#running for congress on the platform of passing a bill forcing all companies to have in-house captioners and subtitlers

[william-r-melich]

Tik Tok Bill/HR 7521 - 03/16/2024

Bill HR 7521 passed 3 days ago in the house of representatives by a vote of 352 - 65. If this bill passes in the Senate, which looks likely, Joe Biden said he will sign it, which will purportedly ban Tik Tok. It wouldn't really ban it, but what it will do is force Byte Dance, the Chinese company that owns Tik Tok, to divest by providing a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divesture. In other words, they would have to sell it. They would also have to shut down their internet hosting service. Someone in the U.S. would buy it. I've been on the fence with this one as well with whether or not Biden will remain on the ticket. After reading a portion of the bill I saw a loophole regarding what can be done with a foreign person. Donald Trump, who back in 2020 wanted to ban Tik Tok, he's now against banning it. He said that banning Tik Tok would give the government too much power and would make Facebook more of a monopoly. I sure hope his 180-degree shift wasn't partly made because he has a big campaign donor from Tik Tok. Elon Musk is against it. He thinks it will lead to the government having too much control of wording and censorship on all media platforms. He argues that it doesn't just involve foreign adversaries. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie on X posted this: "The president will be given the power to ban WEB SITES, not just Apps.--"The person breaking the new law is deemed to be the U.S. (or offshore) INTERNET HOSTING SERVICE or App Store, not the 'foreign adversary.' " The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) controls what content is allowed on Tik Toc, and the version that is used in China is very different to what's allowed on it outside of China, like here in the U.S. In China they're teaching their children strict discipline and loyalty to the CCP without other harmful content, brainwashing them into their collectivist ideologies. Outside of China they are allowing and promoting content that encourages self-harm and suicide. The big concern in Congress is that the CCP is using the platform to collect as much personal data as they can to be later used against us for nefarious reasons.

Bytedance is the parent company running Tik Toc, and it's former CEO, Zhang Yiming, in 2018 wrote an open public letter of apology to the CCP's headquarters. He was in trouble for not directing his tech companies to push the party's communist agenda far enough, including for what they termed as Xi Jinping thought. Here's some of that letter translated in English:

"I sincerely apologize to regulators, our users and colleagues. I have been in a state of guilt and remorse since I received the notice from the regulatory authority yesterday afternoon and stayed up all night."

"Toutino will permanently shut down the app and the Wechat account of Neihan Duanzi. The product has gone astray, posting content that goes against socialist core values. It's all on me. I accept all the punishment since it failed to direct public opinion in the right way."

"I blame myself for failing to live up to the guidance and expectations of the authorities. In the past few years, the authorities have given us a lot of guidance and help, but I failed to understand properly and to correct properly in the past that resulted in the repercussions today."

"I blame myself for failing the support and trust of our users. We one-sidedly focused on growth and scale without paying timely attention to quality and responsibility of guiding users to obtain positive information. We have failed to undertake corporate social responsibility, and lack emphasis and understanding of our roles in carry forward the positive energy, and guide public opinion properly."

"I reflect that the deep-seated problems for the company are: a weak understanding of the 'four consciousness,' a lack of socialist core values, and a biased guidance of public opinion. 'In the past, we have placed too much emphasis on the role of technology, and failed to realize that socialist core values are the prerequisite to technology. We need to spread positive messages in line with the requirements of the times while respecting public order and good practice.' "

The "four consciousness," to which he referred is described in the following CCP directive as translated into English; CCP Central Committee Publishers Plan for Deepening the Reform of Party and State Agencies. March 18, 2021:

"To deepen reform of the Party and state agencies at this new historical turning point, we must comprehensively implement the Spirit of the 19th Party Congress and persist in taking Marxism -- Leninism, Ma Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Important Thinking of the 'Three Represents,' the Scientific Development Concept, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as the guide. We must firmly establish political consciousness, consciousness of the big picture, consciousness of the core leadership, and consciousness of falling in line with party directives. We must resolutely maintain the authority and centralized unified leadership of the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping as the core. We must adapt to the development requirements of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era, persist in the general principle of seeking progress while maintaining stability, and adhere to the proper direction of reform. We must persist in being people-centered, and persist in comprehensively ruling the country according to law."

It seems clear to me that the CCP wants to dominate the world and control how everyone thinks. We can't let that happen. The harmful content on Tik Tok can be found on some of the other platforms, but apparently on Tik Tok it's been more harmful and addictive to kids. Amnesty International 2 reports: "Driven into the Darkness: How Tik Tok Encourages Self-harm and Suicidal Ideation and the I Feel Exposed: Caught in Tik Tok's Surveillance Web - highlight the abuses experienced by children and young people using Tik Tok Outside of China. Between 3 and 20 minutes into our manual research, more than half of the videos in the 'For You' feed were related to mental health struggles with multiple recommended videos in a single hour romanticizing, normalizing or encouraging suicide."

Here's how a portion of the Tik Tok bill reads - HR 7521:

(iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or (B) a covered company that -- (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of -- (I) a public notice proposing such determination; and (II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annes and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divesture. (4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY, -- The term "foreign adversary country" means a country specified with respect to a covered company or other entity is -- (A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country. (B) an entity with respect to which a foreign person or combination of foreign persons described in "subparagraph (A) directly or indirectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or (C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) (B). (2) Covered Company -- (A) IN GENERAL -- The term "covered company" means an entity that operates, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), a website, desktop application, or augmented or immersive technology application.

The loophole I see is that there are people here from China that are legal to work and live here (green card) and who have a residence in China. The President (Joe Biden) could divest any website or app operated by a company with such a person in its employ from China with a green card who happens to own at least 20% of that company. I haven't read through the entire bill, nor am I an expert on Congressional bills or policies, but there might be other loopholes to be found. Given all that I have considered on this, I think divesting Tik Tok is a good idea, but only with no loopholes or wiggle room. I don't trust the government, their too giddy about this and I suspect they may have something up their sleeves. Next to our own ability to destroy ourselves from within, I think China is our biggest threat. This is serious stuff and we're in some very dangerous situations. We've got to get this right and get the right leader in the White House, which, in my humble opinion, is Donald J. Trump.

#trump #donald trump #tik tok #tiktok #china #bytedance #congress #state #hr 7521 #foreign adversary #national security #joe biden #biden #xi jinping #marxism #socialism #communism #marxism leninism #leninism #party #ma zedong #thought #xiaoping theory #4 consciousness #ccp #ccp directive #collectivism #social media platforms #elon musk #website

[leguin]

also the netflix subtitles for the social network are astoundingly incomplete, and include ‘winklevii’ as ‘winklevi’. i just need that on the record.

#running for congress on the platform of passing a bill forcing all companies to have in-house captioners and subtitlers #who get paid at least double minimum wage and also accurately capture all audio in all videos #no censorship and no winklevis

[arcticdementor]

Larry the Cable Guy made the phrase “Git-R-Done” his signature. A new breed of young Republicans and populists has its own message for their establishment elders: Get it right.

This new strategic alliance refuses to clap like trained GOP seals at any shiny vehicle masquerading as a free speech rescue because their very lives and livelihoods are on the line. This is not a drill.

In Florida, conservative GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis has earned lavish praise and attention for backing anti-censorship legislation that he claims will reign in Big Tech’s power to exercise “clear viewpoint discrimination.” Among the DeSantis-backed statehouse bill’s key features: fines of between $25,000 and $250,000 per day for social media platforms that “censor, shadow ban, deplatform, or apply post-prioritization algorithms” to Florida candidates, users or residents; a ban on public contracts with social media entities found guilty or civilly liable for antitrust violation; and requirements to disclose standards and definitions used by the tech overlords to censor and stifle dissidents.

…

That’s exactly the right message and every red-state governor should be sounding it. But if you are going to take on the Silicon Valley overlords and protect free speech, you’ve got to make them pay. You’ve got to close gaping loopholes. And you’ve got to leave no deplatformed victims behind.

Citing Facebook and Twitter’s bans of former president Donald Trump, DeSantis has rightly blasted the immense control of “monopoly communications platforms” who now act as “enforcers of preferred narratives.” But the bill would not retroactively protect Trump or former Florida GOP congressional candidate and free-speech warrior Laura Loomer. As Loomer (who is running again for Congress in Florida’s 21st district) has warned for weeks, the bill only covers future state-level candidates, not federal candidates like her or the former president. A mechanism for review and restoration of already-canceled accounts is key. “The future of all of our future elections in Florida is dependent on this tech bill passing with the strengthening amendments,” Loomer told me. “In order to restore integrity to our elections in America, we must first hold Big Tech accountable for their discriminatory and anti-competitive behavior, as well as their illegal election interference in the form of deplatforming candidates.”

The bill would also only protect journalists working for large corporate entities and leave independent citizen media in the cold. Moreover, the Florida anti-social media censorship law fails to cover a wider universe of internet-based companies and financial institutions beyond Facebook, Twitter, Google and Instagram that are punishing conservative users for their political views. These include multinational banks, rideshare companies, payment processors and telecom companies. Loomer knows of which she speaks, having been banned by Paypal, GoFundMe, Patreon, Lyft, TeeSpring, Uber and even Uber Eats, among dozens of other companies, for her no-holds-barred journalism and anti-jihad activism.

Similarly, “America First” host Nick Fuentes has been banned by all the usual Big Tech suspects, along with livestream service DLive, Coinbase, “and every payment processor” for his forceful advocacy of populism, an end to mass migration and protection of the nuclear family. He was scheduled to join Loomer, former Delaware GOP Senate candidate Lauren Witzke (banned from Twitter for calling a pedophilia-flirting transgender activist “demonic”), and me in Palm Beach Tuesday at a rally to push for loophole-free legislation holding Silicon Valley accountable for discriminatory deplatforming.

But Fuentes never got off the ground, because two airlines and Joe Biden’s TSA informed him that he didn’t have “clearance” to fly. He has been charged with no crimes and was blocked from exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceable assembly.

…

I’ve fought the deplatforming tyrants for 15 years as an internet entrepreneur and will do all I can to protect and support this new generation of free speech warriors from the globalist speech-squelchers and thought crime police. If you care about the future of this crumbling sovereign nation, you should, too.

First, send this message to DeSantis and every Republican governor and state legislator purporting to oppose Big Tech: Get it done, GOP. Get it right.

#michelle malkin #unz review

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 11, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

This morning began with House Democrats filing one article of impeachment against Trump, charging him with “incitement of insurrection.” It makes its case by noting that Trump’s months of lies about the election and his inflammatory speech to the rally on January 6-- including lines like “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore”—led directly to “violent, deadly, destructive and seditious acts.”

The article also noted Trump’s attempt to subvert the election through his phone call on January 2, 2021, to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, demanding he “find” enough votes to overturn the results of the presidential election in the state. Including this in the impeachment article will prevent Georgia Governor Brian Kemp from pardoning Trump for it.

The article says that Trump is, and will remain, “a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law.” He must be removed from office and disqualified from any future positions in the U.S. government.

This document and the procedures around it tell us far more than their simplicity suggests.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had announced the day before that the House would take up a resolution, advanced by Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), that called on Vice President Mike Pence “to convene and mobilize the Cabinet to activate the 25th Amendment to declare the President incapable of executing the duties of his office, after which the Vice President would immediately exercise powers as acting President.” The resolution did not speak to the physical or mental health of the president, but focused on his inability to fulfill his duty to respect the legitimate results of the Presidential election, accept the peaceful transfer of power, protect the people of the United States, and see that the laws be faithfully executed.

This resolution was a generous offer to Republicans. It limited its condemnation of Trump to his quite obvious refusal to accept the election results, rather than digging deeper into his behavior. Pelosi also called for Unanimous Consent to bring up the Raskin resolution. This was a way to give cover to Republicans who didn’t want to go on the record against Trump, but who want him out of power in favor of Pence.

Although extremist Republicans are trying to argue that removing Trump shows Democratic partisanship, in fact, Pelosi was trying to give Republicans as much cover as possible.

It was a Trump Republican who shot that down. Representative Alex Mooney (R-WV) objected to Unanimous Consent, which means that when the measure comes up again tomorrow, each Republican will have to vote either for it or against it. Mooney has condemned his fellow Republicans who would not go along with Trump’s election claims, and now he is forcing them to go on record. In other words, he is making a play to force Republicans behind Trump.

The House will vote on the Raskin resolution tomorrow and will take up impeachment on Wednesday. There should be enough votes to pass both.

The tide is running strongly now against Trump and those who have supported him in his attack on our democracy. What had been shock on Wednesday is hardening into fury. Yesterday, Representative Peter Meijer (R-MI) tweeted: “I still can’t wrap my head around the fact that the President of the United States was completely MIA while the next three individuals in the lines of succession (VP, Speaker of House, Senate Pres[ident] Pro Tempore) were under assault in the Capitol. Unconscionable.”

As of tonight, the government remains MIA. We have had no briefings from the White House, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, or the Justice Department about what happened on January 6, or what has happened since. And now acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Chad Wolf has resigned, effective at midnight tonight. He will be replaced by FEMA Administrator Peter Gaynor.

The crisis is breaking the Republican Party in two. Newly elected House members have expressed dismay that they have not gotten clear instructions from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) on how they should approach this week’s votes. They say they only have the sense he would like them to support the president: pretty weak sauce to hold a coalition together.

McCarthy has his own troubles. He is closely tied to the president—Trump called him “my Kevin”-- and has been telling people that the Republicans will take the House in 2022 as voters turn against Biden, who is inheriting a colossal mess that it appears Republicans are working to make as bad as possible. But suddenly Trump is toxic. All of a sudden, McCarthy is talking about unity and working across the aisle: “As leaders, we must call on our better angels and refocus our efforts on working directly for the American people.”

McCarthy is facing the same problem Senator Rick Scott (R-FL), the new chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee is: they are supposed to bring in campaign cash, but suddenly corporations are announcing they will no longer make political donations… at least to Republicans. Judd Legum and Tesnim Zekeria at Popular Information yesterday broke the story that Marriott, BlueCross BlueShield, and Commerce Bank would not contribute to the 147 Republicans who objected to the counting of the electoral votes in Congress. That’s more than half the Republicans in Congress. Verizon, AT&T, and Amazon have now joined that boycott. Citigroup, 3M, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, and JPMorgan Chase have all halted political giving for several months, and a number of other companies say they are reevaluating their giving. T-Mobile told Popular Information: “The assault on the U.S. Capitol and on democracy was unacceptable.”

It is no wonder that both McCarthy and Scott are madly backpedaling from their former pro-Trump stances and now calling for an end to partisan rancor. According to Jonathan Swan of Axios, in a phone call this morning, Trump tried to tell McCarthy it was “Antifa people” who stormed the Capitol. But McCarthy was having none of it: “It’s not Antifa, it’s MAGA. I know. I was there.” When Trump tried to rant about election fraud, McCarthy interrupted: “Stop it. It’s over. The election is over.”  

