 notes · View notes

whitehotharlots · 3 years

Text

Previewing the 2024 Democrat Primary

Within a couple weeks of his being sworn in, just about every person on earth will wish Joe Biden was no longer president. Sure, the few surviving John B. Anderson voters will be thrilled to see 4 years of crushing austerity and half-assed attempts at Keynesian stimulus. But most people will begin dreaming about a brighter future.

Good news! The 2024 Democratic primary field is going to contain dozens of options. Bad news! They are all going to be disgusting piles of shit.

The “top tier”

While it’s too early to do any handicapping, these are the candidates the media will treat as having the most realistic chances of securing the nomination.

Kamala Harris

Kamala did not win a single primary delegate in 2020. This is because she dropped out before the first primary, and that was because no one likes her. She has no base beyond a few thousand of twitter’s most violent psychos. Her disingenuousness approaches John Edwards levels: any halfway incredulous person can see immediately beyond her bullshit. She has no principles whatsoever, and while that may be par for the course for Democrats, she lacks even the basic politician’s ability to intuit anything that might, hypothetically, constitute a principle.

Even better: she is an awful public speaker. She sounds like how a talking dog would speak if he were just caught stealing people food off the kitchen table. She communicates in weird grunts and faux sassy squeaks, which is how she imagines real black women sound like, but something about her is unable to sell the bit. She begins her sentences in halfhearted AAVE, stops and panics halfway through as she realizes that maybe this sounds fake and offensive, and then reminds herself oh wait, no, this is okay since I’m black. This doesn’t happen once or twice per speech. This is how every single sentence sounds.

Kamala is like Nancy Pelosi in that no sketch show will ever impersonate her correctly, because anything that came close to authenticity would be considered far too cruel. This might benefit her in the primaries, as she exists in the minds of Democrats as someone and something she absolutely is not in reality. Nominating her would be like allowing your child’s imaginary friend to attempt to drive you to the store.

Andrew Cuomo

Easily one of the 50 worst people alive, Cuomo has a solid chance because Democrats, same as Republicans, are unable to differentiate between electability and self-serving ruthlessness. Cuomo used the deadliest public health crisis in American history as a pretext for cutting Medicaid and firing 5,000 MTA workers, and his approval rating increased. New York Dems are little piggies who love eating shit. If we assume that the political media will continue their habit of refusing to discuss the legislative history of right wing Democrats, Cuomo might well cruise to the nomination and then lose to literally any human being the GOP nominates by an historic margin.

Joe Biden

The party loves him because he is a right wing racist. “Progressives” tolerate him because black primary voters over 40 supported him, and their opinion is supposedly a magic window into god’s truth. Everyone else can tell he is manifestly senile. I don’t put it above the DNC to pick a candidate who is in horrible health, dying, or even dead--whatever the financial sector wants, they’ll get. But I would be shocked if his approval rating is above 39% by mid-2023, and by that point deep fake technology will be advanced enough they’ll put out a very lifelike video in which the Max Headroom version of Joe explains he’s proud of his accomplishments--that budget’s almost balanced already--but, man, I gotta abd--I gotta abdica--, uhh, I gotta, I, uhh, I gotta move down, man.

Wild Cards

These candidates would have all have a chance if they ran, but they could all much more easily retire to Little Saint James off of kickbacks they’ve gotten from Citibank and I.G. Farben.

Rahm Emanuel

Rahm is going to receive some hugely influential post in the Biden administration. Let’s say he becomes Secretary of Education. His signature achievement will be replacing all elementary school teachers with Amazon’s Alexa, which saved the taxpayers so much money we were able to quadruple the number of armed police officers we put into high schools. This will give him several thousand positive profiles on network news programs and the near-universal support of the Silicon Valley vampires who will own 99% of the country by the time Biden’s term ends. They will use their fancy mind control devices to convince geriatic primary voters that Rahm’s the one who will bring Decency back to the white house. His candidacy will be the paragon of wokeness, as expressing concern toward the fact that he covered up the police murder of a black guy will get you called a racist.

Rahm has a bonus in that Jewish men are now Schrodeniger’s PoC. When they are decent human beings, they are basic, cis white men who are stealing attention from disabled trans candidates of color. When they love austerity and apartheid, they become the most vulnerable people of color on earth and criticizing them in any way is genocide. No one will be able to mention a single thing Rahm has ever done or said without opening themselves to accusations of antisemitism, and that gives him a strong edge against the rest of the field. The good news is that an Emmanuel candidacy would result in over 50% of black voters choosing the GOP candidate--which, I guess that’s not really good but it would certainly be funny.

Gavin Newsom

Newsom is every bit as feckless as Cuomo, but he doesn’t put off the same “bad guy in an early Steven Segal movie” vibes. He will mention climate change 50 times per speech and no one will bother to mention how he keeps signing fracking contracts even though his state is now on fire 11 months of the year. If anything, this will be spun into an argument about how he’s actually the candidate best suited to handle all the water refugees gathering on the southern border. Look for his plan to curb emissions by 10% by the year 2150 to get high marks from Sierra Club nerds. He’s also a celebate librarian’s idea of what constitutes a handsome man, so he’ll have some support from the type of women who claim to hate all men.

Larry Summers

I mean, why not? Larry, like most members of the Obama administration, has politics that are eerily similar to those of Jordan Peterson. In normal circumstances, this makes a person a dangerous fascist who should not be platformed. But if that person has a D next to their name this makes them a realistic pragmatist who has what it takes to bring suburban bankers into our tent. If current trends in Woke Phrenology continue apace, Larry’s belief that women are inherently bad at STEM will be liberal orthodoxy by 2023, and his dedication to the Laffer Curve could see him rake in massive donations. Seriously, I’m not kidding: cultural liberalism is now fully dedicated to identity essentialism and balanced budgets. Larry is their ideal candidate. If he were black and/or a woman, I’d put him in the very top tier.

Jay Inslee

Unlike Newsom, Inslee’s attempt to crown himself the King of Global Warming won’t be immediately derailed, since his state is only on fire because of protestors. This, however, poses a different problem. He’s going to be a good test case for the Democrat’s uneasy peace with the ever increasing share of the electorate who become catatonic upon hearing a pronoun. On the one hand, you need to take their votes for granted. On the other hand, they’re not like black people or regular gays: most voters actively, consciously despise wokies, and associating yourself with them will ruin a campaign even in deep blue areas. There’s still gonna be riots in a year. Biden’s gonna announce the sale of all our nation’s potable water to the good folks at Nestle and some trans freak named Sasha-Malia DeBalzac is going to use that as an opportunity to sell their new pamphlet about how it’s fascist to not burn down small businesses. No matter what Inslee does in response, it’ll end his career.

AOC

I’m not one of those “AOC is a secret conservative” weirdos, but I am aware enough of basic reality to know she has zero chance of coming close to the nomination. The right and the center both regard her as a literal demon. The party is already blaming her for the fact that a handful of faceless Reagan acolytes failed to flip their suburban districts even though they ran on sensible pragmatic proposals like euthanizing the homeless. The recriminations will only get more unhinged when the Dems eat shit in the 2022 midterms. She will be a Russian, she will be white male, she will be a communist, she will be a homophobe: any insult or conspiracy theory you can name, MSNBC will spend hours discussing. Her house seat challenger will receive a record amount of support from the DNC in 2024 and it’ll be all she can do to remain in congress.

Larry Hogan

Don’t be dissuaded by the fact that he’s a Republican. Larry is the DNC’s ideal candidate: a physically repulsive conservative who owes his entire career to appealing to the most spiteful desires of suburban white people. He’s an open racist in a material sense--if you’re old-school enough to think racism is a matter of beliefs and actions, rather than the presence of cultural signifiers--but his is the beloved “never Trump” style of racism that Dems covet. He’s also a Proven Leader who thinks the role of government should be to finance the construction of investment property and give police the resources they need to run successful drug trafficking operations. Few people embody the Democrat worldview more than Larry.

The Losers Bracket

These people will have at least a small chance due solely to the fact that the Democrats love losing. They have lost in the past, and in the Democrat Mind that makes them especially qualified.

Joe Kennedy

The man looks like a mushroom-human hybrid from a JRPG. Trump proved that physical hideousness need not doom a presidential bid, but a candidate still needs some kind of charm or oratorical abilities or, god forbid, a decent platform. Joe aggressively lacks all of these things. A vanity campaign would be a good way to raise money and perhaps secure an MSNBC gig, so Joe might still run.

Mayor Pete

I am 100% convinced that Pete’s 2020 run was a CIA plot meant to prevent working class Americans from ever having a chance of living decent lives. I am also 100% aware that Democrats are dumb enough to enthusiastically support a CIA plot meant to prevent working class Americans from ever having a chance of living decent lives. If we have some sort of military or terror disaster between now and 2023 the Dems are sure to want a TROOP, and wait wait wait you’re telling me this one is a gay troop? Holy hell there’s no way that could lose!

Stacy Abrams

Never underestimate the power of white guilt. She lost the gubernatorial race to Gomer Pyle’s grandson, and her spiritual guidance of the Dems saw the party lose black voters in Georgia in 2020. Nonetheless, she is regarded as a magic font of fierceness within the DNC. She might stand a chance if she can establish herself as the most conservative non-white candidate in the field, but there’s going to be stiff competition for that honor.

Elizabeth Warren

Liz is probably angry that the party so shamelessly sold her out even after she was a good little girl and sabatoged Bernie’s campaign for them--yet another example of high ranking US government officials reneging on their promises to the Native American community. Smdh. The fact that this woman hasn’t been bankrupted a dozen times over by various Wallet Inspectors genuinely astounds me. So Liz is probably going to run again, and her campaign will be even sadder the second time around.