But the crisis is not. Army and police forces are investigating their officers who either did participate or may have participated in the riot. The FBI warned today that online activists are planning armed protests in Washington, D.C., and at all fifty state capitols between January 16 and 20, although it is not clear that their plans will translate into mass protests. In the wake of the attack, Trump supporters are harassing lawmakers, making them fear for the safety of themselves and their families.

As Yale historian Joanne Freeman noted, threats of political violence are a means of intimidation, a way to dominate a situation when a party does not have the support of the majority. Trump’s approval rating has dropped to 33%, with 60% of voters disapproving of his job performance. Fifty-six percent of voters blame Trump for the storming of the Capitol.

Trump supporters are growing more violent perhaps because the wave against them is building. Today Hillary Clinton called for impeachment and condemned white supremacy, hardly a surprise coming from the former Democratic presidential candidate, but the news that former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a well-regarded retired four-star general and Republican senior statesman, has rejected the Republican Party sits a little harder. Perhaps even worse is that Bill Belichick, general manager of the New England Patriots and previously a Trump supporter, today declined to accept Trump’s offer of a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Insurgents now face institutional pressure, as well. The Department of Justice and the FBI are tracking down more than 150 suspects for prosecution—so far—and hackers today claimed to have captured the personal data of Parler users from Parler servers, including material that users believed they had deleted after the January 6 Capitol riot. Since rioters stole laptops and documents that included items relating to national security, they are not going to be able to drop off the radar screen.

Trump is also under pressure, the pressure of impeachment, of course, and the loss of his social media platforms. He is also under financial pressure, as Deutsche Bank, the only bank that would still lend to him, has announced it will no longer do business with him. But, according to Maggie Haberman at the New York Times, what is upsetting him most is that the PGA has pulled its 2022 golf championship from Trump’s Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club.

That, not the riots, not the deaths, not impeachment, and certainly not the coronavirus--which has now killed more than 375,000 of us—has “gutted” him.  

—-

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#quotes #political #January 6 2020 #Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #election 2020 #insurrection #impeach #impeachment #corrupt GOP #criminal GOP

[patriotsnet]

What Do Republicans Like About Trump

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-do-republicans-like-about-trump/

What Do Republicans Like About Trump

How Wyoming Voters Are Reacting To Rep Cheneys Leadership Battle

What should the Republican Party do about Trump?

Many Republicans, including McCarthy, have decided that the path to retake majority control of the House requires embracing Trump, which means either repeating his false assertions that the election was stolen or keeping quiet, neither of which Cheney has been willing to do.

McCarthy has long viewed Trump as important to helping him become the next House speaker and important to helping Republicans win the midterm elections said a House Republican aide who works for neither McCarthy or Cheney.

The aide described the leadership fight as “a s— show” and “something that should never really have happened,” expressing anger over its handling.

“I think it’s dumb when we always try to claim that we’re this big party that we’re pushing out someone who has a slightly different opinion,” the aide said, adding, “It’s just absurd to me.”

Another senior Republican congressional aide argued that Cheney was likely to be removed because she keeps publicly disagreeing with McCarthy, not because of her criticism of Trump.

“As conference chair, was spending more time bashing Republicans than Democrats” at the recent House retreat, the aide said, adding that McCarthy “was literally the only thing keeping her in leadership.”

Many Republicans have lamented that the squabble is distracting from anti-Biden messaging, which is what they say will actually help them in the midterms.

America Should Deport Illegal Immigrants

Republicans believe that illegal immigrants, no matter the reason they are in this country, should be forcibly removed from the U.S. Although illegal immigrants are often motivated to come to the U.S. by companies who hire them, Republicans generally believe that the focus of the law should be on the illegal immigrants and not on the corporations that hire them.

Democrats Think Many Republicans Sincere And Point To Policy

Democrats, however, were somewhat more generous in their answers.;;More than four in ten Democratic voters ; felt that most Republican voters had the countrys best interests at heart . ;And many tried their best to answer from the others perspective. A 45-year-old male voter from Ohio imagined that as a Republican, he was motivated by Republicans harsh stance on immigration; standing up for the 2nd Amendment; promised tax cuts.;;A 30-year-old woman from Colorado felt that Republican votes reflected the desires to stop abortion stop gay marriage from ruining our country and give us our coal jobs back.

Other Democrats felt that their opponents were mostly motivated by the GOPs opposition to Obamacare, lower taxes and to support a party that reduced unemployment.;

Don’t Miss: When Did Republicans And Democrats Switch Platforms

Religion And The Belief In God Is Vital To A Strong Nation

Republicans are generally accepting only of the Judeo-Christian belief system. For most Republicans, religion is absolutely vital in their political beliefs and the two cannot be separated. Therefore, separation of church and state is not that important to them. In fact, they believe that much of what is wrong has been caused by too much secularism.

Those are the four basic Republican tenets: small government, local control, the power of free markets, and Christian authority. Below are other things they believe that derive from those four ideas.

Republicans Cant Understand Democrats

Only one in four Republican voters felt that most or almost all Democratic voters sincerely believed they were;voting in the best interests of the country.;;Rather, many Republicans told us that Democratic voters were brainwashed by the propaganda of the mainstream media, or voting solely in their self-interest to preserve undeserved welfare and food stamp benefits.

We asked every Republican in the sample to do their best to imagine that they were a Democrat and sincerely believed that the Democratic Party was best for the country.;;We asked them to explain their support for the Democratic Party as an actual Democratic voter might.;;For example, a 64-year-old strong Republican man from Illinois surmised that Democrats want to help the poor, save Social Security, and tax the rich.;;;

But most had trouble looking at the world through Democratic eyes. Typical was a a 59-year-old Floridian who wrote I dont want to work and I want cradle to grave assistance. In other words, Mommy!;Indeed, roughly one in six Republican voters answered in the persona of a Democratic voter who is motivated free college, free health care, free welfare, and so on.;;They see Democrats as voting in order to get free stuff without having to work for it was extremely common roughly one in six Republican voters used the word free in the their answers, whereas no real Democratic voters in our sample answered this way.;

Don’t Miss: Have The Democrats Tried To Impeach Every Republican President Since Eisenhower

Emboldened ‘unchanged’ Trump Looks To Re

Across the party as a whole, an NBC News poll released late last month found, a majority of Republicans considered themselves supporters of the GOP, compared to just 44 percent who supported Trump above all, the first time that has been the case since July 2019.

But mild dissatisfaction with Trump isn’t the same as political courage. Most prominent Republicans have publicly aligned with Trump even as voter support erodes, and they’re buckled in for the long haul. That creates the opening for more traditional Republicans to toy with forming a new party but it’s a slim one.

Liz Cheney Of Wyoming

The most vocal House Republican to vote to impeach Mr. Trump, Ms. Cheney has borne the brunt of the former presidents wrath. Last week, in an attempt to narrow a crowded field, Mr. Trump endorsed Harriet Hageman, a former Republican National Committee member and a 2018 candidate for governor in Wyoming, in the primary against Ms. Cheney.

Former Trump aides have rushed to Ms. Hagemans side to prop up her nascent campaign and persuade other candidates to drop out of the race. Ms. Cheney has remained unwavering in her criticism of Mr. Trump, describing his unwillingness to accept the results of the 2020 election as a threat to democracy and defiantly daring Mr. Trump and his allies to bring it on.

If Harriet wants to cast her lot with those folks, Ms. Cheney told Wyoming reporters this month, I would note that theyre the same people who were involved in misleading millions of Americans about the election in 2020.

Also Check: How Did The Democrats And Republicans Switch

Republicans Almost Won In 2020

To torture this autopsy metaphor even more: Theres a good argument that the party is still very much alive.

Historically, parties have done more self-reflection and been more likely to change course when theyve hit electoral low points. In the 1988 presidential race, Democrats carried only 10 states and Washington, D.C., and that loss was their third consecutive failed bid for the White House. In 2008, Obama won the popular vote by 7 percentage points Republicans didnt even carry Indiana. So of course the parties were ready to rethink things after those defeats.

In contrast, Trump would have won reelection had he done only about 1 percentage point better in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and about 3 points better in Michigan. Republicans would still control the Senate had Republican David Perdue won about 60,000 more votes against Democrat Jon Ossoff in Georgias Senate runoff. A slew of court rulings that forced the redrawing of House district lines in less favorable ways to the GOP helped the Democrats win several seats otherwise, Republicans might have won back the House. Add all that up, and 2020 wasnt that far from resulting in a Republican trifecta.;

Also, Republicans did really well in state legislative races and gained ground among Black and Latino voters nationally .

related:What Did CPAC Tell Us About The Future Of The GOP? Read more. »

Trump Slams ‘wayward’ Republicans For Capitol Riot Vote

What Do Republicans Do if Trump Runs in 2024?

US Capitol riots

Former US president Donald Trump blasted “wayward Republicans” after lawmakers made a rare bipartisan push to investigate the Capitol riot.

With the support of 35 Republicans, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives voted 252-175 to look into the events of 6 January.

Party leaders had urged Republicans to oppose the bill, with Mr Trump labelling it a “Democrat trap”.

The bill appears to lack the Republican support it needs to pass in the Senate.

It seeks to create an independent inquiry modelled on the commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The legislation establishes a 10-member body, evenly split between the two main parties, that would make recommendations by the end of the year on how to prevent any repeat of the Capitol invasion.

Trump supporters stormed Congress on 6 January in a failed bid to thwart certification of President Joe Biden’s victory in November’s election.

Wednesday’s vote was seen as a loyalty test to the former president for members of his party.

All 10 of the House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump in the days after the Capitol riot for incitement of insurrection were among the 35 who voted for the commission.

In a statement after the vote, Mr Trump hit out at the “wayward” Republican group, saying, “they just can’t help themselves”.

“Sometimes there are consequences to being ineffective and weak,” Mr Trump added.

Don’t Miss: Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

A Ponderous Speech Poorly Delivered

In a ponderous, hour-long speech more akin to a State of the Union address than a nomination acceptance, Donald Trump alternated between ticking through his record as president and circling around, like a prize fighter, to launch strikes on his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden.

It was a blunderbuss of attacks, of varying levels of validity, in the hope that some will draw blood – on trade, immigration, education, energy and foreign policy. But most of all, Mr Trump sought to paint Mr Biden as in league with the protesters on the streets and the more left-wing members of the Democratic party.

The setting of the speech was majestic – on the grounds of the White House and in view of the Washington monument.

The delivery from a president who thrives more on rousing rallies than rhetorical set-pieces, however, frequently landed with a thud.

How Things Got This Bad

6) The Republican turn against democracy begins with race

Support for authoritarian ideas in America is closely tied to the countrys long-running racial conflicts.

This chart, from a by Vanderbilt professor Larry Bartels, shows a statistical analysis of a survey of Republican voters, analyzing the link between respondents score on a measure of ethnic antagonism and their support for four anti-democratic statements .

The graphic shows a clear finding: The higher a voter scores on the ethnic antagonism scale, the more likely they are tosupport anti-democratic ideas. This held true even when Bartels used regression analyses to compare racial attitudes to other predictors, like support for Trump. The strongest predictor by far of these antidemocratic attitudes is ethnic antagonism, he writes.

For students of American history, this shouldnt be a surprise.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act cemented Democrats as the party of racial equality, causing racially resentful Democrats in the South and elsewhere to defect to the Republican Party. This sorting process, which took place over the next few decades, is the key reason America is so polarized.

7) Partisanship causes Republicans to justify anti-democratic behavior

This chart is a little hard to parse, but it illustrates a crucial finding from one of the best recent papers on anti-democratic sentiment in America: how decades of rising partisanship made an anti-democratic GOP possible.

Recommended Reading: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

How Americas Political System Creates Space For Republicans To Undermine Democracy

9) Republicans havean unpopular policy agenda

Let Them Eat Tweets

The Republican policy agenda is extremely unpopular. The chart here, taken from Jacob Hacker and Paul Piersons recent book Let Them Eat Tweets, compares the relative popularity of the two major legislative efforts of Trumps first term tax cuts and Obamacare repeal to similar high-priority bills in years past. The contrast is striking: The GOPs modern economic agenda is widely disliked even compared to unpopular bills of the past, a finding consistent with a lot of recent polling data.

Hacker and Pierson argue that this drives Republicans emphasis on culture war and anti-Democratic identity politics. This strategy, which they term plutocratic populism, allows the partys super-wealthy backers to get their tax cuts while the base gets the partisan street fight they crave.

The GOP can do this because Americas political system is profoundly unrepresentative. The coalition it can assemble overwhelmingly white Christian, heavily rural, and increasingly less educated is a shrinking minority that has lost the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential contests. But its voters are ideally positioned to give Republicans advantages in the Electoral College and the Senate, allowing the party to remain viable despite representing significantly fewer voters than the Democrats do.

10) Some of the most consequential Republican attacks on democracy happen at the state level

Republicans Will Defend Their Caesar But New Revelations Show Trumps True Threat

The DoJ has dealt two blows and the 6 January committee is winding up for more. They know democracy is in danger

Sidney Blumenthal: What did Jim Jordan know and when?

On Friday, Donald Trump received two more unwelcome reminders he is no longer president. Much as he and his minions chant Lock her up about Hillary Clinton and other enemies, it is he who remains in legal jeopardy and political limbo.

Trumps allies on Capitol Hill will again be forced to defend the indefensible. That wont be a bother: QAnon is their creed, Trump is their Caesar and Gladiator remains the movie for our time.

But in other ways, the world has changed. The justice department is no longer an extension of Trumps West Wing. The levers of government are no longer at his disposal.

Next year, much as Trump helped deliver both Georgia Senate seats to the Democrats in January, on the eve of the insurrection, his antics may cost Republicans their chance to retake the Senate.

Documents that would probably not have seen the light of day had Trump succeeded in overturning the election are now open to scrutiny, be they contemporaneous accounts of his conversations about that dishonest aim or his tax returns.

Those who claim that the events of 6 January were something other than a failed coup attempt would do well to come up with a better line. Or a different alternate reality.

Prospective witnesses before the House select committee on the events of 6 January ought to start worrying

Don’t Miss: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

Poverty Must Solve Itself

Republicans believe that poor people are usually poor for a reason, be it laziness, choice or whatever. Unless we demand that people pull themselves up by the bootstraps and solve their own problems, people will not be motivated to do things. Therefore, the issue of poverty cannot be solved by the government. Charity should be the choice of individuals.

Opinion: Cmon Republicans Its Time To Do The Right Thing On Health Care

When they went home for the July 4th recess, Republican members of Congress did one of two things: Either they met with constituents and were pummeled with angry questions about their disastrous health-care bill, or they hid out, trying to avoid their constituents so that they wouldnt be pummeled with angry questions about their disastrous health-care bill. Predictably, support for the bill among Republican senators is slipping away, which is not surprising given that this is the most unpopular piece of legislation in the history of polling.

So the time has come for Republicans to cut their losses and do the right thing. It wont be easy, but there are no easy options left for them.

Republicans need to admit to themselves that there is no great victory to be had. There will be political fallout no matter what the 2018 elections are going to be brutal but their choice now is between passing nothing, passing a bill that is so dreadful that it wins them the undying rage of the public, or a compromise that actually helps solve some of the problems they profess to care about.

What Republicans need to do now is drop the idea of repealing the Affordable Care Act and join together with Democrats to fix the problems in the individual market. Its not what they hoped for, but its a lot better than the alternative for everyone.

Also Check: When Did Democrats And Republicans Switch Ideologies

Republicans And Their Declared Positions On Donald Trump

Elected officials’ positions on Donald Trump Federal:Republicans and their declared positions on Donald Trump Republicans supporting Donald Trump Republicans opposing Donald Trump State and local: Republican reactions to 2005 Trump tape

In a typical general election year, elected officials readily line up behind their party’s presidential nominee. In 2012, for example, The Hill reported that only four Republican members of Congress had declined to endorse Mitt Romney by mid-September of that year. “All other House and Senate Republicans” had already endorsed the Republican nominee.

But 2016 was not a typical general election year.

Controversial comments from the GOP’s 2016 nominee, Donald Trump, about women, Muslims, Hispanics, and veterans who were prisoners of war caused some Republican lawmakers to distance themselves from the businessman, while others outright denounced him.

This page tracked the stances of Republican lawmakers on Trump throughout the 2016 presidential election: Did they support him? Did they oppose him? Or were they somewhere in between? The focus of this page is on Republican members of Congress and Republican governors, but we also have included some information on influential Republicans who have served in Republican presidential administrations.

[nothingman]

>

In 2018, Congress passed the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), a law ostensibly designed to curb human trafficking by holding websites and online platforms responsible for user content that might facilitate sexual exploitation.

More than two years later, it's still unclear whether the law has actually achieved those goals. But among sex workers, the consequences were felt immediately: sites like Backpage and Craigslist Personals shut down, eliminating sources of income for thousands of precariously-employed workers. According to a 2020 survey of 98 internet-based sex workers, 99 percent of respondents said the law didn't make them feel safe, and 72 percent said it decreased their ability to make end's meet.

Now, another round of anti-trafficking legislation is making its way through Congress, the Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism, and Consumer Harms Act—or SAFE TECH Act. Like FOSTA, the bill is attempting to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), the law passed in 1996 to protect free speech online by offering legal protection for online platforms and websites. And like before, sex workers are fearful of the consequences.

Supporters of the SAFE TECH Act want to further limit the scope of Section 230, making companies responsible for policing user speech on online platforms. “What I don't want is to have these giant providers continue to use Section 230 as this immunity, a kind of ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card,” Senator Mark Warner, the bill's sponsor, said in an interview with Protocol.

But sex workers and free speech advocates warn that eliminating these liability protections means greater censorship of online platforms as companies try to reduce the risk of landing in legal trouble as a result of third-party user content.

“The SAFE TECH Act would mean I can’t afford to run my own website and will lose income from many other sites. It will impact any social media platforms I use for marketing,” Mary Moody, who has been a sex worker for the last 5 years, told Motherboard. She also fears that she could easily be sued for her content on websites, have to attend court, and pay for an attorney.

Moody's fears are echoed by most of the sex work community—as well as digital rights advocates, who warn of broader free speech consequences if the bill were to pass.

“Section 230 underpins much of the internet, offering legal protections for companies, news organizations, creators of all stripes, political activists, nonprofits, libraries, educators, governments, and regular users," Jason Kelley, a digital strategist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), told Motherboard. "Without it, any online service that did continue to exist would more than likely opt for censoring more user-generated content—and that would inevitably harm marginalized groups more than others."

Sex workers would be one of those marginalized groups affected by SAFE TECH, and many fear that their work and safety will be compromised if the bill passes. “I’ve been dreading the inevitable Section 230 reform,” Blair Hopkins, Deputy Director of SWOP Behind Bars told Motherboard. “Section 230 protects sex workers in a kind of ancillary way because it allows them to conduct their business on platforms without interruption from the platforms. SAFE TECH, while not directly aimed at sex workers, has a downstream effect of unintended consequences.”

She added that the bill would force smaller companies with less resources to over-police user content, in order to avoid legal liability. “They will just massively moderate everything, so they don’t get into trouble.”

With that extreme moderation as means of protection, sex workers will be further pushed off the internet. Mariah Grant of the Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Center told Motherboard their concerns regarding SAFE TECH: “Sex workers rely on the internet to share bad date lists, build community, learn about harm reduction practices, screen clients, and build client networks. Without the internet, many sex workers cannot survive financially, much like workers in other industries that are increasingly based online. The lack of access to the internet is more likely to push sex workers to street-based work. This opens up sex workers to increased dangers, including limiting opportunities to screen clients successfully as well as increased police interactions and possible harassment and arrest.”

“The impact of FOSTA was a disaster,” Rachel West and Alex Makulit from the US PROS Collective told Motherboard, in an emailed statement. “In the worst cases, FOSTA has aided in pushing sex workers into more dangerous working conditions: we face more harm, violence and even death. Increased poverty, especially since the pandemic and especially among women, and low wages in many other jobs traditionally done by women means that people don’t have the option to leave sex work. So we are forced to take clients we would previously refuse and take risks to earn enough to live on.”

While FOSTA was touted as a way to curb human trafficking by creating liability for platforms that facilitated trafficking, it simply didn’t work. In fact, the increased vulnerabilities of sex workers resulting from FOSTA, combined with the new difficulties police had tracking traffickers, actually meant that FOSTA increased cases of human trafficking. And since its introduction, FOSTA has only been used once to charge a website promoting trafficking.

“It’s important to remember that we have all sorts of businesses and industries that have trafficking and we don’t strive to hold them accountable in the same way as we do in the sex trade,” Chris Ash, an Anti-Violence Advocate and Trafficking Survivor said. “Nobody is doing a mass campaign to shut down grocery stores even though they may be selling cabbage that was produced in labour trafficking.” They continued by stating that we “don’t always have to rescue” victims of human trafficking in the sex trade through raids and online moderation, but instead, give them options, choices, and self-determination so that they feel empowered and safe to leave.

While some large, mainstream anti-trafficking movements identify sex work as the root cause of trafficking and promoted FOSTA legislation, there are a growing number of anti-trafficking organizations who identify the “root causes of trafficking as the lack of decent work opportunities or social protections and restrictive migration policies,” Borislav Gerasimov, a program coordinator for the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, told Motherboard. “In this analysis, people become victims of trafficking because they can't find a job in the formal economy (for example, if they are an undocumented migrant or a former felon or there are simply no jobs), or a job that pays living wage, and they can't afford to pay their rent, or healthcare costs, or children's education, and so on.”

In other words, trafficking—whether it's in the sex, agriculture, construction, domestic work, and hospitality industries—is the result of deeply-rooted systems that disempowers of women, minorities, and migrants. And policing online content, as FOSTA did, will not change that.

Even so, Section 230 is nearly thirty years old, and it has been outpaced by the technology it was meant to legislate. “There are problems with the state of the internet and the dominance of a handful of online platforms,” said Kelley, the EFF strategist. “Instead of SAFE TECH, Congress could pass a strong consumer data privacy law and update antitrust laws to address online services’ surveillance-based business models and their anticompetitive behavior.”

 Mariah Grant, Director of Research, Organizing and Advocacy at the Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Center, said that in updating internet laws, we cannot ignore the vulnerabilities of those that will bear the brunt of that legislation—including sex workers.

“Legislation like this [SAFE TECH] is not about protecting people online, because it sacrifices one group of people for another," Grant told Motherboard. "It is not equitable or inclusive in the ways it would protect people and does not take into consideration the human rights of sex workers,”

To protect victims of human trafficking, discrimination, and harassment in the sex trade, supporters of bills like the SAFE SEX Workers Study Act say sex workers must be heard and included in any legislation that would affect them. Especially when their work—and their livelihood—depends on it.

“We need to be extremely careful and thoughtful about these reforms and their consequences," said Kelley.

via: https://ift.tt/3e6MQNL

#IFTTT #Feedly #Nothingman uses Feedly #Internet

[orbemnews]

The Week in Business: A $900 Million Mistake Hope you’re all staying warm. Here’s your quick roundup of business and tech news to know for the week ahead. — Charlotte Cowles What’s Up? (Feb. 14-20) A Costly Mix-up Citigroup made an embarrassing mistake last summer and accidentally wired $900 million to a group of lenders instead of a much smaller interest payment it intended to send. Citigroup has been trying to reclaim the money, which it sent on behalf of the beauty company Revlon, ever since. And typically, recipients of cash wired in error are required to return it. But last week, a judge ruled that the lenders could keep it all. His reasoning: They had grounds to believe that the payment, which covered all that Revlon owed, was intentional. The decision is a major blow to Citigroup, which says it will appeal. Understand What Happened With GameStop ‘What Happened on Jan. 28?’ That was the question posed by members of Congress when they grilled key players in the GameStop trading frenzy that hijacked the stock market last month and caused many investors, both large and small, to lose pots of money. At the center of the hearing was Vlad Tenev, the chief executive of the online brokerage firm Robinhood, which handled most of the GameStop trades but suddenly halted them when they reached a fever pitch on Jan. 28. Mr. Tenev explained — again — that the GameStop trades were stopped because of new requirements from the clearinghouses that perform them. He apologized to his users for the company’s failings, but he also insisted that Robinhood had done nothing wrong and did not privilege powerful business partners at the expense of small-time investors, as some critics have suggested. It’s unclear what — if anything — lawmakers and regulators will do to curtail turmoil like this in the future. Dollar by Dollar Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, said that it would raise wages for 425,000 of its employees. That means about half of its 1.5 million workers in the United States will make at least $15 an hour. But many of its workers will still earn less. Walmart’s minimum wage remains at $11 an hour, unlike those of its biggest rivals like Target and Amazon, whose wages both start at $15 an hour. The company’s announcement came about a week after its chief executive, Doug McMillon, met with President Biden and discussed the administration’s interest in raising the national minimum wage to $15 an hour from its current rate of $7.25 an hour. What’s Next? (Feb. 21-27) A Winter Warning Texas is recovering from a freakish cold snap that left millions without power and running water for days, but its economy remains stricken. Its agriculture industry has been literally frozen, and livestock are dying. Several semiconductor companies had to idle production, compounding a global shortage of computer chips that has already slowed car manufacturing at plants worldwide. But devastating incidents like this one may become the new normal. Economists — including one top Federal Reserve official — are warning that banks need to be better prepared for more climate-change-related disruptions to manufacturing, power, and other industries. Stimulus Ahoy The House of Representatives plans to hold its first floor vote on the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion pandemic rescue package this coming Friday. Democrats hope to pass the measure before March 14, when additional federal unemployment benefits ($300 a week, provided on top of existing state unemployment benefits) are set to expire. Through a legislative loophole, the stimulus bill could be approved with a simple Congressional majority and no Republican support. News You Can’t Use The Australian government has proposed a law to make tech companies pay news outlets for the content that is shared on their platforms (and, in turn, helps them rake in advertising dollars). This poses obvious problems for giants like Facebook and Google, which are taking opposite approaches to the proposal. Facebook adopted a fighting stance by indefinitely blocking all news links from its platforms. Google, on the other hand, announced a three-year deal to compensate Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp for its content, and said that similar partnerships are in the works. Other countries may follow in Australia’s footsteps if the law succeeds. What Else? Retail sales jumped 5.3 percent in January, indicating that Americans spent the stimulus checks they received at the end of the year instead of saving them. Parler, the social network that was forced offline after it drew millions of Trump supporters calling for violence around the time of the Capitol riot, is back up and running. And New York’s attorney general has sued Amazon, accusing the company of providing inadequate safety protection for workers in New York City during the pandemic and retaliating against employees who raised concerns. Source link Orbem News #Business #million #mistake #Week

[perfectirishgifts]

This Week In Credit Card News: Card Issuers Offering Up To $500 On Refer-A-Friend Programs

New Post has been published on https://perfectirishgifts.com/this-week-in-credit-card-news-card-issuers-offering-up-to-500-on-refer-a-friend-programs/

This Week In Credit Card News: Card Issuers Offering Up To $500 On Refer-A-Friend Programs

Earn Up to $500 a Year When You Refer a Friend to These Cards

If you’re looking for alternative ways to earn rewards or bonuses from your credit card, referral bonuses may be your answer. Discover, Chase, Capital One and American Express all offer opportunities to earn cash and rewards bonuses when you refer a friend who is approved for one of their card products. [CreditCards.com]

Refer-a-friend programs are offering credit cardholders up to $500

How Covid-19 Could Disrupt Store Credit Cards

Before Covid-19 forced nonessential retailers to close, consumers faced a familiar interaction at the checkout counter: the store credit card pitch. But now, store employees can’t pitch as many consumers these store cards in person. So what does the ongoing pandemic mean for store credit cards? Research suggests that consumers may be more interested in them, but financial institutions aren’t extending credit to as many borrowers. [Retail Dive]

How Amex Has Innovated to Keep Cardholders Engaged in 2020

American Express was one of the first credit card companies to make accommodations for the drastic shift in consumer behavior earlier this year. In May, Amex led the pack with tangible, limited time offers to provide value to cardholders in this new reality that we’re living in. Just a month later, their “Shop Small” promotional campaign elevated the profile of independent stores and restaurants at a time when they needed it most. Finally, with an additional three months to earn a welcome offer, various retention offers, “Appreciation Credits” and other bonuses, Amex has been able to foster goodwill with its customer base. [The Points Guy]

Visa Is Doing What Big American Companies Do to ‘Protect This Business’

Visa dominates the lucrative business of processing debit card transactions. A San Francisco technology start-up named Plaid threatened that dominance. The company planned to debut a rival service next year that would charge half as much as Visa. So Visa did what big American companies have learned to do: It agreed to buy the smaller company, pledging a king’s ransom to eliminate the threat of competition. Last month, the Justice Department sued to block the deal as a violation of antitrust law. [The New York Times]

More Americans Pay Rent On Credit Cards As Lawmakers Fail To Pass Relief Bill

With their savings running out, many Americans are being forced to use credit cards to pay for bills they can’t afford, even their rent. Housing experts and economists say this is a blinking-red warning light that without more relief from Congress, the economy is headed for even more serious trouble. There’s been as much as a 70% increase from last year in people paying rent on a credit card. [NPR]

Despite Covid, Credit Card Debt Sinks to Lowest Level Since 2017

During the pandemic-created recession, when millions of Americans are strapped for cash, you’d think that more of us would turn to credit cards to help tide us over. It appears that just the opposite has happened, though. Before 2020, consumer credit card debt grew for eight consecutive years, hitting a record high of $829 million in 2019, according to new data from Experian. But in the past year, that tally fell by 9%. It’s the lowest dollar amount since 2017. [Bankrate]