It might surprise you to hear this if you don’t work at a college or NGO, but Liz diehards actually do exist. She’ll get even less support this time because there will be no viable leftist in the field for her to spoil, but she’ll still hang in long enough to make sure the very worst possible candidate beats out the second worst possible candidate. Maybe she’ll fabricate a rape accusation against Sherrod Brown. Maybe she’ll spend her entire allotted debate time doing a land acknowledgment. With Liz, anything is possible--so long as it ends in failure.

Amy Klobuchar

Amy was the most bloodthirsty of the 2020 also rans. She will double down on the unpopular failures of the Biden administration, explaining that if you weren’t such a selfish idiot you’d love the higher social security retirement age and oh my god are so such a moron you think you shouldn’t go bankrupt to get a COVID vaccine? There’s a non-unsubstantial segment of the Democratic base that’s self-hating enough to find this appealing, but it won’t be enough to make her viable.

Martha Coakley

She lost Ted Kennedy’s senate seat to a retarded man who was pretending to be even more retarded than he actually was. Then she lost a gubernatorial race to a guy who openly promised Massachusetts voters that he would punish them for electing him. Her record of failure is unparalleled, making her perhaps the ideal Democrat standard bearer for the twenty twenties.

30 notes · View notes

atheistforhumanity · 4 years

Text

What To Do About The Supreme Court?

We find ourselves in a situation where a President who lost the popular vote has now appointed 5 judges on the Supreme Court, one of which under hypocritical circumstances. Now the court overwhelmingly leans to the Right, and many Americans are upset about both the numbers on the court and how it turned out this way. Before I discuss any solutions for this issue, I would like to take a moment to review what the judicial branch was imagined to be.

In the Federalist Papers, essay 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the judicial branch would be “an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.” This has been the role of judicial bodies, just as Hamilton saw it. Hamilton also say the judicial branch as being mostly incapable of harming the liberty of the people, as it has no method of direct attack against either the legislative or executive branches. However, Hamilton specifically said, “so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislative and the executive.”

Something to keep in mind is that this essay was written before the adoption of the constitution and long before we would make many amendments. It occurred to me that there are a few things that Hamilton could not have anticipated. The first is that the constitution itself was so incomplete from the start and left out so many citizens that had every right to be counted and protected. Therefore, he could not imagine how would want to change it and how different our values could be in the future. More importantly, Hamilton could not have anticipated the Age of Information, and the technology and education that come with it. It’s not unfair to say that these things have accelerated the progression of knowledge, debate, and societal values. Thirdly, I don’t believe Hamilton could have predicted the extreme partisanship that we live with today.

All that being said, I believe our levels of partisanship and under maintained democracy have caused serious problems for the judicial branch. The Senate is the body that confirms judges, but due to population growth we have a Senate that does not accurately represent our people. For example, California alone has the same population as several mid-western states combined, yet California gets 2 senators while all those states can produce about 30 for the same population. Due to similar population disparities, our Electoral College has elected a President twice in recent history that lost the popular vote, and it is the President who chooses judges. If the Senate and even the President can so poorly represent the desires of the nation then the judicial branch ceases to be completely separate from the two other branches, because these mathematical inconsistencies only favor the Republican party. If the people who confirm judges are not of an accurate representation of the people, then judges cease to be intermediaries between legislators and the people, but rather they become insurance of the executive and legislative branch.

So what are we to do in our current situation? Liberals are the only ones unhappy with the current conditions, because they all favor Conservatives. Right now, Democrats are discussing changing the size of the Supreme Court to even it out again. Given that supreme court judges enjoy a lifetime appointment, that would be the only way to immediate address the imbalance.

I have only a couple things to say about this idea. The size of the court has not been changed in many years, but it is completely arbitrary and up to Congress. Therefore, changing it is not an unthinkable act. Regardless of size, all Americans should think hard about whether such an imbalanced court is democratic, whether it’s in your favor or not. Clearly the way we fill vacancies in the supreme court has nothing to do with fair consideration for the two major parties in America. It is more like a game show where luck is the most important. If the court were completely filled with Liberals, I would feel it would be the best situation morally, but if that happened I would think something is wrong with our system if our politics is supposedly 50/50 and our court doesn’t represent one side at all.

Do I think we should expand the court and place a number of liberals on the bench? Yes, for two reasons. The first is that Republicans have proved they care nothing for fairness with their treatment of Obama’s nominee and their rushed confirmation of Trump’s. Furthermore, Republicans regularly engage in gerrymandering and voter suppression, so I see no integrity in them. Second, Our partisanship has become so radical and the Republicans moved so far Right, that I believe it is a moral imperative to the American people to rebalance the courts and prevent the massive reversal of rights given to the people. Conservatives won’t agree, but I honestly don’t care.

What is perhaps more important than the immediate size of the courts is the debate about term limits on justices.

Alexander Hamilton argued for life appointments for the Supreme Court. He believed that giving them that type of independence would give them the power to stand for the constitution, separate from the other branches. He also thought that judges being permanent fixtures for the constitution would bring structure and order. The problem though is that society has never changed as rapidly as it has since the formation of America, especially over the past 100 years. If you look back in history from Hamilton’s perspective, legal and moral improvement has never moved as quickly as in the past 100 years. All the judges we recently lost on the supreme court over the past four years were selected decades ago, while the public has been going through a cultural and moral churning.

In short, adding term limits to judges, especially the Supreme Court would be advantageous to the American people, while putting a check on legislators. That’s just how Hamilton imagined the court, as a power to protect the people from the overreaches of legislation. A reasonable term limit might be from 16 to 20 years. This is still a long time, but having a known end to someone’s duty should inspire hope in the people that a change is always just over the horizon. This would ensure that outdated and regressive ideas do not loom over our society at the highest level.

Term limits are not a radical or new idea. The idea has been kicked around for years. It would be very easy to implement and would not drastically affect the way the court functions. I think this is the best long term solution to improve conditions for America.

#US Politics #America #Supreme Court #RBG #amy coney barrett #government #democracy #change

31 notes · View notes

olivieblake · 4 years

Note

I know we are concerned about trump rolling back many rights such as Roe v Wade and gay marriage etc, and if there was ever a time it would be done it would be now with the court the way it is but I wonder sometimes if those two issues are kinda like carrots dangling in front of a horse. A major issue we have is the left has nothing to unite them there are so many ideas about what needs to be done and it's impossible to have everyone be represented by one person. (1) 

the right seems to push most everything to the side for the issues of abortion and gay marriage, and I guess guns and money. To me it feels like there would be benefits to stringing them along in order to get their votes year after year. Fighting to keep a law doesn’t give the same fire as fighting to change something as seen by how many on the left are willing to not vote cause Biden is exactly like trump despite the very real threat of the loss of these rights. I don’t mean like there is no reason to worry/vote cause it won’t happen, I think the threat the most serious its ever been but I wondered your thoughts on how much these issues are used to keep the GOP votes rolling in or if you think they’d struggle once those issues were gone or am I totally wrong, ha. It’s frustrating as a christian (or was idk anymore its turned so ugly) to watch others give up their morals for something they might not get just cause they are so simple to manipulate imo

I won’t lie to you, anon, this was... hard to make sense of, so let me open by restating what I think you’re trying to say? it seems like maybe you’re arguing that abortion and gay marriage are hot button issues that generate a controversial polarity where everyone is driven to vote based on their position on those issues, so if those issues were no longer on the table there would be nothing to keep people actively participating. it also seems like maybe you resent this because you’d like to vote your morals, but based on these controversial social issues you’re being forced to take a political position you don’t align with fully.

here’s what I think you’re right about: the american two-party system forces a polarity that favors centrism, or has up to this point. yes, the left is a collection of extremely variant positions that are forced further and further center-right as a party as a result of the right becoming increasingly fundamentalist. this is arguably the greatest flaw in american policy construction: the founders did not believe that anyone after george washington would ever garner 51% of the popular vote, meaning that there would always be a tie and then the senate, representing the states, would choose the next president. basically, they set up a system much more like the british bicameral legislature than what we have now, where the states would select the next president from among themselves. but because the federalists and democratic republicans mobilized the way they did, we have the system we have now, where every issue is essentially black and white; either yes or no.

dichotomies are inherently problematic, and while I do not agree that the left lacks unity in their policies, you’re correct that a “true” left does not exist in the united states; aka bernie and even warren should not be democrats if biden is also a democrat. that’s fair, or would be, if we did not have only two ideologies to choose from.

I do think there are some flaws with your premise (? as I interpret it) that these specific social issues are “hot” and/or controversial enough to drive people to the polls vs. being the actual, true defining issues for each party. I disagree. the politics of abortion are not about the value of human life, but the autonomy of women. the politics of marriage are not about whether homosexuality is morally reprehensible, but about whether the state should allow faith-based policy to control how two consenting individuals choose to live. in my mind, these positions are consistent with the concept that government should interfere against systemic prejudices, especially where it’s necessary to maintain our foundational separation of church and state.

the fact is also that the right is a mess. a true conservative party in this country would oppose ALL government regulation; they should be anti-gun regulation AND pro-choice, and essentially pro-everything that isn’t government interference. the fact that the republican party doesn’t fall within these theoretical lines is a flaw as a result of who holds power in that party: white christian men. in order to maintain their social power, they bend their political agenda wherever necessary to ensure that women and minorities do not gain autonomy where they have always maintained control. this is what unites the right, which means that the “left,” which is really more center AND everything left of center, supports politics that do dignify minorities.

would this be the case if we had multiple political parties? probably not, so your frustration is shared by many. you’ve probably heard this many times, but essentially the argument for biden, even by those who know he will not provide them the policies their consciences dictate, is that he has already shown he—and the party—can be pushed further left. he did not sign on with concepts of the green new deal until bernie and liz warren’s campaigns dictated that politically he needed to, at which point AOC signed on to help him build his own. so is he perfect? no. but if biden wins, there is room to keep fighting for what we want from democratic policy; he is responsive to public pressure. if 45 wins, we lose, end of story. fascism cannot be pushed.