More Shoppers Favor Local, Minority-Owned Businesses

A move to mindful shopping has American consumers favoring small, local stores and those owned by Black merchants, women and other minorities, according to a new spending survey by Mastercard MA . Three-quarters of the 2,017 people surveyed said they planned to shop more consciously and spend at smaller, minority-owned stores. Some 77% percent said they planned to shop local. [PYMNTS]

Stripe to Offer Banking Services in Deal With Goldman Sachs, Citigroup

Stripe is teaming up with banks including Goldman Sachs Group GS and Citigroup to offer checking accounts and other business-banking services, the startup’s latest attempt to become the internet economy’s financial supermarket. Stripe, which processes payments for millions of online businesses and e-commerce platforms, will soon give its customers the option of offering insured, interest-bearing bank accounts, debit cards and other cash-management services. These products aren’t meant for consumers. Rather, they are designed for the merchants and vendors that do business with Stripe’s customers. [The Wall Street Journal]

$10 Credit Cards, $2 PayPal Accounts, and More on the Dark Web This Holiday Season

This holiday season, more consumers than ever will be shopping digitally, and cybercriminals are already capitalizing on the opportunity. There’s a continued rise in e-skimming attacks in the retail sector, where attackers inject JavaScript into website payment processing pages in order to siphon credit cards and account credentials from customers. Swiped credit cards are going for an average rate of $10-20 per card on the dark web. PayPal accounts are selling for $2-$10 per account, with those accounts loaded with more money costing more. [Security Magazine]

Visa Backs the First-Ever Credit Card to Offer Bitcoin Rewards

It’s about to get a lot easier to earn bitcoin, thanks to a first-of-its-kind credit card: the Bitcoin Rewards Credit Card. While there are debit cards by Coinbase and Fold that offer bitcoin rewards, this is the first credit card that rewards you with the cryptocurrency, instead of points or miles. Visa and cryptocurrency financial tech company BlockFi have partnered to release the Bitcoin Rewards Credit Card to U.S. residents in all states except for New York (due to regulatory restrictions) in spring 2021. Cardholders will earn 1.5% cash back on all purchases that will automatically be converted to bitcoin and placed into a BlockFi account every month. [CNBC]

Google Fires Next Salvo in Big Tech’s War on Banking

Google has loosed a double-barreled challenge on the financial services business. The big tech announced major advancements in functionality for its Google Pay digital wallet. Then, it revealed more details about its partnership expansion with banks and credit unions, which now has a name: Plex By Google Pay. [The Financial Brand]

7-Eleven Mobile Wallet Offers Contactless Payment Option

Convenience store chain 7-Eleven has introduced the 7-Eleven mobile wallet, a contactless way for customers to pay at participating U.S. stores. Customers can access the wallet through the 7-Eleven app and securely load funds to use at checkout using cash, debit and credit cards, Apple AAPL Pay, Google Pay and prepaid 7-Eleven gift cards. Cash must be loaded at the store but all other payment methods can be loaded in the app without a loading or transaction fees or incurring fees from credit cards charge. [PYMNTS]

More from Personal Finance in Perfectirishgifts

[best-wishes-bruce]

Yang’s 4 ways to help, UBI trial, Mental Health week, world record breaking, on Biden vs Trump

In this post, I will cover some of the latest news:  # Yang points out 4 ways to best help the people and our movement# Yang is launching his first long-term UBI pilot in Hudson, NY. # May 18 to May 22 - Humanity Forward’s Mental Health Week # Yang and the gang broke a Guinness World Record # Yang publicly talked with Biden on podcast # Yang’s take on Biden’s age and #MeToo allegation # Yang’s take on voting for Trump  ==========  # Yang points out 4 ways to best help the people and our movement  I once heard Yang recently listed out our priorities to help as supporters:  1.Support yang-aligned candidates 2.Pressure Congress on passing UBI and cash relief  3.Help our yang-aligned organizations  4.Promote our contents   1.(As of May 14 2020, Yang and Humanity Forward have already endorsed 6 candidates: Jermaine Johnson, David Kim, Heidi Briones, Evan Low, Costa Constantinides and Suzanne Hug)(I collected some candidates starter info here): https://best-wishes-bruce.tumblr.com/post/617471194382417920/candidates-for-ubi-and-yang2020-policies 2.https://actionnetwork.org/letters/ongoing-letters-to-congress-the-people-need-ubi-now https://5calls.org/issue/covid-19-coronavirus-relief-bill https://thepeoplesbailout.org/ 3.https://movehumanityforward.com/, https://allamericans.us/. Take action, donate or volunteer to help relief fund, medical supply, and combating blind hate 4.Promote https://yangspeaks.com/ podcast, Yang Facebook groups and Twitter https://twitter.com/AndrewYang posts to open more minds and hearts. Activate more voters and volunteers)  Before our House and Senate and local government primary elections end (Mid August or so), we should still promote Yang and his policies, and do our best to support candidates aligned with Yang (As of May 14 2020, HF and Yang have already endorsed 6 candidates: Jermaine Johnson, David Kim, Heidi Briones, Evan Low, Costa Constantinides and Suzanne Hug): https://best-wishes-bruce.tumblr.com/post/617471194382417920/candidates-for-ubi-and-yang2020-policies  We can also continue to influence incumbents to adapt Yang policies including Biden, but I, for one, wouldn’t smear Biden since it will help Trump (Biden never really smeared Yang before, so not that I ever actively attacked Biden before either. I am proud to say I never smeared a candidate unless there are real questionable past or policies to begin with). I am sure we all have different standards, but for me to be actively campaign for Biden or other candidates or incumbents, all they have to do is to come out strong for some of yang signature policies, for me is with a video or detailed policies written on the website as their top campaign platform etc: #UBI: https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/ #Democracy Dollars (voting voucher) https://youtu.be/OSGwqOUQiS0 #Ranked Choice Voting https://youtu.be/Rgo-eJ-D__s #Media Responsibility Task Force https://www.yang2020.com/policies/media-fragmentation/  Gun licensing (not gun ban), Improving the Electoral College (determine their electors proportionally to each state instead of winner take all) etc are bonus for wining me over, just to name of few. And yang has over 150 policies: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/?tab=all https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLI1zuZdCSlNbfEBbTfKNBuJ-gpnBL3NC5  ============  # Yang is launching his first long-term UBI pilot in Hudson, NY.  On may 11, Humanity Forward is launching its first long-term UBI pilot, based in Hudson, NY. The Mayor of Hudson, Kamal Johnson, supports this UBI trial. https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1259891574881816576  More details: https://mailchi.mp/89bac3e2693a/hudson-ubi-pilot-program-launch “will provide 20 Hudson residents $500 per month for five years. The $600,000 project will be made possible by two $300,000 contributions, each from The Spark of Hudson and Humanity Forward.”  ========  # May 18 to May 22 - Humanity Forward’s Mental Health Week  No one cares for mental health than u/AndrewYang #HumanityFirst. May is Mental Health Awareness month, and we yang all week from May 18 to May 22 for a Humanity Forward’s Mental Health Week!  More here:  https://www.instagram.com/p/CAOkY_agGcs/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link https://community.modernhealth.com/humanity-forward =========# Yang and the gang broke a Guinness World RecordRecently, for #AutismAwareness, Yang and the gang participated in Dominique Wilkins’ charity , KultureCity, to broke Guinness World Records in most people running online simultaneously  https://twitter.com/DWilkins21/status/1260012706628685824?s=20  Dominique is a true supporter of Yang, here is a video endorsement of him playing basketball with Yang, both caring for disability and mental health: https://youtu.be/SuR3DR3IUSg  ========  # Yang publicly talked with Biden on podcast Biden invited Yang to his podcast, recorded 5/4 published 5/11.  Biden podcast - “On the Economy with Andrew Yang” https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-heres-the-deal-60411565/episode/on-the-economy-with-andrew-yang-62378894/  Although Yang did not directly yang Biden here by yelling out UBI, supporters can tell Yang did hint UBI multiple times by saying his stump speech phrases in Biden podcast: # making us people the shareholders (of UBI, Freedom dividend) # think bigger, everything should be on the table (direct cash payment) # our government safety net programs are not designed to be overloaded (pre-crisis financial insecurity, no mean-testing for fast relief)  And Biden has at least softly yanged by saying: # 4th industrial revolution # no return to normalcy (no more status quo, admits that we had enough social ills needed to be fixed, ) # we should bailout more people not big companies  Although Biden still stick to mainstream Dem of “the dignity of work” and “$15 minimal wage” over UBI. But at least Biden agrees with Yang with limited funding to education, is more effective to spend on offering free pre-K12 early education (instead of free college without new direction of education in our automated age).  Biden seems to be a “toxic centrist”, but at least he won’t be leaning to the left for over-promising free stuff, selling sound bites. Biden did some math about balancing national budget to know we cannot afford financial freedom without fixing up our broken tax code etc.   Yang shouldn’t (and didn’t) come on Biden public show and yells UBI to Biden (I am sure Yang tried to yang Biden with UBI in private many times). Yang is a powerhouse, but still just a person. It’s our job to help convincing more people to see the benefits of UBI (remember few supported #EmergancyUBI? Many high-profile personnel eventually did, once we yanged enough people behind UBI). So keep the pressure on our lawmakers:  https://actionnetwork.org/letters/ongoing-letters-to-congress-the-people-need-ubi-now https://5calls.org/issue/covid-19-coronavirus-relief-bill/ https://thepeoplesbailout.org/  ===========  # Yang’s take on Biden’s age and #MeToo allegation  https://yangspeaks.com/      Yang Speaks podcast with Sam Harris https://www.radio.com/media/audio-channel/how-covid-accelerates-the-arrival-of-our-future-sam-harris-joins-yang-speaks  Good to hear Sam Harris was the first podcast that helped Yang gained a bit national traction and leading to Joe Logan podcast. I found that year 2018 podcast here too:  https://youtu.be/f7_MWPxchy8  In May 11 YangSpeaks, Yang tells the hardship in early campaign (soul-crashing fundraising), and of course they talk about the Covid19 and our future of work.  Yang also defends the Biden’s age and #MeToo allegation here. We all noticed some the smears of Biden for mental decline and touchy-feely. I think Yang made an ok case for Biden here. Everyone will hesitate here and there, Biden talks and debates in long form pretty ok most the time. Not calling anyone liar here, but a real sexual predator would likely left a long trail of allegations over the decades (Like Trump has over dozens for examples)   Personally speaking, of course Biden is not better than Yang. But like Yang said, Biden is still a better person and policies than Trump. And Biden seems to be most voters want in this 2020 election cycle.  ==========  # Yang’s take on voting for Trump As a Yang diehard supporter myself, I came across rare info and I think I have a pretty good say about Yang position on some people voting for Trump and never-Biden. Some pointers are:   # Yang though understands why some folks voting for Trump in 2016 (the well-sold propaganda of mainstream Dem party are policing our freedom and not for the people anymore etc) # But Yang did run for 2020 presidency to defeat Trump, not to support Trump. Yang himself is a never-Trumper (Trump’s inducing hate and financial insecurity are not #HumanityFirst; slowing down automation and bring the old jobs back, tax cut that mostly benefits the rich and bankrupting the national debt to cut all the social services or safety nets for the people, bailing out big companies and the trickle-down economy are some regressive garbage policies etc)  # However, Yang also agrees to disagree (if the dems are not steering into a better direction). But Yang for now does support Biden in order to defeat Trump (we seemingly have better chance to yang Biden than Trump), and Yang hopes we can all try to listen his case as time goes by.

[billehrman]

Is The Party Over?

Paix et Prospérité has significantly outperformed all averages and ran circles around the Hedge Fund Index. Naturally, it would be easy to take our chips off the table, call it a day and protect our gains but is that the right strategy to pursue as we enter 2018? Not that simple!

The economic and financial backdrop is just too good:

1.     Accelerating global growth with muted inflationary pressures

2.     Incredibly low interest rates due in part to continuing QE in the ECB and Japan putting downward pressure on interest rates here

3.     A pro-growth, pro business administration in the U.S. that has enacted tax and regulatory reform which will force other countries, for competitive reasons, to follow suit bolstering global growth and corporate profits

4.     Rising capital and liquidity ratios at financial institutions reducing systematic risk

5.     Close to $3 trillion dollars being repatriated to the United States that will be used to reduce debt, grow capital expenditures, hire new employees, used to fund M & A, raise dividends and finally, buy back even more stock. Corporations’ stock buybacks have reduced the supply/float of common stock while boosting earnings per share and prices.

Corrections can happen at any time and for any reason but cyclical tops occur when alternative investments, which may include cash, are more favorable to own than stocks. Liquidity trends need to turn negative, too, but not now nor soon.

Where would you rather have your money invested today:

1.     Cash which still earns next to nothing?

2.     Bonds where the 10-year treasury yield is beneath 2.5% in the United States and much lower elsewhere?

3.     Commercial and office real estate where prices are way up, yields down and usage is changing (would you want to own a mall with box stores as key tenants)?

4.     Commodity prices which have room to run? (We do like the space and have invested in those companies with superior management, low cost positions and strong balance sheets.)

5.     Private equity where prices are through the roof and too much money is chasing too few investments?

6.     Stocks where earnings growth is accelerating, the multiple is still fair relative to bond yields (especially after factoring in tax reform) and supply is shrinking?

The answer is pretty obvious to us. Remember that the trend is your friend and the pendulum has clearly begun to swing back globally from an excessively restrictive financial, regulatory and political (budgetary) environment to one that is less so supporting economic growth.

The big surprise has been the failure of inflation to pick up moving closer to that magical 2% level after billions of QE, economic growth far stronger than anticipated and unemployment declining meaningfully without a real increase in wages. We have discussed this phenomenon for months now including the failure of the Philips curve. Global competition and the disruptors have put a lid on inflationary expectations. Whether the “Inflation Genie” comes out of the bottle by the end of 2018 is one of the big questions we face. We are watching this closely but all clear for now.

What other areas are we monitoring closely which may lead us to shift our positive bias?

Geopolitical risks are ever present as well as a potential shift in the political winds. Right now we are focused on North Korea as well as the Middle East. It is next to impossible to factor either one into your asset allocation other than maintaining excess liquidity at all times. We are also watching to see if the Democrats can finally present a decent alternative vision for the United States other than anti-Trump. Right now it does not exist but clearly we are concerned about the 2018 elections and a change in the now Republican-controlled Congress.

We are also keeping an eye on how China and Russia are trying to improve their status/power overseas filling a void created by Trump’s foreign and trade policies. Big changes are occurring in global relationships that need close monitoring. I want to reiterate that the U.S runs huge trade deficits especially with China, Germany and Japan who run huge trade surpluses so who has most to gain and who has most to lose by shifts in trade patterns? I expect a surge in new plants being built in the U.S. due to Trump’s tax, regulatory and trade policies.

Our major investment themes that will benefit from these afore-mentioned trends include:

1.     Financials that will benefit from accelerating loan growth, a steepening yield curve and regulatory relief

2.     Global industrials and capital goods companies that will benefit from acceleration in capital spending, “America First” and an infrastructure bill that I expect to pass this year.

3.     Industrial commodities that will benefit from higher prices as demand increases faster than supply over the next year coupled with China’s policies to reduce pollution and zombie companies.

4.     Technology at a fair price as growth will only strengthen for all the obvious reasons. Change is everywhere due to technology and that won’t change anytime soon. Disruptors are popping up everywhere changing the dynamics of so many industries while putting downward pressure on prices.

5.     Special situations have always been a meaningful percentage of our portfolio as corporate managements with board support make strategic changes that alter future growth, returns and stock valuations.

A successful investor must always look to the future and be willing to change his/her investment view if warranted. We are always looking for the proverbial hole in our thesis while being patient to let events unfold as long as they are consistent with our belief system. We tend to be very early in identifying new trends and also we tend to sell early as others catch up to us. Tax reform was a perfect example.  We positioned our portfolio months ago with the simple thesis that the Republicans had to unify behind it or run the risk of losing the elections big time in 2018. Right now the Democrats have no real platform and are considered the obstructionists. I expect a major infrastructure bill this year. We are positioned for that, too.

Trump’s pro-growth, pro-business agenda turned investment psychology upside down in 2017. Give him and the Republicans credit where it is due even if you don’t like him as a person.

The bottom line is to stay the course, as there is more room to run. The party is not over. At least not yet!

We wish you all a very Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year!

Remember to review all the facts; pause, reflect and consider mindset shifts; analyze your asset composition along with risk controls; do independent fundamental research and…

Invest Accordingly!

Bill Ehrman Paix et Prospérité LLC

#$AA #$AMZN #$AIG #$BAC #$BHP #$BMY #$C #$BABA #$DWDP #$GE #$HON #$HUN #$MRK #$GM #$Y #$TSLA #$CSCO #$ORCL #$MSFT #$NVDA #$NUE #$X #$T #$V #$M #$IR #$EMR #$GOOG #$FB #$LLY

[snakecolumn95]

Glossy 50: Beauty's New Guard - Glossy

It’s been a transformative year for the fashion and beauty industries: Direct-to-consumer brands moved further into traditional-brand territory, streetwear and luxury became increasingly intertwined, and wellness’s impact on beauty became apparent industrywide. At the same time, widespread movements toward authenticity, transparency, sustainability and diversity took shape, forcing strategic updates across departments, at brands across the board.

In our second annual Glossy 50 list, rolling out all week as a Glossy+ exclusive series, we’re honoring the industry insiders responsible for driving these important shifts. Below are the honorees representing Beauty’s New Guard.

Alissa Ashley

Beauty influencer

Beauty creator and influencer Alissa Ashley has put inclusivity and diversity at the forefront of her story since launching her YouTube channel in 2014 — she currently has over 1.6 million followers and has garnered 50 million views on the platform — and this summer, she got to double down on that message.

In August, she collaborated on the development of a new 45-shade foundation line with L’Oréal-owned beauty brand NYX Cosmetics called Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop, that upped the ante on Rihanna’s Fenty Beauty 40-shade Pro Filt’r foundations. “We set a new standard,” she said. “All anyone could talk about after Fenty was that 40 was the magic number.”

And Ashley said her push for inclusivity in beauty and fashion isn’t over: “All people need to feel included, and if I can be a small part of that, that is meaningful not just to me, but to everyone I reach.” — Priya Rao

Pamela Baxter and Cathy O’Brien

Co-founders, Bona Fide Beauty Lab

When industry veterans Pamela Baxter and Cathy O’Brien founded Bona Fide Beauty Lab, a beauty-focused growth accelerator, in 2017, working with female founders was top of mind for the duo. “We have been in the beauty business for a long time, but we have always loved and gravitated toward smaller businesses that need building,” said O’Brien, who previously worked at Estée Lauder.

Their portfolio manages beauty brands that do around $20 million in sales, and include fragrance innovation company Scent Invent Technologies and natural brand Sapelo Skin Care. The year’s big win for Baxter and O’Brien was their beauty licensing agreement with online media brand PopSugar. The line, dubbed Beauty by PopSugar, is expected to do more than $20 million in sales in its first year.

How do you identify the brands that are right for Bona Fide Beauty Lab? O’Brien: We’re attracted to a kind of integrity: how a founder conducts themselves as a person, but also how they run their businesses, from their manufacturers and suppliers to what the intention is with their product.

What do you think is the most important trend happening in beauty right now? Baxter: It’s clean beauty and the movement toward more natural products. We find that this younger generation is well aware of ingredients that are good for you and ingredients that are not.

How did PopSugar’s audience of 100 million readers give you proof of concept with the assortment? Baxter: We sent out 2,000 surveys to the PopSugar community before launching to really understand what the readership was wanting from beauty products. Beauty was also in the top-two-read verticals on PopSugar — health and wellness was up there, too. That community continues to drive our innovation and launches for 2019. The reader knows what she wants and is very interested in skin care, fragrance, hair care. We are using the information she is giving us and using it to make better beauty suited just for her.

You launched Beauty by PopSugar on its own brand site, but also with Ulta as the exclusive wholesale partner for two years. Why do you think physical retail continues to be important in the beauty space? Baxter: In those same surveys, we learned readers wanted the opportunity to touch and feel and play with their products — you can’t tell what the texture or color or payoff is online. Those women continue to find shopping for beauty in stores fun. It’s where the discovery process is for her and continues to be. — Priya Rao

Jessica Blacker

Founder, Jecca

Jecca founder Jessica Blacker said the idea for her transgender beauty line came to her while working as a makeup artist for film and television, where she began receiving requests to do makeup lessons for the LGBT community. “I was inspired by my trans clients to create a brand that overlooks gender and concentrates on individuality, and to continue to support the LGBT community,” Blacker said. For now, Jecca only sells one product: a concealer palette that can cover beard shadows, but the brand has already attracted praise from high-profile customers like transgender model and makeup artist Joseph Harwood, and was recently accepted into L’Oréal’s accelerator program, Open Innovation. — Emma Sandler

Lindsay Dahl

Vp of social and environmental responsibility, Beautycounter

When clean cosmetics company Beautycounter launched in 2013, its mission was bold and transparent: Get safer beauty and personal care products into the hands of the masses. To get there, founder and CEO Gregg Renfrew enlisted Lindsay Dahl, the former deputy director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families as Beautycounter vice president of social and environmental responsibility in 2014.

Dahl was well acquainted with the fact that the U.S. has not passed a federal law to regulate personal care product ingredients since 1938, and she has since been ardent about getting legislature on Beautycounter’s side.

This year has been especially productive for Dahl and Beautycounter. When the company turned 5 years old this past March, Dahl spearhead the company’s month-long efforts around its advocacy work by training 100 of the brand’s independent consultants from all 50 states to lobby at Capitol Hill. “Within one day, we had 110 meetings that ranged from the Senate to the House of Representatives to key staff,” she said. Simultaneously, Dahl further engaged the Beautycounter community in its ongoing text messaging initiative to urge Congress to pass more health protective laws: When the brand introduced its Red Color Intense Lipstick to celebrate the anniversary, Dahl ensured the text initiative was included on the packaging.

On the legislative side, Dahl prompted Beautycounter’s support for Hawaii’s Sunscreen Bill and California’s Safer Salon Bill. Beautycounter was one of two companies to activate around the legislation for the Hawaii Bill, and for the Safer Salon Bill, it was the leading company to show support. “We continue to be the myth busters in the room, proving that better beauty doesn’t hurt the overall industry,” said Dahl. — Priya Rao

Henry Davis

President and COO, Glossier

In Glossier’s early days, there were only a few key people that surrounded founder and CEO Emily Weiss. One of them was Henry Davis, a former venture capital investor who is now the company’s president and COO.

Since launching four years ago, Davis has helped grow and scale Glossier’s marketing, finance, technology, product operations and logistics teams to over 150 employees. In the last year, he’s helped Glossier go global by leading its international expansions to Canada and the United Kingdom. Davis also helped close a $52 million series C round of funding for the company, bringing Glossier’s total investment raise to over $86 million.

Glossier has a built a fan base with over 1.4 million followers on Instagram. How do you continue to maintain and grow that community? We proved that the old-school CPG model of creating a bunch of products and then trying to sell them no longer worked. We wanted to know: Who are [our customers], and what do they want? We included them in every solution, and they became stakeholders in those solutions. Our fundamental belief was you can’t involve your customer if you don’t own the relationship with that customer. When you deal with a retailer, you’ve giving that relationship away.

So Glossier is steering clear from wholesale? [E-commerce] continues to be the biggest differentiator of our business. We used it to disrupt the supply side and change the customer experience. We made the channel the value proposition.

How do you identify what products to launch next? We like to identify the areas where people are underserved and then find why they are undeserved. We don’t have a speed-to-market mindset, we have a purpose-to-market mindset. We aren’t responding to trends.

How will your recent influx of capital grow the business? We want to continue to create a community using technology. We want to build tools that allow us a more personalized relationship with the customer and that are designed for the conversation we want to have with them. — Priya Rao

Alex Fogelson

Co-founder and CEO, Taste Beauty

Taste Beauty shows no signs of slowing down. Founded two years ago, the pop culture–based beauty brand is already distributed in over 50,000 retail doors and could achieve annual sales of $50 million within three years, according to industry predictions. CEO Alex Fogelson has been the driving force behind the product innovation, brand collaborations and partnerships with companies like Disney, Pepsi and Nickelodeon that have landed in the beauty industry with a bang. Last holiday season, Taste Beauty managed to seize on the pop culture toy sensation L.O.L. Surprise by creating its own version in less than a month through the use of a 3D-printed mold. “Going into next year, we are going to be doubling down on our innovation and 3D-printed packaging, and increasing our brand partnerships and the scale of collaborations,” Fogelson said. — Emma Sandler

Jill Granoff

CEO, Eurazeo Brands

When industry veteran Jill Granoff was tapped to be the CEO of Eurazeo Brands — an $800 million investment division of Eurazeo S.E., a European private equity firm with $17 billion in assets in May 2017 — many in the fashion and beauty worlds were eager to see what she would do first. As a former CEO of Vince, Kellwood and Kenneth Cole Productions with 17 years and 10 years of experience in beauty and fashion, respectively, Granoff has had a long career building brands from the ground up.

“I really want to leverage the experiences I have had, but now I am interested in partnering with great, newer companies to help them grow their businesses,” said Granoff. “What attracts me to brands is that they are aspirational, but also that there’s an emotional connection with the customer.”

Her first investment was a $70 million deal for a majority stake in Nest Fragrances in November 2017, and this past summer, Eurazeo Brands made a $60 million minority investment in Pat McGrath Labs. Both of these brands have incorporated digital savviness into their DNAs — McGrath, for instance, has perfected the social media drop model with all of her cosmetic products. “With the retail and consumer sectors undergoing significant change with technology and consumer demand, it’s providing an entryway for groundbreaking new business models,” said Granoff.

That both brands are also still led by their respective founders, Laura Slatkin and makeup artist Pat McGrath, was an additional selling point for Eurazeo. “They are leaders in their sector and have been incredibly innovative,” Granoff said.

Nest, which touches both home and fine fragrance, has mass reach: The brand resonates with millennials and baby boomers, and both men and women. “It had strong sales growth over the last six years, but, more importantly, Nest is poised for expansion,” said Granoff, who plans to help the brand with both product expansion and channel expansion, across wholesale, retail and digital. From a pure business standpoint, there is little seasonality in fragrance and the category has significant margins.

The plan forward for Pat McGrath Labs and Eurazeo Brands is slightly different. McGrath already has a huge social following and has some international presence because of her London, Milan and Paris runway work, and Granoff thinks Labs is ripe for global expansion. “[McGrath’s] 30-year track record has made her the most coveted makeup artist in the world,” Granoff said. That Eurazeo Brands has such broad reach through Eurazeo S.E. — with offices in Paris, Luxembourg, New York, Shanghai and Sao Paulo — allows Granoff to offer brands, like Pat McGrath Labs, a wide-reaching point of view.

Within Eurazeo Brands, Granoff isn’t interested in beauty or fashion alone; she has her eye on areas as diverse as home, wellness, leisure and food. “What’s exciting and has changed in these spaces is that these brands are now consumer-driven, whereas in the past, they’ve been retailer-driven,” she said. “The consumer is much more in control, so it’s very easy to see followers, engagement and interest — and it’s not just in the U.S., but all over the world.” — Priya Rao

Newby Hands

Beauty director, Net-a-porter

Newby Hands knows a thing or two about beauty. As the beauty director at luxury e-commerce retailer Net-a-Porter, she’s helped curate the direction of the vertical, which celebrates its fifth anniversary this year. In those five years, the beauty department has jumped from carrying 11 brands to 220, with sales growing in the triple digits year-over-year. Hands’ new responsibilities this year have included on-the-ground reporting from places like Singapore to hear from women about what they’re buying in beauty. “Having conversations with women around the world is something really special,” she said. Moving forward into 2019, Hands said providing women curated offerings from clean beauty brands and doctor-backed brands, tied with daily website beauty content, are her priorities. — Emma Sandler

Tiffany Masterson

Founder, Drunk Elephant

Drunk Elephant has become one of the fastest growing skin-care lines in Sephora’s U.S. history thanks to a differentiated product lineup that’s void of the “suspicious six” ingredients — including essential oils, drying alcohols, silicones and chemical screens — in its core offering.

Drunk Elephant is on track to do more than $100 million in net sales this year (quadruple its 2016 reported revenue of $25 million) through Sephora as well as its e-commerce site. Now, it’s set on international growth: In October, it expanded to the U.K. through partnerships with Space NK stores and CultBeauty.com. In addition, Drunk Elephant, which is sold exclusively in Sephora in the U.S. and Canada, will debut in Singapore through the retailer in November.

What prompted you to start Drunk Elephant? Curiosity. I started looking at all the ingredients that were in every single beauty product and wondered what was going on, what their roles were and if they were really there for the health of the skin. I was thinking about Drunk Elephant like you would a diet: If you are eating broccoli, carrots, lean chicken — those all have a direct correlation to your skin and body. I asked if ingredients were good enough to put in your smoothie. Why is red dye or perfume in a beauty product?

Why were the natural beauty products available not enough? To me, natural was only halfway there. It may not have been bad for you, but all people want is for skin care to work, and what was on the market wasn’t working. People were going into Sephora and buying 10 different products from 10 different lines and were frustrated.

How do you stay focused, when beauty is so noisy right now? I don’t look around; I don’t look at other brands. I don’t know what other brands are doing, and I don’t care. I’m very, very focused on one thing only, and it’s my consumer. They are driving what’s next.