morals are difficult to argue when it comes to politics. for example, the very popular but nonsensical “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” dichotomy is an untenable paradox that a person can only hold as a beneficiary of the existing system. when only one group of people has maintained generational/inherited wealth that allows them to benefit from a lack of social programs and government intervention, of course there is no such thing as having only one foot in the water. the overlap between the christian agenda and white supremacy is also difficult to separate, because while theologically christianity should promote certain values, christianity as an institution was born from imperialism, forced conversion, and a doctrine of constant proselytization. I say this as a catholic; I don’t dislike religious beliefs. but the way religion motivates political decisions is fundamentally flawed.

if your argument (or the argument of those around you) is that the problem with this election is that the left is a collection of ideologies lumped together in order to oppose some very narrow policy decisions, yes, you’re right. but if we pushed even remotely left from where we are now, we might be closer to the center, and then we can continue to push left. I would argue not that this is a time to abandon your principles just to win the presidency, but to at least be unselfish enough to realize that institutional change must be affected incrementally; to recognize that even if your life is not severely affected by 45 and the republican party winning over biden and the centrist-dems, far-right or alt-right policies do undoubtedly cause damage to countless others. you may not get everything you want from biden, but the opportunity to continue to achieve policy decisions you support is there.

try not to allow others around you to create a false dichotomy where this is somehow a choice between two evils; it isn’t. it’s a choice between a closed door and an open one, and even a baby step is a step.

31 notes · View notes

arcticdementor · 3 years

Link

When we hear the term “Deep State,” we tend to think of people staffing the federal bureaucracy. I want to suggest to you that that is an incomplete way to think about it. The Deep State in Western liberal democracies consist not only of government bureaucrats, but also of the leadership in major corporations, leading universities, top media, medicine and law, science, the military, and even sports. A more accurate way to think about what we are dealing with comes from the Neoreactionary term “the Cathedral,” which NRxers use in more or less the same way that 1950s Beats used the term “the Establishment.” I like the term “Cathedral” because it entails the religious commitment these elites have to their principles. You can no more debate these principles with them than you can debate with a religious fundamentalist. They adhere to them as if they were revealed truths.

Yet they still like to pretend that they are liberals — that they favor open, reasoned discourse. This is, in fact, a lie. It is a lie that they depend on to conceal the hegemonic intolerance that they wish to impose on everybody under their authority.

…

It is true that no society can tolerate everything. What the Cathedral is now doing is radically limiting discourse, and demonizing as heretics all those within its purview who dissent, no matter how reasonable their objections. (And now Facebook is incentivizing some of its users to report their friends as potential “extremists.” Please get off Facebook now!) The Cathedral seeks to make all of society over in the mold of a college campus. The Cathedral is growing ever more radical. In recent months, we have seen the US military embrace wokeness (to use the slang term for the most vibrant and activist form of the Cathedral’s religion). You would think that it makes no sense for the leadership of a racially diverse armed forces to embrace and indoctrinate its officers in a neo-Marxist theory that causes everyone to see everyone else primarily in hostile racial terms, but that is exactly what has happened. In time — and not much time, either — we are going to see young people who were once from families and social classes that once were the most stalwart supporters of the military declining to join the armed forces in which they are taught that they are guilty by virtue of their skin color.

…

That’s the Cathedral and its values. The Cathedral has also taken over corporate America, and the professions. I hardly need to elaborate on this further, not for regular readers of this blog. It was a hard knock this past week to see that the US Supreme Court, which some of us had thought would be the last line of defense for anybody traditional in this soft-totalitarian Cathedral theocracy, refused to take on the Gavin Grimm case, and the Barronelle Stutzman case. The Cathedral line in favor of privileging LGBTs over religious people and secular people who don’t accept the full LGBT gospel is hardening.

…

I realized over the weekend why I have been so affected by the experience of being here in Hungary these past three months. It has clarified for me the nature of this conflict. First, take a look at this powerful piece by Angela Nagle, writing about the views of Irish intellectual and cultural critic Desmond Fennell.

…

What does this have to do with Hungary? Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his government have brought down the wrath of European Union leaders over Hungary’s recent law restricting sex education for children, and information about LGBT presented to children. The prime minister of the Netherlands, in extraordinarily bellicose language, threatened to “bring Hungary to its knees” over the law. I am reliably informed by an American source in a position to know that in Washington, even among conservative elites, Viktor Orban is seen as nothing but a fascist. I have been writing all summer about the radical disjunction between Hungary as it is, and Hungary as described by Western elite discourse (media and otherwise). This is by no means to say that Orban’s government is flawless — it certainly is not; corruption, for example, is a big deal here — but to say that there has to be some reason why Western elites of both the Left and the Right despise Hungary so intensely, and slander it so.

There’s a lesson in all this, I believe, for where conservatives and traditionalists in the West are, and where we are likely to go. I have come to believe that the standard left-liberal and right-liberal critiques of Orban — “Magyar Man Bad” — are just as shallow as the “Orange Man Bad” critique of Donald Trump. I say that as someone who was critical of Trump myself, though I credited him for smashing the complacent GOP establishment. I write this blog post in the spirit of Tucker Carlson’s excellent January 2016 Politico piece titled, “Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar, and Right.”

I’ve been reading lately a 2019 book, The Light That Failed, by Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes. Both men are liberal scholars who undertake to explain why liberalism failed in Central Europe and Russia after the fall of the Cold War. It’s a remarkably insightful book, one that any conservative with an interest in the problem should read, even though its authors are liberal democrats. They write:

A refusal to genuflect before the liberal West has become the hallmark of the illiberal counter-revolution throughout the post-communist world and beyond. Such a reaction cannot be casually dismissed with the trite observation that “blaming the West” is a cheap way for non-Western leaders to avoid taking responsibility for their own failed policies. The story is much more convoluted and compelling than that. It is a story, among other things, of liberalism abandoning pluralism for hegemony. [Emphasis mine — RD]

You would have thought that in any reasonable pluralistic polity, a sovereign nation choosing to restrict what its children can learn about human sexuality would be of little interest to other nations within that polity. After all, Hungary is not France any more than Estonia is England. There is an immense amount of diversity in Europe. But see, the Cathedral’s liberalism — whether in America or in the EU — is not pluralistic, but hegemonic.

Krastev and Holmes (henceforth, “the authors”) point out that after 1989, the West expected Central European countries to imitate them in every way. The authors — who, remember, are liberals — write:

Without pressing the analogy too far, it’s interesting to observe that the style of regime imitation that took hold after 1989 bears an eerie resemblance to Soviet-era elections where voters, overseen by Party officials, pretended to “choose” the only candidates who were running for office.

…

The authors explain that the reforms demanded by the West weren’t like “grafting a few foreign elements onto indigenous traditions,” but rather “put inherited identity at risk” and stoked “fears of cultural erasure.” From my perspective, this is what you see when you get over here and start looking more closely at what George Soros and people like him, both within and outside of government, did, and seek to do. And so, as the authors put it:

[P]opulism’s political rise cannot be explained without taking account of widespread resentment at the way (imposed) no-alternative Soviet communism, after 1989, was replaced by (invited) no-alternative Western liberalism.

Here’s something I bet you didn’t know about Viktor Orban. After the 2008 crash, Western governments bailed out banks left and right. When Orban came to power in 2010, he chose not to do that, instead taking the side of hard-pressed Hungarian homeowners who had been allowed to take out home loans in Swiss francs. He and his party passed a law to protect homeowners at the expense of the banks.

…

Remember, they wrote this in 2019, but think of this principle applied to now. If you are Viktor Orban, and you look to the West in 2021, you see a United States that is destroying itself with Critical Race Theory wokeness, which is starting to come to Western Europe. You see the Left here in Hungary starting to embrace it (e.g., the Black Lives Matter statue the liberal Budapest city government erected earlier this year), and you know that it will be bad for your country if this poisonous ideology takes root. So you encourage Hungary’s national soccer team not to take the knee before matches.

…

And so, the disintegrating West, headed towards shipwreck, is going to bring Hungary to its knees for trying to protect itself.

…

The authors go on to say that what it means to be a good Western liberal is changing so fast that people in the East never know for sure what vision of society they are supposed to imitate. Think about what it was like for us Americans. I was born in 1967, and educated by schools, by the media, and by every aspect of culture to believe in Dr. Martin Luther King’s colorblind vision. I took it seriously, and I believed in it, and do believe in it. But now the same liberals who argued for that are now arguing that this vision was wrong — that to truly be against racism, you must train yourself to think in exactly the same categories that white segregationists used prior to the Civil Rights revolution. It makes no sense. You come to understand that you have been conned. Never, ever believe liberals: they will change the rules on you, and blame you for your own confusion.

The authors go on to say that sex education in the schools has been a huge flashpoint of conflict within Central and Eastern European societies. It has to do with parents losing the ability to transmit their values to their children. In the flush of post-1989 enthusiasm, young people didn’t so much rebel against their parents as to feel pity for them, and to stop listening to them. The young took their catechism from the Western cathedral. Sex ed was a neuralgic point of the overall struggle between Central European populists, who believed that the traditions and the national heritage of these countries were in danger of being wiped out by the West. Imagine, then, what Hungarian voters must think when they hear the Dutch prime minister threaten to bring their country to its knees because he knows better what they should be teaching their children than they do.

The authors tell a story about how Viktor Orban, at the time an up-and-coming liberal from the countryside, was publicly humiliated by a well-known liberal MP from Budapest’s urban intelligentsia, who adjusted Orban’s tie at a reception, as if doing a favor for a hick cousin.

They go on to explain Orban’s illiberalism by quoting his criticism that liberalism is “basically indifferent to the history and fate of the nation.” Liberal universalism “destroys solidarity,” Orban believes. (“If everybody is your brother, then you are an only child.”) Orban believes that liberal policies will lead to the dissolution of the Hungarian nation because liberals by nature think of the nation as an impediment to the realization of their ideals.

The authors go on to say that Orban has long campaigned on the abuse of the public patrimony by the regime that governed Hungary after 1989, when Communist insiders used their connections to plunder what was left of the public purse, and left the weak to fend for themselves. This attitude explains Orban’s hostility to the banks after the 2008 crash. “[I]n Central and Eastern Europe, defending private property and capitalism came to mean defending the privileges illicitly acquired by the old communist elites,” they write.

(Readers, did you know any of this context about Orban and other critics of liberalism from Central Europe? Doesn’t it make you wonder what more you’re not being told?)

…

What’s preposterous about it? I know these guys are liberals, but what Duda identifies is the difference between soft totalitarianism and hard totalitarianism. In both cases, the Poles don’t get to decide for themselves.

There’s more to the book, but I’ll stop here for today. You don’t have to believe that Viktor Orban or any of these other politicians are saints in order to understand why they believe what they believe — and why people vote for them. The Cathedral did the same thing to Trump and to Trump’s supporters. Yes, there were some Trump voters with disreputable motives, and in any case Trump was by and large not an effective president. But the anti-Trump opposition’s passionate belief in its own righteousness rendered it helpless to understand why so many people hated it, and do hate it still. Trump’s own incompetence made it harder to take that critique seriously.

Trump lost, and most everything he did was wiped away by his successor. Viktor Orban wins — and that is the unforgiveable sin in the eyes of the Cathedral.

Here is the radicalizing thing, though. As you will know if you’ve been reading this blog, Viktor Orban appears to be building a conservative deep state in Hungary. His government has transferred a fortune in public funds and authority over some universities to privately controlled institutions. It is difficult to accept this, at least for me. At the same time, it is impossible for me to look at what has happened in my own country, with the Cathedral now extending its control over every aspect of American life, and to criticize Orban for this. The alternative seems to be surrendering your country and its traditions to the Cathedral, which pretends to be liberal, but which is in fact growing even more authoritarian and intolerant than anything Orban and his party stand for.

It is becoming harder to think of liberalism in the sense we have known it as viable anymore. Me, I would actually prefer to live in a more or less liberal, pluralistic society, where California was free to be California, and Louisiana free to be Louisiana, and so forth. This is not the world we live in.

…

The controversy around Viktor Orban is not only about an obstreperous Hungarian politician who doesn’t play well with others. It’s about the future of the West.

UPDATE: To put it succinctly, we might need soft authoritarianism to save us from soft totalitarianism.

#rod dreher #the american conservative #hungary #orbán viktor

1 note · View note

mbti-notes · 4 years

Note

Hi. My boyfriend is a Trump supporter and I'm more liberal. I'm infp, he's esfj. We try not to talk politics much but it feels like I'm losing my integrity dating someone who has opposing views on things that matter. I do however love him and want to make things work. Where's the middle ground to make genuine peace?

It’s quite a shame that the national conversation in American politics gets reduced to what is essentially sports betting and entertainment. This problem manifests as binary thinking that doesn’t allow any space for the careful deliberation that is required to address complex political, economic, and social issues. Talk to enough people and you will see that most people’s political views can’t be neatly divided into red or blue. Just because someone votes for one particular candidate/party, doesn’t mean that they agree with every little thing that candidate/party ends up doing. For example, surveys have shown that many Republicans dislike Trump himself but they still vote for the promises that he makes to enact conservative policies. Many Democrats are much more progressive than the party itself, but they’ll still vote blue because some progress on the issues is better than no progress on the issues (or, worse, regression).

How does this relate to your question? Trumpism has indeed fractured many relationships in the past four years. Sometimes, for good reason. While it’s possible to find middle ground on many political issues, some beliefs and values simply cannot be reconciled. For instance, you can’t believe in racial equality and be a white supremacist, can you? Is there middle ground to be found there? Would you “compromise” and say that it’s okay to be racist in your mind as long as you don’t wear a white hood and harass people? No.

You mention “losing my integrity”, which means that what you’re actually concerned about is morality rather than politics - there is a difference between them. I’ll give you an example of the disconnect between morality and politics. If you ask people whether they support a specific policy that improves education or healthcare, more often than not, they’ll support it, since few people are so extremist as to want to dismantle the entire education or healthcare system. But once you attach the policy to a political candidate/party, people start to divide themselves along their "team” or tribal allegiances. They’ll refuse to support a policy that they would otherwise agree with just because they don’t want to “help the enemy”. Political psychology is riddled with irrational decision making.

If morality is your actual concern, then here’s my suggestion: For the moment, forget about which candidate or party your boyfriend supports, because it’s far too easy to fall into binary thinking or crude stereotypes by doing that. Don’t use a person’s political beliefs to assume their moral beliefs, because, as per above, people’s beliefs and values rarely align perfectly with the party that they vote for. So, instead, focus solely on what his moral beliefs are.

When you say “losing my integrity”, clarify what that means exactly. Which beliefs and values would someone have to hold in order to constitute a violation of your moral beliefs and values? For instance, if you believe in equality, then you should not be able to tolerate beliefs and values that promote hate, prejudice, and discrimination, right? In other words, what are your moral “deal-breakers”, with regard to the issues that you care about?

Once you’re clear on that, examine what his moral beliefs and values are to see exactly whereabouts you agree or disagree. You must go through this step of clarifying where you both stand morally before you engage in a political discussion. Start by clarifying the moral beliefs, then discuss which political party one should vote for with those beliefs, based on the policies/legislation that each of the parties have a proven history of supporting/resisting. This process is not only a good way to clarify the true nature of the conflict in the relationship, it also serves as a good foundation on which to persuade people to change their political beliefs to better reflect their moral beliefs, should you choose to advocate and persuade.

Are you really in a “relationship” when you don’t communicate about the things that matter to you and thus don’t really know each other? Are you the kind of person who’s content living in your own little world, enjoying your couple’s paradise, without a care for what’s happening around you in the rest of society? If that’s who you are, then fine, bask in your privilege and ignore the politics. If that’s not who you are, then you need to talk about the differences with him and try to work them out, otherwise, the conflict is only going to simmer in the background and create underlying suspicion or resentment that ends up damaging the relationship at some point in the future anyway.

There are times in history when political upheaval requires individuals to take a firm stand for what is right and against what is wrong. It seems that we are living through one of those periods, so how long can you keep your head buried in the sand and still feel like a person of integrity?

#politics #relationships #debate #communication #conflict #morality #ask

15 notes · View notes

napoleoninrags · 4 years

Text

MY PLAN FOR HOW TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AN ELECTION, TRUMP IS REMOVED, AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE GONE FOR GOOD

by Michael Moore

TRUMP HAS DECLARED WAR ON US AND OUR DEMOCRACY.

IT’S TIME FOR US TO PUT OUR LIVES ON THE LINE, IF NECESSARY, AND TO MAKE HIM THE LAST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT OF OUR UNITED STATES.

Trump, right now, tonight, is up to some very nasty, scary stuff — stuff we can’t even imagine — and of course we can’t imagine it because we don’t think like Trump. Our brains are wired for love, empathy, solidarity, compassion, freedom, person, woman, man, camera, TV.

You know like I know that Trump has a devious, wicked plan to destroy this Election. We need to declare, immediately, that it is he and the Republican Party who have to go, for the sake of this country’s existence, they must be crushed and removed.

Trump actually has an arsenal of plans already in action to ensure he never leaves office. He has them all in high gear — some visible, some not. If you could see them all you’d be so stunned, you’d have to immediately convince yourself that there’s no way he can pull this off.

We are all caught in Trump’s Matrix, a mad web, the work of a psychopath-in-chief with tricks so devious that fascists of old, if alive today, would marvel at what Trump has accomplished.

For the next 11 weeks — and then for the 12 weeks between the Election and the Inauguration — Trump is planning nothing but anarchy, chaos, a call to arms of his angry white male followers and the complete destruction of our democracy. You think I’m kidding? You think I’m overstating the case? Do you want to take the risk that I might not be wrong? Most of you understandably chose not to listen to me four years ago when I warned you Trump was going to win the Presidency by taking Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. May I please ask that you now give me your serious attention for what I am about to say — because if I’m right again this time, there won’t be a next time. There will be nothing left for me to warn you about. There probably won’t be much left of me.

Here’s how Trump plans to end our right to choose the next President and Congress. It will happen fast. I am also laying out here a battle plan for us to defeat this takeover of our democracy. We must act now.

HERE ARE TRUMP’S 5 PLANS ALREADY IN MOTION:

PLAN #1: Create Chaos. Instill Fear. Fire Up the Base with Racist Vigor. Pandemonium Ensues.

CHECK. DONE.

PLAN #2: Suppress the Vote

•Dismantle the Post Office.

•Create 4-Hour-Long Lines by Drastically Reducing Number of Polling Locations.

•Throw Black and Brown Voters Off the Rolls.

•Stop Those Who’ve Served Time from Voting.

•Place 50,000 “Poll Watchers” at Voting Sites Around the Country to Intimidate Voters.

VOTER SUPPRESSION IN ACTION AS WE SPEAK.

PLAN #3: Postpone the Election. Place the blame on a “legitimate” national tragedy or emergency — massive deaths from the pandemic, a terrorist attack, an assassination, a deadly hurricane, a civil war in the streets, one or both Presidential candidates falling ill to Covid-19 — anything that reasonable people, even people who are opposed to Trump, will agree that “we just can’t hold an election right now! We just need to postpone it for a couple days, a couple weeks (a couple months... a couple years...)” Or perhaps he’ll just cancel the Election outright and see if he can get away with it.

TRUMP READY TO PULL THE TRIGGER.

PLAN #4: His September Surprise.