How has your retail strategy informed your plan for international expansion? We have a very special relationship with our retailers. With Sephora, I know they can get the most out of me, and I can get the most out of them. The most important thing for a brand is to not lose its identity, and so I’ve wanted to pick brand partners that share my values, where I felt like product would sell the best and where I shopped. With the U.K., it took two years to get this right. We always do things slowly and carefully. — Priya Roa

John & Laura Nelson

Co-founders, CEO and president of Seed Beauty

Brother-sister duo John and Laura Nelson are the business and creative minds behind the company Seed Beauty, which burst onto the beauty scene in 2014 with ColourPop. The initial brand showed a new way to conduct business, with its influencer-heavy, marketing-light approach that took products from concept to launch in just three months. Since, Seed Beauty has managed to create household-name cosmetic brands like ColourPop, Kylie Cosmetics and KKW Beauty, and recently ventured into skin care with the launch of Fourth Ray in August.

Seed Beauty has come to represent the industry of fast beauty. John, who is CEO, and Laura, who is president, inherited the family business from their father, including Spatz Laboratories in Oxnard, California which has been vertically integrated since the 1950s. Seed Beauty now boasts it can bring products to market in as little as five days — it owes the speed to overseeing its own manufacturing, product development lab, brand incubation, marketing and even venture capital firm. But the Nelson siblings are firm in their belief that this is not the only thing that makes Seed Beauty unique — instead, it contributes to their greater purpose of redefining the concept of luxury beauty.

“What we are trying to do is not have the traditional top-down beauty,” John said. “Instead, we look at the democratization of beauty. Being able to have discussions with the end customer and then [use] that feedback through our vertical integration — that’s what we feel makes Seed Beauty unique.”

With a 200,000-square-foot campus and thousands of employees, John and Laura have spent the past year optimizing the processes of the business. This has included developing makeup formulations for a wider assortment of skin tones and making adjustments to powdered product processing, packaging and more. The company’s venture into skin care with Fourth Ray Beauty was also of notable significance, allowing the company to further delve into this category with future brand incubation.

“An important part of the democratization [goal] is to make strong products that are going to be acceptable to as many people as possible and reach them in ways that can really help make a difference in their lives,” Laura said. “Going really fast in the wrong direction isn’t going to help anybody.” — Emma Sandler

Yana Sheptovetskaya

Influencer and creator, Gelcream

Yana Sheptovetskaya has garnered a lot of attention (and heat) for her Instagram account, @Gelcream. Since its launch in 2016, the account has been dedicated to bias-free beauty product reviews and a no-sponsored-posts policy, and Sheptovetskaya is unabashed in offering her honest opinions — often to the ire of brands. But it has resonated with followers, and Gelcream has since amassed almost 100,000 to date. This has spurred expansion: In the past year, Gelcream has launched new features, including crowdsourced lists.

What are the biggest developments you’ve experienced with Gelcream in the past 12 months? I think of Gelcream as a magazine with my posts being my features and [Instagram] Stories being front of book. I introduced a lot of new features in Stories, like Gelcream Research, which is sourced lists of the best items by topic, and Gelcream History, which is informative articles about brands, products and anything else beauty-related.

Why does Gelcream not accept sponsored posts? I worked for magazines as a fashion editor, and it really bothered me when everything we did was dictated by our sponsors. Nowadays, Instagram has turned into a feed of ads, and it’s really hard to see what people actually wear and use. So for me, it was important to keep independence, freedom of speech and unbiased opinion.

I try to review not just the product, but also the brand [and] its mission, to see a bigger picture. I feel it’s hard to navigate between so many new beauty companies and founders without knowing what they stand for. I have a very strong community, and we try to find out the answers together. My goal here is to give consumers honest opinion and brands a chance to improve if something is wrong.

What impact do you think Gelcream is having on the conversation around beauty products on social media? I hope Gelcream reminds people that not everything should be monetized. I must note that I am not against ads in general; I love advertising campaigns that are a piece of art, where you look at the photo or video and feel connected with the brand. Now, that’s so rare.

It’s really hard to stay in this [position], as a lot of brands get mad at me for saying what I think. A lot of accounts have blocked me — RMS Beauty and Ouai are among them — and, to be honest, I think this reaction says a lot about brands. If you can’t comprehend and respond politely to criticism, you should not be doing business. — Emma Sandler

Chris & Linda Tawil

Founders, Morphe

When Morphe founders and siblings Linda and Chris Tawil launched their beauty brand in 2008, the duo came to the industry as outsiders: Linda was working in education, while Chris was in the auto industry. In the last year, Morphe, which is known for its highly pigmented color cosmetics available at low prices, has adopted a new “clicks to bricks” strategy, moving largely from selling on its own e-commerce site and its partnership with Ulta Beauty to opening brick-and-mortar stores. After opening two in 2017, the brand is hitting the gas: Eighteen more stores will be open by the end of this year, including one in the U.K., which debuted in June.

Set the scene for the beauty industry when you launched 10 years ago. How did you find a niche? Chris: The beauty industry was so expensive, even on the trade show side. We saw an angle: We wanted to give people the best quality at low prices, and it set us apart.

Linda: As a young girl with not a lot of money, I could never afford to get really good makeup. I could only get one color at MAC, or I would go to Target and buy the mass stuff and it wasn’t good. Being able to make really good quality, $20 makeup hit home.

You were early influencer collaborators in the industry. What did you see that others didn’t? Linda: The beauty of our business back in 2008 was that we were a trade show business — at one point, we were doing 27 trade shows a year. Chris and I would pack up, set up shop and sell, so we saw firsthand what thousands of girls were excited about. The influencer piece came up organically. In 2013, we had around 2,000 followers on Instagram, and at the trade shows, we met influencers, like Angel Merino and LipstickNick, who had 1,000 or 5,000 followers at the time, so we just worked together: We gave them makeup, and they created cool content. We had an Instagram page we wanted to flood with beautiful images, but we didn’t have the people to do it in-house. We had no idea it would blow up.

Why do you think that approach is still working for you today, as more beauty brands work with influencers? Linda: We are big on relationships. We will never hire someone, pay them to do a sponsorship and then move on with life.

What prompted your recent retail expansion and the international move into the U.K.? Linda: People want the brand. In our Burbank shop, which was our only store, there was a line outside the door every single Saturday and Sunday, and you had to wait anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours to shop. More stores had to be a part of our future. And when I used to answer all the social media comments and the phones for Morphe, international markets were literally the No. 1 request. We started in the U.K., but more international markets are coming; we want to be everywhere. — Priya Rao

Nick Vlahos

CEO, The Honest Company

In March 2017, The Honest Company hit the reset button with the appointment of Nick Vlahos as CEO. Joining from The Clorox Company, where he served as evp and COO, Vlahos was tasked with revamping a company that had faced multiple lawsuits, issued voluntary recalls of products like baby wipes and baby powder, and lost its lauded “Unicorn” status, given to private companies valued at $1 billion or more.

Vlahos had his work cut out for him, and things are turning around for the brand. Vlahos has doubled The Honest Company’s distribution network to over 25,000 retail outlets, including Costco and Whole Foods, in addition to a formal presence on Amazon and its existing direct-to-consumer business. The clean-beauty retailer also launched a beauty-specific in-house lab in March, and overhauled the 3-year-old Honest Beauty category with a relaunch in July featuring fewer items overall but new products, new formulations and new packaging. Simplified product names and lower price points cemented the beauty brand in the mass-tige category, accessible to more people.

“We spent a lot of time, from a strategic perspective, [looking at] where we are going to compete within the marketplace and where we are going to put our emphasis from a category perspective,” Vlahos said.

In 2017, the company grew its retail business by 34 percent, Vlahos said, adding that beauty and baby care led the categories. Overall, the company will debut 80 new or improved products in those categories, including new beauty products, before the end of 2018.

“What that tells us is that consumers are more cognizant of what they are putting on their skin,” he said. “Consumers want to be part of a mission from day one. So the narrative for us is very clear where we can compete within the beauty and baby space.”

To help drive the narrative and current momentum, the company will be relying on its in-house lab. The lab features clinical scientists, cosmetic chemists, and toxicologists to develop and test formulations and products. This will allow it to create small-batch testing of many different formulations and products, in order to ensure that they are both safe and effective, Vlahos said.

“[Customers] want clean beauty, but also want it to work,” he said. “The in-house lab gives us that capability within those disciplines to create some breakthrough innovations.”

In June, the company also announced a $200 million strategic minority investment from private equity group L Catterton to help fuel the clean-beauty brand’s expansion into Europe through a partnership with German retailer Douglas, where it will be in 2,500 stores across seven countries by spring 2019. — Emma Sandler

Shane Wolf

Founder, Seed Phytonutrients

Shane Wolf doesn’t just want to promote clean beauty products, he wants to drive a conversation around them. As L’Oréal’s global manager for Redken, Pureology and Mizani in the professional hair division, Wolf incubated Seed Phytonutrients within the company and launched it on Earth Day this past April.

The brand focuses its content strategy on the fact that it sources all its ingredients from local farms in Pennsylvania, promotes seed diversity by using heirloom seeds, and uses shower-friendly paper packaging that is both recyclable and compostable. To date, it’s amplified the discussion around sustainable farming practices and ocean pollution.

What was the incubation experience like? The whole process of incubation was, and continues to be, one of the most diverse business challenges I’ve ever tackled. In particular, I found how important it is to have stakeholders see your vision. As a founder, you have this grand vision of what you want to achieve, and you have to get [stakeholders] on board. Simply getting people to understand your vision and share the same values and purpose for the vision you have has, for me, been all at once the most complicated and most rewarding experience.

What role do you see incubated brands playing within the beauty space? The incubation we see happening in large companies today is slightly unique from one to the next. In the case of Seed Phytonutrients, I had [thought] for many years that I would go off and create a brand on my own. That was my original intention. But at a certain point, when I shared my vision with the [L’Oréal] Group, they were so excited about the possibility of being a part of that. In our case, the value this has brought is demonstrating to internal populations at large companies just how entrepreneurialism can exist within a large company.

Where does your brand, and vision, go from here? The objective of Seed Phytonutrients, first and foremost, is to build on the very mission of helping preserve seed diversity, supporting independent and organic farmers, raising the bar on natural formulations and bringing a new level of sustainability to the beauty industry that no one has believed we could achieve. And that job will never be done. I’m really pleased with the fact that we have created a paper bottle that reduces plastic usage by 60 percent, but I am not even a little bit satisfied by that. I tell my team that I want 70 percent by the end of this year and 80 percent by the end of next year. — Emma Sandler

Ashley Yuki

Product manager, Instagram

In the four years that Instagram product manager Ashley Yuki has been with the social media platform, she has been heavily involved with several of the company’s key initiatives, the results of which have been hits among beauty creators. They include launching the Instagram Stories ads business, as well as the in-feed post-save feature. Her most ambitious project to date, though, is the debut of IGTV, the company’s longer-form streaming channel in late June 2018.

Yuki worked directly with co-founders Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger to envision the mobile-first functionality of the video platform. “We spent a lot of time listening to feedback from our community, and IGTV was inspired by our creators and fans telling us the one-minute video limit we had for feed videos was restricting,” she said.

Though it is still early days for IGTV, Yuki is excited about the unexpected ways users are using the mobile-optimized, vertical-angled channel — a significant departure from YouTube’s horizontal orientation, which is better suited for a desktop. — Priya Rao

Source: https://www.glossy.co/new-face-of-beauty/glossy-50-beautys-new-guard

#read more #see more #check it out #interesting #learn more

[patriotsnet]

What Are Republicans Replacing Obamacare With

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-are-republicans-replacing-obamacare-with/

What Are Republicans Replacing Obamacare With

Trump Wants To ‘repeal And Replace’ The Affordable Care Act Quickly

Republicans withdraw bill to replace Obamacare

Following the Republican playbook, Donald Trump promised as president to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to replace it with something that emphasizes free market principles.

“Real change begins with immediately repealing and replacing the disaster known as Obamacare,” Trump said at a Nov. 7, 2016, rally in Michigan.

Currently, 20 million people have health insurance under President Barack Obama’s signature law, and the uninsured rate is below 9 percent, a record low. Repealing and replacing Obamacare would require lawmakers to figure out whether they will cover those people, and if so, how.

WHY HE’S PROMISING IT

The Affordable Care Act isn’t popular. Polling conducted in 2016 shows that Americans are divided on the law.

And the law has some problems. Despite provisions aimed at curbing rising health care costs, premiums for plans on HealthCare.gov are expected to go up an average of 22 percent in 2017. Insurance companies have pulled out of the marketplaces in 29 states.

HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST

Trump has several policy ideas for what the health care law replacement should include. He suggests allowing providers to sell insurance across state lines, making it so individuals could deduct premium payments from their tax returns and requiring price transparency from health care providers. He also proposes block-granting Medicaid to the states and encouraging health savings accounts.

WHAT’S STANDING IN HIS WAY

Why Is It So Controversial

There around 20 million additional Americans who now have health insurance under the law.

But the programme has been rocked by premium hikes – which were a problem before Obamacare – and a trio of national insurers abandoning the online marketplaces.

Its individual mandate is unpopular because many uninsured Americans who end up paying tax penalties are low-to-moderate income workers juggling rent, car payments or student loans.

But the law is popular, too, because it bans insurance companies from denying health coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions and allows young people to remain on their parents’ plans until age 26.

Obamacare has also defied Republican predictions that it would bloat government expenditure – the Congressional Budget Office said in 2015 that repealing Obamacare outright would increase the federal budget deficit by $137bn by 2025.

Trumps Promise To Repeal Obamacare Is Now In Limbo

President Donald Trump expressed disappointment after Republican lawmakers’ failure to muster enough votes to repeal Obamacare placed one of his loftiest campaign promises in limbo.

A series of defections by Senate Republicans scuttled two separate efforts to dismantle the sweeping U.S. health care law put in place by Trump’s predecessor, President Barack Obama.

“We’ve had a lot of victories, but we haven’t had a victory on health care,” Trump told reporters July 18, as it became clear the latest Republican legislative efforts would fail. “We’re disappointed.”

A slim margin of error constrained GOP efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare and forced a delicate balancing act between the party’s conservative and moderate members.

But defections by Sens. Jerry Moran of Kansas and Mike Lee of Utah on July 17 brought to four the number of Republican senators to publicly oppose the bill , effectively killing the repeal-and-replace plan. Senate leadership could only afford to lose two Republican votes for passage.

Senate Republicans then turned their attention to a measure that would repeal major parts of Obamacare over two years, in theory buying lawmakers enough time to agree on a replacement plan before the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare, was largely dismantled.

“I did not come to Washington to hurt people,” Capito said in a statement. “I cannot vote to repeal Obamacare without a replacement plan that addresses my concerns and the needs of West Virginians.”