His October Surprise.

His November Surprise.

His January Surprise.

You think you can guess what it will be, but trust me, it’ll be far worse. We need to be ready. Stay on high alert, my friends. Millions of us will need to act on a moment’s notice. It’s the grim reaper of Democracy at our doorstep. We made the mistake of letting Trump get this far — why wouldn’t he now think he can get away with everything??

THE SURPRISE IS UNKNOWN. THAT’S WHY IT’S A SURPRISE.

PLAN #5: He Will Not Leave.

When Trump loses, he will declare the Election invalid, rigged, stolen — and he will refuse to step down.

So, what will we do then?

HERE IS OUR BATTLE PLAN TO REMOVE TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICANS:

1. Do Not Wait — Biden/Harris Should Start Running the Country Now.

We simply don’t have time to wait until January 20, 2021. Nearly 200,000 of us have already died from Trump’s reckless incompetence with the coronavirus. By Election Day it’s possible another 100,000 to 200,000 of us will have needlessly died. A total of 400,000 dead? That’s the equivalent of one hundred and thirty-three 9/11s! Or 532 planes being flown into 532 buildings. If something that horrific ever happened, and the President not only didn’t do anything about it, but tried to pretend it wasn’t all that bad - “it is what it is” - he would be run out of the White House by an angry mob of millions of Americans, lucky not to have his head put on a spike on the Key Bridge over the Potomac.

It doesn’t have to come to that. Biden and Harris should present to America a simple nationwide plan to end the pandemic — and then act on it immediately.

They should call a meeting of all the Governors and ask them what help do they need — and then find a way to get them that help, going around Trump and just making it happen. They should ask industry, in lieu of campaign contributions, to produce hundreds of millions of instant-result tests. They should call their Heads of State friends overseas and ask them to send all the PPE they can spare. They should get 250 million Americans to take the “Face Mask Pledge.” And they should promise the scientists in our top universities all the money and help they need once they’re in office. Ignore Trump. Treat him as if he’s irrelevant and get the job done.

2. The Republican Party Must Be Crushed and Destroyed. Trump Must Become the Last Republican President.

In the Michigan county where I live, the August primary this month set a record turnout for a presidential-year primary. In fact, more people this year voted by mail-in ballot than ALL those who voted in 2016 — by mail-in AND in-person combined. This is a highly encouraging sign for what we now need to do:

• We must create an historic massive turnout between now and November 3rd — a tsunami of voters the likes of which have never been seen, and may never be seen again. In 2016, 66 million Americans voted for Hillary Clinton. This time, though, we have to WALLOP Trump with an electoral concussion, a blow so profound he won’t know what hit him. This must be a defeat so crushing, so humiliating, a whooping of such epic proportions that he will be forced to leave 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with his tail between his legs on January 20th. This mammoth landslide must not only ensure that no president ever behaves this way again, we need to see to it that Trump is the last Republican president. The Election Day Uprising must put an end to this party of Trump enablers and traitors. They had a choice. They chose Trump over Democracy. They chose Putin and Netanyahu over fair elections and freedom for all. They chose the 1% over the 160 million working Americans. They chose the NRA over the massacred children of Sandy Hook. They chose to rig our elections, our textbooks, our economy. Democrats helped them along the way, and we’ll take the stick to them and fix that. The Republicans, though, chose to let hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens perish from Covid-19 because loyalty to Party and to Trump was greater than their duty to the American people. For that alone, the Republican Party must be put out of business for good. Vote out every last one of them. Conservatives will have to form a new party, much like when the Whigs were sent packing in the 1800s. The Republicans must pay for their crimes.

• We must flip the Senate —- and not just by the three seats we need for control. We should shock the pundit class and, as the Republican Party is reduced to ashes, grab a solid 55+ seat majority. Colorado, Arizona, Maine, North Carolina, Georgia, Iowa, Montana and even Kansas, South Carolina and, yes, Texas (a state that is now 57% non-white) — are all possible Democratic Senate wins. Think about spending a weekend or a week helping out in one of these states. The Republicans will wish they had managed this pandemic better and had everyone busy back at work by now. All this “free time” should make for their undoing.

• Finally, we have to vote the local Republicans out of office, too. State Houses and Senates will be drawing the electoral map for the next ten years. We can’t let the cheating Republicans do this again. Do what you can to elect Dems in your state and local elections. The punishment of the Republican Party — a certified terrorist organization for having helped kill at least 200,000 Americans — is an imperative.

3. Who Would Be Willing To, If Need Be, Put Their Life on the Line To Ensure This Election Is Held and EVERYONE Gets to Vote? I Would. Would You?

These steps must be taken immediately:

• The Secret Service, the FBI, the Capitol Police and the Joint Chiefs of Staff must be called before Congress and swear under oath that they will guarantee that the election will be held, they will enforce the Constitution they swore to uphold, and if he’s defeated but refuses to leave, they will escort the former President of the United States out of the White House.

• Biden and Harris must put Trump on notice that if he does one more thing to interfere with the Election or issues one more threat to suppress the vote, they will turn him and his crime family over to the new Justice Department for prosecution.

• Every single one of us must be strong in our publicly-stated resolve that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON ON EARTH TO POSTPONE OR CANCEL THE ELECTION. That’s our unmovable and intractable position. No national tragedy, disease, threat or the melting of all of Greenland will cause us not to vote on or before November 3rd. Even if, God forbid, either candidate passes in their sleep between now and Election Day, the Election will continue — and the winner’s VP - or Nancy Pelosi - will become President on Inauguration Day.

• Let’s all pledge that, if Trump tries to cancel the election or if he refuses to accept its results, millions of us will go to DC and encircle the White House, a thousand deep, until he backs down, resigns or is removed.

• And, if you can, quietly make this commitment to yourself: “There are only a very few things I’d be willing to give my life for. This is one of them.” I know. That’s dark. And heavy. And awfully sad because it shouldn’t have come to this. But if we can’t even say that, then what good are we? If we aren’t willing to make that sacrifice, then America is already over and we might as well just fold our tent and see if Canada will take the non-racist, non-homophobic, non war-mongering ones of us who have manners and get satire.

4. Become an Election Defender.

Each of you should form an urgent action group - a rapid response team - in your neighborhood or town and do the following:

• Hold a daily protest at your local post office

• Picket the home of your local Postmaster (he/she may be on your side, so bring them some baked goods)

• Chain yourself to a local blue USPS dropbox if you can find one. Or chain it to something that won’t move.

• Sign up with the city clerk to be a poll worker on Election Day - especially if you’re young. Because of the pandemic, polls will be very short of poll workers. If you’re told they have enough help, then call the local Democratic Party and offer to be a “poll watcher”, the group of people from each party who get to oversee the voting to make sure there are no irregularities.

• Demand your city create more voting locations. Convince owners of arenas, theaters, ball parks, malls - places with large open spaces - to offer their facilities as polling places so that everyone gets a chance to vote.

• Canvas your neighborhoods over the next month to get people to fill out the form you’ll have them sign to get a mail-in ballot — and if they want to vote in person, let them know when the first day is so they can do that. Make a list of who needs a Covid-safe ride. The earlier the better!

5. The Uprising We’re In Is Only Getting Bigger. The People Will Now Call the Shots.

Why wait for the politicians to fix the mess of a country we’re in when they helped orchestrate the mess in the first place? Why don’t we just declare how we want to live — a new way to govern and function as a country — and we will finally fulfill the promise of the American Dream that has never been realized. Life, liberty, true equality, a sharing of the wealth, being good citizens of this world and kind stewards of a fragile Earth.

What have we learned from this pandemic? What we already knew: That employer-based health insurance can evaporate in an instant. Health care is a human right.

That being told “we can’t afford that!” (free college, free child care, free medical care - the things most advanced nations have) is total BS — the government CAN afford anything we decide we need!

We’ve learned that teachers, nurses, the mailwoman, farm workers, mass transit drivers and the minimum wage workers stocking the grocery shelves at 3 in the morning are our most important citizens and they need the respect and income they deserve immediately. 74% of the country now believes a guaranteed annual income is a great idea — fifty percentage points higher than when Andrew Yang proposed it 7 months ago!

We’ve learned to slow down, consume less — and that is what may be the path to saving the planet (when the 4% of its inhabitants [US] is no longer sucking up 25% of its resources and hoarding more than half its wealth).

We’re about to go elect more women than ever before — a time to turn the reins over to the gender that stands a better chance of getting us through the deadly viruses of Covid, Capitalism and Republicans(R.I.P.).

None of this will be launched by politicians. It will only come about through you and me taking action as part of the largest protest movement in our history — still growing, still going strong! — to end the racism, the abuse of the police state, the disgusting income inequality and the hateful misogyny that is going to come to an end in our lifetime.

America, post-pandemic, must become a very different place. Let’s make this happen. Doing the above will be the best cure for the trauma of these past four years.

Commit to being the change.

Organize your friends and family today.

Make your plan to campaign in a swing state Sept. or Oct.

VOTE AS EARLY AS YOU CAN—and take 5 people along with you!

We can do this. Trump - we’re coming for you. I’ll be in the first U-Haul truck that pulls up to your door.

22 notes · View notes

ataswegianabroad · 3 years

Text

Alone Amongst the Gum Trees Part 3 - It Was Murdoch All Along

NOTE - this article has been migrated to Medium. As of 2021, A Taswegian Abroad will be closed down, and all of my writing will be published on my Medium profile.

“For some time, Australia’s democracy has been slowly sliding into disrepair. The nation’s major policy challenges go unaddressed, our economic future is uncertain and political corruption is becoming normalised. We can’t understand the current predicament of our democracy without recognising the central role of Murdoch’s national media monopoly.

There is no longer a level playing field in Australian politics. We won’t see another progressive government in Canberra until we deal with this cancer in our democracy.”

- Kevin Rudd - THE CASE FOR COURAGE

Foreword

I started this as a brain dump on July 25th, 2016 just before I flew back to Australia for 4 weeks. I decided to wait to finish it as an “Alone Amongst the Gum Trees” piece after the 2016 US election as it would have directly impacted the outcome.

That was the plan, anyway. I forgot entirely that I had written this draft for almost 5 years. The next thing you know: it’s early 2021, I’m married, have a dog, a car, and my first child is due in August.

My last political opinion piece was from April 11, 2016: a piece on how Bernie Sanders was being treated in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election.

So what happened from mid-2016 to early 2021? I didn’t jump back down the political commentary rabbit hole. No more rants on Tumblr blogs. No angry posts on Facebook. The odd spicy tweet about the current election happening between my old home (Australia), my new home (Canada) and the messed up cousin next door (United States). I instead chose to divert my love of writing to sports (see https://thefiftyfooty.com/), technology, and music.

From a political standpoint I chose to mostly stop talking, and to listen. Now don’t become misconstrued: I did not ignore it. I was very active over the Provincial and Federal Canadian elections of 2015 and 2019, I followed the unprecedented US political climate very closely given our proximity to the United States (and learned a lot in the process), and I voted in the most recent 2019 Australian election (my third from Toronto since leaving in 2012).

If I take a step back - I still need to be self-critical: I was defeated and I surrendered to the tidal-wave of the far-right. I was watching the US tear itself in two over race, alternative facts, and radical ideology. I was watching the UK go down a similar path with Brexit and Boris Johnson. I was watching my beloved homeland of Australia continue to confusingly elect damaging conservative governments despite the polls, trends, movements and more indicating it was time for a change.

As I matured into my late 20′s and now early 30′s (*gulp*) I was asking myself: was this how it was going to be? Did the western world just decide “we’re done with progressive views, let stick it in reverse for a bit and see how we go”? If that was true, then why did Canada buck this trend with Trudeau in 2015 & 2019? Why was New Zealand thriving under Arden after 2017 and 2020?

I went to a dark place on this.

But then something amazing happened. Enter former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd talking about wanting a royal commission into Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp empire who control 70% of print media in Australia.

Did he say 70% of all print media in Australia?

I STRONGLY recommend taking 15 minutes to watch this video. It will do a much better job of painting the scene than I ever could. If not, you can still read on through.

youtube

After doing some looking into this: all I can say is that I didn’t have to dig very far to have my fire reignited. All I can think about now is this #MurdochRoyalCommission

My world view has changed, and what I am about to write next will explain a few things that I hope will change yours too.

This is not a left vs right piece. This is not a blame, shame, or complain piece either. I won’t curse or abuse, because this is a self reflection, a cry of encouragement, and a call to action to all who live in and want to protect the political integrity of democracy around the world.

I am here to explain my thought patterns with the goal of having at least one more person under the thumb of Murdoch’s “beast” realise just what’s going on, and to encourage that person to make more informed decisions knowing the facts.

The Path to En-frightened-ment

February 2014 was the last time I updated the long-form political arm of my blog. Back then as a young man exposed to his first bout of political and social disappointment after the 2013 Australian election - I felt the need to get it all out and I did in a little more linguistically brash Part 2 of “Alone Amongst the Gum Trees”.

I was in an interesting position then. I was a 23 year old finding his place in the world - personally, politically, spiritually, environmentally. I was mostly deciding whether or not I was done with Toronto and it if was time to stay home permanently after spending 3 months back in Australia.

I chose no. I left. I came back to Toronto and the rest is history.

Then one day a couple of years later I got us flights back to Australia for a visit. After nearly 3 years avoiding it (mostly because of my post-election distaste for Australian ignorance), it was time to bite the bullet and go home for a bit.

In 2014 I mentioned:

...let’s talk about Australia, how things changed, how it looked from outside the huge wall that the government apparently has built around the country now, and how it looks from a bloke who literally can not wait to leave again.

I had been anxious about that trip for a while. Not because I hadn’t seen everyone for so long or because it was my wife’s (then girlfriend who became my fiance on that trip) first time visiting, it was because Australia had a chance to move away from the “ignorance, inequality, narrow-minded idiocy, and over-conservatism” I mentioned in 2014.

But we didn’t. Turnbull won the 2016 election. I was so angry at the Australian people. I was so scared of that ignorant, greedy, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, narrow minded, privileged, climate denying creature that seems to be slowly devouring the planet.

From that point in time, all I could think about was some sort of big right-wing populist shift happening across the globe. Outside of the obvious ones: Trump in the USA, Johnson in the UK and Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison in Australia, there were a few more extreme cases: Putin in Russia, Marine Le Pen in France, Viktor Orban in Hungary. Then there’s Cambodia, Brazil, Turkey, Egypt etc who saw this as a huge advantage as well. It may not be the end of a progressive vision of the world but it definitely seemed like the beginning of a big switch.

One thing I learned during my political writing hiatus while serving my self-induced “exile” to Canada is that this country was one of the few blips in this trend. Why did Canada choose to elect Justin Trudeau in 2015, a left wing liberal, after 9 years of Harper’s conservative government? Was it simply because Canadians were good and fair people? Did they just fundamentally understand that you need both conservative and progressive governments to advance society? Perhaps they do, and Canadians are most definitely good and fair people regardless of election results. I am even set to become a Canadian citizen myself (and a dual-citizen overall) in 2021.

So where is this all coming from? Why are the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom on a continued path to segregation, protectionism, populism and division while Canada and New Zealand show basically zero of these tendencies?

The News Corp cancer that is Rupert Murdoch’s media empire is the deciding factor.

So What Does Kevin Rudd Have To Do With It?

Mr. Rudd has been living in the USA for the last 5 years and is firmly spearheading the charge in that Rupert Murdoch’s media behemoth “News Corp” has been unlawfully influencing Australian opinion and undermining elections in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States for close to 3 decades (more predominantly in the last 8 years).

Before you read any further I have to be transparent about my opinions of Kevin Rudd. I accredit his “Kevin 07″ campaign as the catalyst for my interest in politics, my decision to study economics at university, and my ongoing support for progressive policies in every federal and state election since 2007. His work has played a big part in shaping me into the person I am today.

Despite my positive position on Mr. Rudd, I am also disappointed he did not action this during his time as prime minister. However, I am “all in” when it comes to what he is standing for, and that is:

Eradicating monopolies in all forms (be it political, business, journalism, etc)

Improving media literacy to encourage fair and unbiased journalism

Avoiding the pitfalls of Murdoch's divisive influence on the USA happening to Australia

There’s a few key factoids to his claims of mass-media bias:

70% of print media in Australia is owned by ONE MAN: Rupert Murdoch (100% owned in Queensland)

Print media influences the national conversation on a daily basis

Rupert Murdoch owns the biggest YouTube channel in Australia (news.com.au)

The line between fact-based and opinion-based reporting continues to blur, resembling that of CNN (Democrats) and Fox (Republican) extreme partisanship in the USA

All of Murdoch’s papers have backed the Liberal/National party in all 19 out of the last 19 federal and state elections

The ABC is breaching the Australian Broadcasting Act of 1983 by not standing up to Murdoch media purely out of fear

Politicians are not standing up out of fear of character assassination

Whether or not Murdoch is backing left or right, Labor or Liberal, the question still remains:

Do you think it is healthy for a FOREIGN PRIVATE ENTITY to own a monopoly level of influence on a sovereign country’s political system for that private entity to use for their own personal gain through targeted media attacks and character assassinations?

Watch This Space...

There are utter mountains of evidence to accompany these claims, and to make sure you can digest what I am trying to say, I recommend that you sink your teeth into the following videos to validate and truly comprehend the size of the tumour we are dealing with:

Feb 20, 2020 - 1h - Friendlyjordies informal interview with Kevin Rudd

This is right before the Covid outbreak in March, which delayed Mr. Rudd’s ability to move for a formal commission into media bias

Provides excellent insight into the ABC’s lack of action, the opportunism of the Green party, and the complete absence of unbiased reporting in Australia

Feb 18, 2021 - 1h 30m - Kevin Rudd Officially Requesting Royal Commission to Australian Senate

The first 20-30 minutes provide Mr. Rudd’s summary of the situation

The remainder of the video consists of questions from both Labor and Liberal senators about Mr. Rudd’s claims

Mar 1, 2021 - 2m - Kevin Rudd speaks to Sunrise about the Murdoch monopoly

Mr. Rudd went on a national flagship morning show to discuss his concerns regarding News Corp

LISTEN to the questions being asked of him: completely disregarding his valid points and dismissing him as “sour grapes”

Channel 7 is not News Corp, so why try to discredit Mr. Rudd? Fear of being targeted by News Corp

Mar 9, 2021 - 1h - National Press Club: The Case for Courage

Mr. Rudd stands up in front of The National Press Club of Australia to promote the four big challenges facing Australia in his upcoming book “The Case for Courage”

He takes questions from journalists from both Murdoch and non-Murdoch media outlets

As I start to conclude this piece, for action to happen, an independent royal commission is required to get to the facts. Mr. Rudd already gathered over 500,000 signatures that were recently sent to Prime Minister Scott Morrison asking for the royal commission to take place, but this is not enough.

Even former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, a friend of Rupert Murdoch and political opposite to Mr. Rudd, signed the petition and said the following:

Mr Turnbull, a former Liberal prime minister, said the Murdoch media used to be a group of traditional right-leaning outlets but has now become "a vehicle of propaganda."

He told ABC television's Insiders program on Sunday that Australian democracy was suffering for allowing the "crazy, bitter partisanship" of social media to creep into the mainstream.

"We have to work out what price we're paying, as a society, for the hyper-partisanship of the media," Mr Turnbull said.

"Look at the United States and the terrible, divided state of affairs that they're in, exacerbated, as Kevin was saying, by Fox News and other right-wing media."