Don’t Miss: What Caused Republicans To Gain Power In Congress In 1938

Vaccines Mandates And Backlash: The Long Us History

After nearly 10 years as law, a flat-out repeal would deprive 20 million people of insurance, roll back Medicaid expansion, prevent young adults from piggybacking on their parents plans, and end protections for people with preexisting conditions, among other things. Over time, the law has become more popular, not less. It has flaws that need fixing, says Mr. Hoagland, but the idea of doing away with it absent an alternative is terribly unthoughtful and politically inept, he adds.

The Justice Departments move and the presidents plan pronouncement dropped from the sky like a tornado, surprising Republicans on Capitol Hill who have pointedly avoided any replay of the party division and defeat over Obamacare. It also came during a week in which the administration lost two court cases attempting to change the Affordable Care Act; coverage. On Wednesday, a federal judge blocked the introduction of new work requirements for Medicaid recipients in Arkansas and Kentucky, ruling that the changes undermined the purpose of the program to provide health care for low-income Americans. On Thursday, another federal judge called a plan for;small-business health insurance an end run around consumer protections provided by the ACA.

But the president lays great worth on fulfilling his campaign promises, and repealing Obamacare has been left undone. At the same time, he told Senate Republicans that he wants to get the upper hand on health care as the 2020 presidential campaigning begins.

The Real Reason Republicans Couldnt Kill Obamacare

Democrats did the work, Republicans didntand that says a lot about the two parties.

Adapted from The Ten Year War: Obamacare and the Unfinished Crusade for Universal Coverage, St. Martins Press 2021.

The Affordable Care Act, the health-care law also known as Obamacare, turns 11 years old this week. Somehow, the program has not merely survived the GOPs decade-long assault. Its actually getting stronger, thanks to some major upgrades tucked in the COVID-19 relief package that President Joe Biden signed into law earlier this month.

The new provisions should enable millions of Americans to get insurance or save money on coverage they already purchase, bolstering the health-care law in precisely the way its architects had always hoped to do. And although the measures are temporary, Biden and his Democratic Party allies have pledged to pass more legislation making the changes permanent.

The expansion measures are a remarkable achievement, all the more so because Obamacares very survival seemed so improbable just a few years ago, when Donald Trump won the presidency. Wiping the law off the books had become the Republicans defining cause, and Trump had pledged to make repeal his first priority. As the reality of his victory set in, almost everybody outside the Obama White House thought the effort would succeed, and almost everybody inside did too.

That was no small thing, as Republicans were about to discover.

Recommended Reading: How Many Democrats And Republicans Are In The House

Back To The Future: Trumps History Of Promising A Health Plan That Never Comes

Ever since he was a presidential candidate, President Donald Trump has been promising the American people a terrific, phenomenal and fantastic new health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act.

But, in the 3½ years since he set up shop in the Oval Office, he has yet to deliver.

In his early days on the campaign trail, circa 2015, he said on CNN he would repeal Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, and on Sean Hannitys radio show he said the replacement would be something great. Fast-forward to 2020. Trump has promised an Obamacare replacement plan five times so far this year. And the plan is always said to be just a few weeks away.

Republicans Offer A Plan To Replace Obamacare

The House GOPs health-care proposal would expand savings accounts, provide tax credits for buying insurance, and allow people to purchase coverage across state lines. Just dont ask how much it costs.

That Republicans have failed to offer a single, comprehensive replacement bill for Obamacare has become a running joke in Washington over the last several years: They voted to repeal the lawin whole or in partdozens of times, yet theyve never kept their many pledges to replace it.

Contrary to the common criticism from Democrats, however, the GOPs failure to back up its talk with action hasnt stemmed from a lack of ideas. Republicans have plenty of ideas for how to overhaul the health-care systemtheyve just never been able to agree on enough of them to pass a plan through Congress.

On Wednesday, party leaders will try again, by unveiling a proposal that, for the first time, represents a consensus position of the House Republican conference over how the nations health-care laws should work if the GOP ever succeeds in repealing the Affordable Care Act. The long-awaited proposal doesnt pick sides in the intra-party debate over health policy so much as it tries to piece together a hodgepodge of ideas that have circulated among conservative think tanks and campaign platforms for more than a decade, including those offered by John McCain in 2008, Mitt Romney in 2012, and several candidates who ran this year.

Read Also: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

The Impressive New Obamacare Replace Plan From Republicans Burr Hatch And Upton

One year ago, three Republican senators permanently changed the Obamacare debate by publishing Congress most credible plan yet to repeal and replace the health law. They called it the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment Act, or Patient CARE. Last night, they published a new and improved version of their proposal, one that continues to be a model GOP health-reform plan. It could have an impact on how the Supreme Court opines in its upcoming Obamacare case, King v. Burwell.

A plan authored by leading Republican lawmakers

The first version of the Patient CARE Act was co-authored by Senators Tom Coburn , Richard Burr , and Orrin Hatch . Coburn retired in December, and so Burr and Hatch added Rep. Fred Upton , Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

E&C, as its called, is one of the two principal House committees on health care issues. Now that Republicans have retaken the Senate, Orrin Hatch is Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, another key health care body. Hence, the Patient CARE Act is not merely a plan put forth by random Republicans, but by key lawmakers who run two of the most important health care committees in Congress.

The key to Patient CARE: Means-tested insurance subsidies

New wrinkles in Burr-Hatch-Upton

Ok, so whats new about Burr-Hatch-Upton versus last years version, you ask? A few things.

Comparing Burr-Hatch-Upton to Transcending Obamacare

Means-testing vs. uniform tax credits

*;;; *;;; *

Timeline Of Aca Repeal And Replace Efforts

US: Republicans make gains to replace Obamacare

Federal policy on healthcare, 2017-2020

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, was passed by Congress along party lines on March 21, 2010, and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. The Senate passed the ACA by a vote of 60-39 with no Republican support on December 24, 2009. The House passed the bill by a vote of 219-212 on March 21, 2010. Thirty-four House Democrats voted against the bill with all House Republicans.

What is the ACA or Obamacare?

Since the bill became law, Republicans have been trying to repeal and replace the ACA. In 2016, with control of the Senate and House, Republicans passed the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015. The bill would have repealed several parts of the ACA, but it was vetoed by President Barack Obama on January 8, 2016. Sen. Susan Collins and Sen. were the only Republicans who voted against the bill.

In 2016, Republicans and President Donald Trump campaigned on repealing and replacing the ACA. After winning control of the presidency, Senate, and House, in the 2016 elections, Republicans have attempted on multiple occasions to repeal and replace the ACA, but, as of September 27, 2017, they had been unsuccessful. Below is a timeline of the 2017 efforts to repeal and replace the ACA.

Don’t Miss: Have The Democrats Tried To Impeach Every Republican President Since Eisenhower

Mcconnell Says Gop Will Quickly Repeal Obamacare

Mitch McConnell talks about Obamacare on Wednesday.

Replacement is the far tougher task. The replacement plan is likely to be brand new, using principles laid out in Ryans better way agenda as a guide, sources said. Republicans have largely coalesced around Ryans plan, but there are still outstanding and controversial policy details to be ironed out, such as how or if people should get assistance to buy insurance.

Senate Republicans are talking about avoiding a massive bill and moving the replacement legislation in chunks: One that tackles purchasing insurance over state lines; another that deals with pre-existing conditions; another establishing new insurance plans for small businesses. That would take a long time and could bog down the process, but GOP leaders are eager to avoid the appearance of jamming a huge bill through Congress after criticizing Democrats for doing the same.

By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL

Were not going to pass another 2000-page bill like the Democrats have, Cornyn said. The way to realistically address this is to go step by step, to build consensus, get 60 votes and pass those various pieces.

Democratic Sen. Patty Murray says of GOP plans to repeal and replace Obamacare: They break it, they buy it. | AP Photo

The blame will fall on the people who didnt want to do anything, McCarthy said, foreshadowing a likely GOP talking point should Democrats block a replacement plan.

Jennifer Haberkorn contributed to this report.

Eliminating Health Care Penalties

The Affordable care Act, required most Americans to be enrolled in Health Insurance since it was made affordable, otherwise a penalty would be induced. Effective 2017, congress attempted to eliminate financial penalties that were related to complying with the mandated law that every individual needs to be enrolled in Health insurance, this law however did not become effective until 2019. This policy is still valid, the penalty for having no health insurance was reduced to 0$. Individual mandates effects the decisions made by individuals regarding healthcare in that some people will not enroll since health insurance plans are no longer mandatory.

On March of 2020, the nation has undergone a global pandemic, however, several Republican-led states and the Justice Department are making the case for invalidating the ACA. This will cause at least 60 million people to not be able to afford being hospitalized, or treated which increased the number of COVID-19 cases nationwide.

Read Also: Trump Democrat Or Republican

What Will Trump Administration Do To Replace Obamacare

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the health insurance industrys trade association, American Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, have separately gone on the offensive to ensure that a $100 billion tax on the health insurance industry is included in any repeal.

AHIP President Marilyn Tavenner wrote and op-ed outlining their demands, including a repeal of the tax. The Chamber released a robust print and digital advertising effort Tuesday on the issue and are also pressuring Congress to repeal the unpopular medical devise tax and the Cadillac tax on expensive and expansive health plans.

We dont want to run any risk that someone looks at the health insurance tax or the Cadillac tax and says, those dont take effect until 2018 and 2020, we can deal them later, said Blair Holmes, spokeswoman for the Chamber of Commerce.

Related: Five Things You May Not Know About Obamacare

Finally, the scope of repeal is causing tension among Republicans. Republicans in the House, backed by the conservative Heritage Foundation, say that repeal can include more than just the financial components that pay for the Affordable Care Act, bucking Senate Republicans who say that Senate rules will block any effort that goes beyond taxes and revenues. It’s a delicate line that can’t be crossed.

Daniel Holler, vice president of communications at Heritage Action, argues that repeal can be comprehensive.

Trump Signs Executive Order On Obamacare; Impact Unclear

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that gave federal agencies broad authority to defer or delay any part of the Affordable Care Act that costs anybody any money.

More formally, the order tells agencies they can “waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.”

That’s a mouthful, but what does it mean, and how far does it go to repeal Obamacare?

Larry Levitt, senior vice-president at the respected and neutral Kaiser Family Foundation, said in a series of tweets that while the impacts are unclear, it shows the administration is “moving to unwind the Affordable Care Act, but it won’t be immediate.”;

Levitt added, “One sure outcome is it creates uncertainty for insurers at a critical time.”

Health care analyst Sabrina Corlette at Georgetown University echoed Levitt’s point.

“For insurers already uncertain about their future in the Affordable Care markets, the uncertainty this executive order generates doesn’t help,” Corlette said. “At a minimum they’ll have to factor it into their 2018 premiums, which are due to be filed by May 3 in most states.”

But that hasn’t happened yet.

Don’t Miss: When Did Republicans And Democrats Switch Colors

Gridlock In House Stalls Trump’s Pledge To Repeal Obamacare

As a candidate for president, Donald Trump said that “real change begins with immediately repealing and replacing the disaster known as Obamacare.”

On March 24, the nation learned that it’s not happening immediately. And the road forward isn’t clear either.

Capping a frenzied week of negotiations between three House Republican factions — the party leadership, the hardline conservative House Freedom Caucus, and members of the more moderate, pragmatic wing of the party — House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., announced that he would not bring the American Health Care Act to the floor for a vote, as he had planned.

That March 24 announcement came one day after the floor vote had been pushed back to allow for last-minute changes and arm-twisting, and half a day after Trump had issued an ultimatum to House Republicans — pass the bill or he’ll move on.

In the run-up to Ryan’s announcement, vote counting by media outlets had concluded that the House GOP would lose too many votes to pass the bill if it tried.

“We came really close today, but we came up short,” Ryan said at a press conference. “I will not sugarcoat this. This was a disappointing day for us.”

For members on the party’s right flank, the American Health Care Act left in place too much of the infrastructure of the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature health care law and the target of intense Republican opposition for seven years.

[duanecbrooks]

Trump will likely win reelection in 2020 Musa al-Gharbi Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology, Columbia University Most Americans don’t like Trump. Trump will most likely be reelected in 2020. How can both of these statements be true? Here’s how: Even when people are unhappy with a state of affairs, they are usually disinclined to change it. In my area of research, the cognitive and behavioral sciences, this is known as the “default effect.” Software and entertainment companies exploit this tendency to empower programs to collect as much data as possible from consumers, or to keep us glued to our seats for “one more episode” of a streaming show. Overall, only 5 percent of users ever change these settings, despite widespread concerns about how companies might be using collected information or manipulating people’s choices. The default effect also powerfully shapes U.S. politics. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four consecutive terms as president of the United States, serving from the Great Depression to World War II. To prevent future leaders from possibly holding and consolidating power indefinitely, the 22nd Amendment was passed, limiting subsequent officeholders to a maximum of two terms. Eleven presidents have been elected since then. Eight of these administrations won a renewed mandate: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Even the three single-term aberrations largely underscore the incumbency norm. Had Ford won in 1976, it would have marked three consecutive terms for the GOP. If George H.W. Bush had won in 1992, it would have meant four consecutive Republican terms. Since 1932, only once has a party held the White House for less than eight years: the administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter from 1976 to 1980. Therefore, it’s a big deal that Trump is now the default in American politics. Simply by virtue of this, he is likely to be reelected. Trump won his first term despite record low approval ratings, triumphing over the marginally less unpopular Hillary Clinton. He will probably be able to repeat this feat if necessary. The president continues to enjoy staunch support from the voters who put him in the White House. He has raised millions of dollars in small donations for reelection, pulling in twice as much money as Barack Obama in his first 100 days. And he’s already putting that money to use running ads in key states that trumpet his achievements and criticize political rivals. Although most don’t like or trust Trump, polls show he seems to be meeting or exceeding Americans’ expectations so far. In fact, an ABC News/ Washington Post survey suggests that if the election had been held again in late April, Trump would have not only won the Electoral College, but the popular vote as well – despite his declining approval rating. To further underscore this point, consider congressional reelection patterns. Since World War II, the incumbency rate has been about 80 percent for the House of Representatives and 73 percent for the Senate. Going into the 2016 election, Congress’ approval rating was at an abysmal 15 percent. Yet their incumbency rate was actually higher than usual: 97 percent in the House and 98 percent in the Senate. As a function of the default effect, the particular seats which happen to be open this cycle, and Republican dominance of state governments which has allowed them to draw key congressional districts in their favor – it will be extremely difficult for Democrats to gain even a simple majority in the Senate in 2018. The House? Even less likely. Trump … or who? Due to the default effect, what matters most is not how the public feels about the incumbent, but how they feel about the most likely alternative. Carter didn’t just have low approval ratings, he also had to square off against Ronald Reagan. “The Gipper” was well-known, relatable and media-savvy. Although the Washington establishment largely wrote off his platform with derisive terms like “voodoo economics,” the American public found him to be a visionary and inspirational leader – awarding him two consecutive landslide victories. Trump’s opposition is in much worse shape. The Democratic Party has been hemorrhaging voters for the better part of a decade. Democrats are viewed as being more “out of touch” with average Americans than Trump or the Republicans. Yet key players in the DNC still resist making substantive changes to the party’s platform and strategy. Hence it remains unclear how Democrats will broaden their coalition, or even prevent its continued erosion. Trump is not likely to follow in Carter’s footsteps. Other modern precedents seem more plausible. For instance, Truman had an approval rating of around 39 percent going into the 1948 election, yet managed to beat challenger Thomas Dewey by more than two million in the popular vote, and 114 in the Electoral College. The president had been holding raucous rallies in key states and districts, growing ever-larger as the race neared its end. However, the media disregarded these displays of support because his base was not well-captured in polls. As a result, his victory came as a total surprise to virtually everyone. Sound familiar? One could also look to Trump’s harbinger, Richard Nixon. Throughout Nixon’s tenure as president, he was loathed by the media. Temperamentally, he was paranoid, narcissistic and often petty. Nonetheless, Nixon was reelected in 1972 by one of the largest margins in U.S. history – winning the popular vote by more than 22 percentage points and the Electoral College by a spread of over 500. Of course, Nixon ultimately resigned under threat of impeachment. But not before he radically reshaped the Supreme Court, pushing it dramatically rightward for more than a generation. Trump is already well on his way in this regard. And like Nixon, Trump is unlikely to be impeached until his second term, if at all. Impeachment would require a majority in the House. Removing Trump from office would require at least a two-thirds vote in the Senate as well. Nixon faced impeachment because, even after his landslide reelection, Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress. Clinton was impeached in 1998 by a Republican-controlled House, but was acquitted in the Senate because the GOP controlled only 55 seats. Without massive Republican defections, Democrats will not be in a position to impeach Trump, let alone achieve the two-thirds majority required in the Senate to actually remove him from the Oval Office. The 2018 elections will not change this reality. In other words, we can count on Trump surviving his first term – and likely winning a second. Consider the example of George W. Bush, who, like Trump, assumed the presidency after losing the popular vote but taking the Electoral College. His tenure in office diverged wildly from his campaign commitments. He was prone to embarrassing gaffes. He was widely panned as ignorant and unqualified. Forced to rely heavily upon his ill-chosen advisors, he presided over some of the biggest foreign policy blunders in recent American history. Many of his actions in office were legally dubious as well. Yet he won reelection in 2004 by a healthy 3.5 million votes – in part because the Democrats nominated John Kerry to replace him. Without question, Kerry was well-informed and highly qualified. He was not, however, particularly charismatic. His cautious, pragmatic approach to politics made him seem weak and indecisive compared to Bush. His long tenure in Washington exacerbated this problem, providing his opponents with plenty of “flip-flops” to highlight – suggesting he lacked firm convictions, resolve or vision. If Democrats think they will sweep the 2020 general election simply by nominating another “grownup,” then they’re almost certainly going to have another losing ticket. For Trump to be the next Jimmy Carter, it won’t be enough to count on his administration to fail. Democrats will also have to produce their own Ronald Reagan to depose him. So far, the prospects don’t look great.