I recently sent a (somewhat long) letter to Mr. Rudd expressing my concern for the state of Australia’s media landscape, with it culminating in the following questions:

I am deeply moved and inspired by your bravery to take on "the beast" as you so aptly name it, and I want to boldly ask: how can I help? How can I get involved?

I am yet to hear back from Mr. Rudd himself - but I think if you’ve gotten this far, you know what I am about to say next.

I want to help, learn more, or get involved.

That’s amazing. We’re not asking for money, just action. Here’s some ways you can help is stop the rot:

SUBSCRIBE TO and FOLLOW direct updates from Kevin Rudd:

Website / Newsletters

https://newsroyalcommission.com/

https://kevinrudd.com/

Social media alongside the #MurdochRoyalCommission hashtag on all platforms:

Twitter

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Boycott News Corp media sites, publications, and channels

I’ve linked a list of all assets by News Corp above

This includes steering clear of ALL mediums of news owned by these publications and outlets including the respective:

Social media channels and pages

Television and radio news channels

Print and online newspapers and articles

SHARE and spread the word of this cancer affecting our democracy

Talk TO your friends and family (not AT them) and LISTEN to their views - people are not dumb: this will make sense if given time to digest

WATCH the videos posted above as a start, alongside a few more recommendations:

This interview between Friendly Jordies and former Labor Leader Bill Shorten from earlier in March 2021

I learned more about Bill Shorten in the last 20 minutes of this interview than I did in his entire run as opposition leader.

This just goes to show you how utterly mistreated he was by Murdoch media

For a laugh - every episode of Kevin Rudd: PM from Rove McManus’ late night show

I want Australia to remain a safe, secure, and lucky country to raise my family in someday. I care about this very much and plan to ramp up my content around this until we are free from the Murdoch beast and its lies.

Thank you so much for reading, as always, I am happy to discuss.

List of Murdoch (News Corp) Owned Outlets [Expanded Below]

Television

Foxtel (65%)

Australian News Channel

Fox Sports Australia

Streamotion

Fox Sports News

Fox Cricket

Fox Footy

Fox League

Kayo Sports

Binge

Sky News Australia

Sky News Weather

Sky News Extra

Sky After Dark

Australia Channel (News Streaming channel)

Sky News New Zealand

Sky News on WIN

Internet

Punters.com.au — Australian horse racing and bookmaker affiliate.

SuperCoach

Australia Best Recipes

hipages

odds.com.au

Mogo

One Big Switch

Knewz, a news aggregator

Realestate.com.au

Advertising, Branding & Tech

Global

Storyful

News UK

bridge studio

wireless Group

wireless studios

urban media

First Radio

Switchdigital

TIBUS

ZESTY

News Corp Australia

SUDDENLY - Content Agency

Medium Rare Content Agency

HT&E (Here, There & Everywhere)

News Xtend

Radio

News UK & Ireland

wireless Group

talkSPORT

talkSPORT 2

talkRADIO

Virgin Radio

FM104

Q102

96FM

c103

Live 95FM

LMFM

U105

Scottish Sun 80s

Scottish Sun Hits

Scottish Sun Greatest Hits

Times Radio

Magazines and Inserts (digital and print)

News Corp Australia

Big League

body+soul

Broncos

Business Daily

delicious

Escape

Foxtel

GQ Australia

Hit

Kidspot

Mansion Australia

Motoring

Sportsman

Super Food Ideas

taste.com.au

The Deal

The Weekend Australian Magazine

Vogue Australia

Vogue Living

Whimn

Wish

News & Magazines (digital and print)

News UK

The Sun

The Times

The Sunday Times

Press Association (part owned, News UK is one of 26 shareholders)

The TLS (Times Literary Supplement)

News Corp Australia

The Australian including weekly insert magazine The Deal and monthly insert magazine (wish)

The Weekend Australian

Australian Associated Press

news.com.au

New South Wales

The Daily Telegraph

The Sunday Telegraph including insert magazine sundaymagazine

Victoria

Herald Sun

Sunday Herald Sun including insert magazine sundaymagazine

Lions Raw

Samizdat

Queensland

The Courier-Mail including weekly insert magazine QWeekend

The Sunday Mail

Brisbane News

South Australia

The Advertiser including the monthly insert The Adelaide magazine

Sunday Mail

Tasmania

The Mercury

The Sunday Tasmanian

Northern Territory

Northern Territory News

Sunday Territorian

Community suburban newspapers

Cumberland/Courier (NSW) newspapers

Blacktown Advocate

Canterbury-Bankstown Express

Central

Central Coast Express Advocate

Fairfield Advance

Hills Shire Times

Hornsby and Upper North Shore Advocate

Inner West Courier

Liverpool Leader

Macarthur Chronicle

Mt Druitt-St Marys Standard

NINETOFIVE

North Shore Times

Northern District Times

NORTHSIDE

Parramatta Advertiser

Penrith Press

Rouse Hill Times

Southern Courier

The Manly Daily

The Mosman Daily

Village Voice Balmain

Wentworth Courier

Leader (Vic) newspapers

Bayside Leader

Berwick/Pakenham Cardinia Leader

Brimbank Leader

Caulfield Glen Eira/Port Philip Leader

Cranbourne Leader

Dandenong/Springvale Dandenong Leader

Diamond Valley Leader

Frankston Standard/Hastings Leader

Free Press Leader

Heidelberg Leader

Hobsons Bay Leader

Hume Leader

Knox Leader

Lilydale & Yarra Valley Leader

Manningham Leader

Maribyrnong Leader

Maroondah Leader

Melbourne Leader

Melton/Moorabool Leader

Moonee Valley Leader

Moorabbin Kingston/Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader

Mordialloc Chelsea Leader

Moreland Leader

Mornington Peninsula Leader

Northcote Leader

Preston Leader

Progress Leader

Stonnington Leader

Sunbury/Macedon Ranges Leader

Waverley/Oakleigh Monash Leader

Whitehorse Leader

Whittlesea Leader

Wyndham Leader

Quest (QLD) newspapers

Albert & Logan News (Fri)

Albert & Logan News (Wed)

Caboolture Shire Herald

Caloundra Journal

City News

City North News

City South News

Ipswich News

Logan West Leader

Maroochy Journal

North-West News

Northern Times

Northside Chronicle

Pine Rivers Press/North Lakes Times

Redcliffe and Bayside Herald

South-East Advertiser

South-West News/Springfield News

Southern Star

The Noosa Journal

weekender

Westside News

Wynnum Herald

Weekender Essential Sunshine Coast

Messenger (SA) newspapers

Adelaide Matters

City Messenger

City North Messenger

East Torrens Messenger

Eastern Courier Messenger

Guardian Messenger

Hills & Valley Messenger

Leader Messenger

News Review Messenger

Portside Messenger

Southern Times Messenger

Weekly Times Messenger

Community (WA) newspapers

(50.1%) (Formerly)

Advocate

Canning Times

Comment News

Eastern Reporter

Fremantle-Cockburn Gazette

Guardian Express

Hills-Avon Valley Gazette

Joondalup-Wanneroo Times

Mandurah Coastal / Pinjarra Murray Times

Melville Times

Midland-Kalamunda Reporter

North Coast Times

Southern Gazette

Stirling Times

Weekend-Kwinana Courier

Weekender

Western Suburbs Weekly

Sun (NT) newspapers

Darwin Sun

Litchfield Sun

Palmerston Sun

Regional and rural newspapers

New South Wales

Tweed Sun

Tweed Daily News

Victoria

Echo

Geelong Advertiser

GeelongNEWS

The Weekly Times

Queensland

Bowen Independent

Burdekin Advocate

Cairns Sun

Gold Coast Bulletin

Gold Coast Sun

Herbert River Express

Home Hill Observer

Innisfail Advocate

Northern Miner

Port Douglas & Mossman Gazette

Tablelander – Atherton

Tablelands Advertiser

The Cairns Post

The Noosa News

The Sunshine Coast Daily

Townsville Bulletin

Toowoomba Chronicle

Townsville Sun

weekender

Daily Mercury (Mackay)

Tasmania

Derwent Valley Gazette

Tasmanian Country

Northern Territory

Centralian Advocate

International

Papua New Guinea

Papua New Guinea Post-Courier (63%)

United States

New York Post

Wall Street Journal

realtor.com

Move (80%)

Dow Jones & Company

Consumer Media Group

The Wall Street Journal – the leading US financial newspaper

Wall Street Journal Europe closed

The Wall Street Journal Asia closed

Barron's – weekly financial markets magazine

Marketwatch – financial news and information website

Financial News

Heat Street - news and opinion website

Mansion Global - global luxury property website

Enterprise Media Group

Dow Jones Newswires – global, real-time news and information provider.

Factiva – provides business news and information together with content delivery tools and services.

Dow Jones Indexes – stock market indexes and indicators, including the Dow Jones Industrial Average. (10% ownership)

Dow Jones Financial Information Services – produces databases, electronic media, newsletters, conferences, directories, and other information services on specialised markets and industry sectors.

Betten Financial News – leading Dutch language financial and economic news service.

Strategic Alliances

STOXX (33%) – joint venture with Deutsche Boerse and SWG Group for the development and distribution of Dow Jones STOXX indices.

Wireless Group

Talksport

TalkRadio

Books

HarperCollins

4th Estate

Collins

Ecco Press

Harlequin Enterprises

Harper Perennial

Harper Voyager

Kappa Books

Modern Publishing

Unisystems Inc.

Zondervan Publishing

Christian publishing company taken over by HarperCollins in 1988

Inspirio – religious gift production

#murdochroyalcommission #rudd #auspol #politics

1 note · View note

somethingusefulfromflorida · 3 years

Text

Alternate Cold War Elections

Democratic Presidential Nominees

1960: John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson

1964: John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson

1968: Lyndon B. Johnson/Hubert Humphrey

1972: Lyndon B. Johnson/Hubert Humphrey

1976: Hubert Humphrey/Fred Harris

1980: Ted Kennedy/Mo Udall

1984: Gary Hart/Jesse Jackson

1988: Gary Hart/Jesse Jackson

1992: Jesse Jackson/Al Gore

Republican Presidential Nominees

1960: Richard Nixon/Henry Cabot Lodge Jr

1964: Barry Goldwater/William E. Miller

1968: Nelson Rockefeller/Ronald Reagan

1972: Ronald Reagan/George Romney

1976: Ronald Reagan/Bob Dole

1980: Ronald Reagan/Bob Dole

1984: Bob Dole/George Bush

1988: Pat Robertson/Pat Buchanan

1992: Ted Stevens/Pat Saiki

1960 occurs as it did in our timeline, but 1964 sees Kennedy survive his assassination attempt and win re-election against segregationist and father of modern conservatism Barry Goldwater.

1968 sees Vice President Johnson as the front runner following the assassination of the president’s brother and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. Johnson still picks Hubert Humphrey as his running mate in this timeline as he did in our 1964, because Humphrey was a civil rights activist and father of modern liberalism (he’d be a progressive today, but in the 60s that was seen as a Republican term because of Teddy Roosevelt). Because Kennedy is still alive, Richard Nixon doesn’t stand a chance at securing renomination; he won in our 1968 because he positioned himself as less extreme than loser Goldwater, but in this timeline it would be a close race between moderate governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York and conservative governor Ronald Reagan of California. Rockefeller would probably pick Reagan as his VP to balance the ticket, east and west, liberal and conservative, while in our timeline the non-extremist but still conservative Nixon chose moderate governor Spiro Agnew of Massachusetts. Rockefeller/Reagan loses because Johnson’s messaging is clear (liberal), while Rockefeller’s is muddled (mixed ticket).

1972 sees Johnson and Humphrey narrowly win re-election because of their handling of the 1969-1970 recession and their promise to end the Vietnam War. Johnson died in 1973 in our timeline, so it’s possible he might bow out and let Humphrey get the nomination in 72, but I think he would be more likely to stay on as president and die in office. Ronald Reagan would be the front runner for the Republicans, and I see him likely winning the popular vote, with moderate governor George Romney of Massachusetts as his running mate. For a long time, Republicans tended to run on split tickets; liberal Eisenhower and conservative Nixon, conservative Nixon and moderate Agnew then moderate Ford, moderate Ford and conservative Dole, conservative Reagan and moderate Bush, years later we saw moderate McCain and conservative Palin, moderate Romney and conservative Ryan. That ship had sailed though, it’ll be noting but conservatives from here on out. But in this version of 72, Reagan plays it safe with moderate Romney (father of Mitt)

1976 sees president Humphrey run for re-election and lose in a landslide to Reagan who was so popular with Republicans that they would nominate him again despite losing. This is what they did to Nixon in our timeline, and it’s what the Democrats did to Adlai Stephenson in the 1950s. At first I thought Humphrey would run with former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter because he needed a moderate southerner to stand a chance, but Carter was not nationally known; he only won our 1976 because he positioned himself as a non-corrupt Washington outsider in the wake of Watergate. No Nixon in this timeline means no Watergate, so no need for Carter to run. Humphrey is super liberal, and he actually considered picking Oklahoma senator Fred Harris as his running mate in our 1968, so I’ll go with him instead. Harris supported Johnson’s Great Society (New Deal 2.0, War on Poverty), but didn’t support his war crimes in Vietnam. He ran himself in 72 and 76, losing both times, so I think he’s the perfect choice for Humphrey’s Vice. Reagan chooses fellow conservative Bob Dole as his VP this time because he figured Romney and the moderates were a liability last time; he goes full conservative (in for a penny in for a pound). I chose Dole because that’s who Gerald Ford picked in our 1976; moderate Ford originally had moderate Rockefeller as his VP, but replaced him with conservative Dole because he didn’t want to alienate conservative voters with a moderate/liberal Republican ticket against the moderate/liberal Democratic ticket of Carter and Mondale.

1980 would be much closer in this timeline than in ours. The economic policies that made Reagan king of the 80s make him royal fool of the 70s. The 1980 recession is seen as his fault instead of Carter’s, he pushes for wars against Iran after the revolution and the Soviets after they invade Afghanistan, which are unpopular so soon after Vietnam. Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, brother of the still alive former president John F. Kennedy, is the frontrunner for the Democrats, and he picks representative Mo Udall as his VP. Udall was super liberal and the frontrunner in our 1976, only losing because Carter had less baggage; he would have been the first sitting representative to be elected president since James A. Garfield in 1880. When Kennedy challenged Carter in the 1980 primaries, Udall was his main supporter, so it makes sense for her to unite in this version of 1980. I think Reagan would win because he has a slight incumbency advantage, but it’s nowhere near the landslide of his 84 re-election in our timeline. I expect he would be impeached by House Democrats over his dealings with Iran and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan; in this timeline there was no Watergate, so this would become the defining scandal of the 20th century. Reagan wouldn’t resign because he was too proud and figures he had enough support to survive impeachment; he’s probably right, becoming the second president to be impeached and acquired after Andrew Johnson in 1868. But this means he is reviled by both parties after leaving office, going down in history as a middling-to-bad president like Nixon or George W. Bush

Senator Gary Hart of Colorado was a frontrunner in both 84 (losing to the late VP Walter Mondale, liberal protege of Hubert Humphrey), and 88 (dropping out of the race because of reports of an extramarital affair). Without Mondale as a challenger, he would win the 84 nomination hands down. I have him pick Reverend Jesse Jackson as his running mate to mirror our Mondale’s choice of Geraldine Ferraro. Ferraro would have been the first female VP, and Jackson would become the first black VP. After the economic collapse brought on by the scandal plagued Reagan administration, the Democrats were all but guaranteed to win back the White House as they did in our 76. Reagan’s VP Dole would be the front runner, and he would go back to the split ticket strategy, picking moderate CIA director George Bush as his running mate. Bush was the frontrunner in our 80 because he was the most experienced candidate with the highest qualifications, a foreign policy expert who lost to Reagan because he was REALLY boring. Regan picked him as VP to unite the party’s wings, so I can see Dole trying that here.

Side note: President Hart would have a very different relationship with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the UK (if the Conservative Party was still in power in this timeline; they won in part because Democrat Carter was a terrible president, making their UK analog Labour Party look bad). In our timeline, Obama chose Hart as Envoy to Northern Ireland (like an ambassador, but Northern Ireland isn’t an independent country), so this Hart would be integral in opposing Thatcher’s death squads, helping to ease tensions during the Troubles

1988 sees Hart/Jackson re-elected, though his affair might become an analog to Clinton’s Lewinski Scndal, leading to the Republican Revolution in the 80s instead of the 90s. Reagan would be redeemed in the eyes of conservatives, and the Democratic sex scandal would lead them to pick another far-right evangelical as their nominee, televangelist Pat Robertson, who came in third in the Republican primaries in our 88 against VP Bush and senator Dole. No Bush and no Dole means Robertson is the frontrunner, and I figure he’d pick equally conservative columnist Pat Buchanan as his VP; Buchanan challenged Bush from the right in the 92 primaries, winning nearly a quarter of the vote (for the record, most incumbents run unopposed). Robertson and Buchanan are both non-politicians, so think of them as Double Trump.

1992, VP Jesse Jackson would be the frontrunner for the Democrats, though challenged from the right by moderate governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas. I think Jackson would get the nomination, but I don’t know if he would win because of conservative opposition to the super liberal Hart administration; it would be like Al Gore’s race in the 2000, with everybody comparing him to the divisive Clinton. Jackson would stand a better chance than Gore though because he would make history as the first black presidential nominee, a proto-Obama. A Midwesterner, I figure he’d want to distance himself from westerner Hart by picking a southerner like Clinton, though Clinton would reject him because he wants the top spot, not the #2. He might then go for governor Douglas Wilder of Virginia, the first black governor since reconstruction, though having two black candidates on the same ticket would be a pipe dream in the 90s. He would probably end up with senator Al Gore, just like our Clinton; Gore chose not to run for president in 92 because his son had been hit by a car, which wouldn’t happen in this timeline because of the butterfly effect. Republicans in our timeline rallied behind senate majority leader Bob Dole; if he were VP under Reagan and the failed nominee in 84, they would probably gather around Ted Stevens of Alaska instead. Stevens was the Republican whip (#2) and frontrunner for majority leader in 1995 before narrowly losing to Dole, so he would probably be leader in this timeline, making him the presidential frontrunner in 96, though he was more moderate because he was personally pro-abortion and eventually pro-environmentalism (conservative Nixon created the EPA, so maybe Stevens would be similar). He might pick Patricia Saiki, former Republican representative from Hawaii, just to create a totally Pacific ticket as a gimmick, as well as nominating the first woman VP like Ferraro in our 84.

I have no clue who would win in this 92. If Jackson, he would run again in 96, but I have no idea who against. If Stevens, he would run again in 96 against Bill Clinton; Clinton was like Reagan, extremely ambitious, he would not stop until he took the White House.

I’m open to suggestions going forward from here. 1992 largely depends on whether or not Ross Perot runs as an independent and gains as much traction as he did in our timeline. Most third party candidates have either no national appeal or exclusively regional appeal, but Perot was a legitimate contender, qualifying for debates with Bush and Clinton and eventually winning nearly a fifth of the popular vote. It would also depend more on the Cold War; without Reagan in the 80s, US-Soviet relations would be very different, and there’s no guarantee that the USSR would collapse. The Berlin Wall would definitely fall, but I don’t know what 1991 would look like in this alternate Russia.

What do you guys think?

8 notes · View notes