#Trump #Donald Trump #2020 #default effect #change #u.s. politics #the 22nd amendment #officeholders #two terms #incumbency #1932 #default #voters #the white house #the democrats #john kerry #ronald reagan #prospects

[nothingman]

AP/Evan Agostin/Jae C. Hong

Sex workers learned Senator Bernie Sanders voted in favor of FOSTA-SESTA, two laws signed by President Trump last week to curb sex trafficking — and then praised Cardi B, a rapper who first attracted attention for being open about her career as a stripper on social media — and now they are upset.

Both bills — the House version known as FOSTA, which stands for Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, and its Senate companion, Stop Enabling Sex-Trafficking Act (SESTA) — were met with bipartisan support in Congress. On February 27, the House passed FOSTA with a final vote of 388-25. The Senate followed by passing SESTA by an overwhelming 97-2 margin.

In spite of the bipartisan support, the anti-trafficking legislation has received strong pushback from sex workers, whom advocates of the bill purport to be protecting, for its destabilizing and demoralizing effect.

Most recently, Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders has borne the brunt of that criticism, after he voted in favor of the measure.

Ginger Banks, a 27-year-old sex worker, decided to make a video to alert Sanders to the dangers the anti-trafficking bills are creating for the sex work industry.

Making a video for @SenSanders asking him to think about the dangers SESTA/FOSTA are creating for the sex work industry. If you would like to contribute a message to him record something and send it to [email protected] 💕 — Ginger Banks (@gingerbanks1) April 18, 2018

Banks, who told Salon that she was a "huge" Sanders supporter, and even canvassed for his 2016 presidential campaign, said she was surprised to learn that he voted in favor of FOSTA-SESTA. Speaking over the phone, Banks said she hopes the video will "reach [Sanders] and ask him to possibly add the rights of sex workers to the list of things that he's willing to fight for."

Despite her upset, Banks said the Vermont senator is "someone that I still believe in." She said that she was inspired to create the video after Sanders tweeted Cardi B this week. On Wednesday, Sanders invoked the rapper in a tweet, writing, "Cardi B is right. If we are really going to make America great we need to strengthen Social Security so that seniors are able to retire with the dignity they deserve."

Cardi B is right. If we are really going to make America great we need to strengthen Social Security so that seniors are able to retire with the dignity they deserve. https://t.co/B8cOkoOdLc

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) April 18, 2018

The Senator's tweet was met with criticism from sex workers, who wondered why he couldn't come to their defense and oppose the draconian legislation.

Sydney Leathers, a 25-year-old adult film actress and Anthony Weiner's former sexting partner, tweeted, "Hey Bernie: Cardi is a former stripper. You voted for SESTA which endangers sex workers. Please don't try to use her for clout. We know how you really feel."

Hey Bernie: Cardi is a former stripper. You voted for SESTA which endangers sex workers. Please don’t try to use her for clout. We know how you really feel. https://t.co/9xRkJ6fCRs

— Sydney Leathers (@sydneyelainexo) April 18, 2018

Leathers point was amplified as other sex workers blasted the senator's interaction with Cardi B.

"I love when Bernie tries to make relevant tie ins with his campaign but forgets he's quoting a former sex worker who would have definitely been harmed by his decision to vote yes on SESTA/FOSTA," a sex worker named Brooke tweeted.

Other women in the sex work also expressed their disapproval.

Why did you vote in favor of #FOSTA #SESTA? This bill will lead to the deaths of consensual sex workers like me. I did everything I could to support you in the primaries and I feel like you have thrown me under the bus. Did you even read the bill? #LetUsSurvive

— ☠ Goddess Lysistrata ☠ (@MissLysiNyc) April 3, 2018

  With FOSTA-SESTA, many sex workers fear for their future and are worried they'll be forced to go back on the street.

The bill, which was introduced by Missouri Republican Rep. Ann Wagner, makes it a federal crime — punishable by up to 10 years in prison — to operate “an interactive computer service” with “the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.” That means online publishers, like the recently shuttered Backpage.com, would be responsible if third parties are found to be posting ads for sex work — including consensual sex work — on their platforms.

Banks, who has been a sex worker for nine years, condemned the legislation's failure to differentiate between illegal and consensual sex work, calling it dangerous. Banks said it has made her reconsider some of the services she offers out of fear. She plans to address this problem in her video to Bernie Sanders.

"Conflating sex trafficking with consensual adult sex work does so much more harm than good," she explained. "Decriminalizing sex work is what I believe is the answer to protecting not only people who choose to do sex work but those who are forced into it."

Banks says the bills' failure to differentiate between trafficking and consensual work further highlights the stigma surrounding sex work. In addition to calling out Sanders for his support of the legislation, Banks wants her video "to focus on the social acceptance of sex work."

"One of the basis of our argument is bodily autonomy and our right to choose what we want to do with our body," she explained. "And when we want to choose as adults to do legal sex work then we should have that right. Making that illegal is immoral because it tells me what I can't do with my body."

"Sex work is just like like any other work," Banks continued. "Sex work has given me the ability to see clearly what I want to do with my body. And it's given me an extra sense of value. ... I have met some of the most open-minded, strong-willed and independent people in the sex work industry."

The legislation has already begun to chill free speech online.

Survivors Against SESTA has been tracking the dozens of websites that have shut down or updated their services while the law was being written, preemptively self-censoring in preparation of the bills' enactment.

In response to the bills, Assembly Four, the organization that developed Switter  — a website with more than 49,000 members and is considered one of the last online spaces friendly to sex workers — announced that its website, hosted by Cloudflare, had been removed and blocked. As of Thursday afternoon, Switter was back up and running.

You guys, the Cloudflare thing is BAD and worth noting, but https://t.co/C0sbA3EViJ is NOT completely doomed nor down right now. I'd say keep using it. They went back up quickly, I see them being up for the foreseeable future. Cloudflare was a US company, there are others.

— Liara Roux (@LiaraRoux) April 19, 2018

Geezus — @Cloudflare bans Mastadon’s new “Switter” platform for sex workers just as it was getting off the ground https://t.co/UW3f06nGZD

— Elizabeth Nolan Brown (@ENBrown) April 19, 2018

The brief removal of Switter follows Craigslist's axe of its personal ads section, which has been around since 1995. The site's personal ads had garnered a negative reputation for stories of murders, rape, and most recently, fathers trying to sell their children for sex. In 2010, the site shut down the section of its sites that carried sex-related advertising after it faced pressure from state attorneys general and groups fighting sex crimes.

Despite the lasting stigma, Banks is hopeful for change. She pointed to the LGBTQ movement as model sex workers could emulate. "I look back at how the view of homosexuality has changed in this country. And I try to learn a lot from that movement and do as much as I can to help sex work become more socially accepted," she said.

Banks pointed to Sanders' 50-year-history of standing up for civil and minority rights, explaining that to be one reason why many sex workers like her rallied behind the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016.

"A lot of us realize and see the stigma and other areas of society and inequality and because of that we want to help change the world in the most positive way possible," Banks said. "I know a lot of us saw that in Bernie Sanders."

This is not the first time Sanders has come under fire for not doing enough to protect women. Last April, the Senator defended campaigning for Omaha, Neb., mayoral candidate Heath Mello, an anti-abortion rights Democrat, in an interview with NPR.

Mello has co-sponsored several bills in Nebraska's unicameral legislature that would restrict abortion rights, including a 2009 bill that would offer or require women seeking abortions to get an ultrasound.

Though Sanders came under scrutiny for supporting Mello, he pushed back on NPR, saying, "The truth is that in some conservative states there will be candidates that are popular candidates who may not agree with me on every issue. I understand it. That's what politics is about."

"If we are going to protect a woman's right to choose, at the end of the day we're going to need Democratic control over the House and the Senate, and state governments all over this nation," Sanders continued. "And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on one issue."

Sen. Sanders did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

via Salon

#IFTTT #Feedly #Nothingman uses feedly

[ladystylestores]

Trump ‘Couldn’t Give a Shit’ About China Rounding Up Millions of Muslims

Illustration by Kelly Caminero/The Daily Beast/Getty

The ugliest claim made by John Bolton in the former national security adviser’s new “tell-all” book is that President Donald Trump encouraged Chinese leader Xi Jinping to continue rounding up Uighur Muslims into the concentration camps where they are tortured, separated from their families, and “reeducated.”

Bolton’s forthcoming memoir presents Trump’s dismissiveness to the crisis as part of the president’s broader efforts to secure foreign assistance for his reelection. But several officials told The Daily Beast it’s also just a part of who Trump is. Throughout his presidency, nine current and former senior administration officials say, Trump has exhibited a callous indifference to what has been described as crimes against humanity and cultural genocide taking place in China’s western Xinjiang province.

“He couldn’t give a shit,” said a former senior Trump administration official, who’s been in the room when Trump has discussed the Uighur crisis. This official added that in their experience, “there has never been any indication when the issue comes up that the president cares or is even making any effort to fake it.” 

John Bolton Shows That All the President’s Men Are Cowards

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, published shortly after excerpts from Bolton’s book were reported, Trump said it was “not true” that he had encouraged Xi to keep building the concentration camps. But according to others who’ve worked with the president on the issue, he has been—at the very least—consistently indifferent to the crisis.

Three other former or current senior officials say that at various points during his first term in office, when the human-rights issue is broached or when Trump has been briefed on it, the president has often quickly changed the subject. Sometimes, he will add an “Oh, wow” or an “Oh, really?” in response to a horrific data point or piece of related information, before moving on. None of these sources were confident that Trump was even paying full attention during these discussions, given his appearance of boredom. Usually, the president is content to deputize other top officials, particularly Vice President Mike Pence, to deal with it and handle much of the public relations on the matter, including by way of delivering speeches and meeting with religious freedom activists.

Story continues

One current administration official said that Trump will, at times, show signs of fleeting concern or a peep of outrage in private meetings. But the source added that this is typically undercut by his limited attention span. This official recounted that during one policy discussion early last year, when the Uighur Muslims came up, President Trump interjected: “How is that our problem?”

“It was clear to most based off my conversations with the national security team that the president couldn’t care less about this,” one former Republican national security official said, referring to the Uighur camps.

A senior administration official pushed back on the notion that Trump had not shown interest, saying the president “has a strong, action-oriented record of holding the Chinese government accountable for its atrocities in Xinjiang, including with regard to the largest incarceration of ethnic minorities since World War II.” Many of the actions that the official listed were sanctions put into place against Chinese companies for human rights violations and moves, such as visa restrictions, that had been announced by the State Department.

“President Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he protects those who cannot protect themselves – both here and abroad,” said NSC spokesman John Ullyot. “President Trump has led strongly from day one challenging wrongdoing by countries or institutions, and any suggestion that he’s doing otherwise when it comes to the Uyghurs is preposterous.”

China’s Uighur Terror Attack

Trump’s indifference to a crisis that has, according to United Nations estimates, kept over one million people in detention, is not for lack of knowledge. Even in an authoritarian country like China, where information is often tightly controlled, the outlines of the Uighur cultural genocide have been clear for much of his presidency. Two individuals familiar with the matter said that Trump was repeatedly briefed on the Uighur situation by the intelligence community and others, including particulars about the camps and the number of individuals rounded up by the Chinese government.

“I know the breadth and depth of what’s been happening in Xinjiang has been made available” to Trump, said Paul Heer, who was the national intelligence officer for East Asia from 2007 to 2015. Heer, now a distinguished fellow at the Center for the National Interest, said that while he had no specific knowledge of what was briefed to Trump, “as a matter of course, the topic is important enough to be incorporated routinely [in briefings] to the White House. He had every opportunity to know of this.”

Multiple former and current national security officials, some of whom worked under Bolton, said the National Security Council has for years tried to persuade Trump to take a greater interest in the Uighurs. And State Department cables obtained by The Daily Beast show the department actively working to confront the issue in public settings. For example, in April, U.S. Ambassador Peter Hoekstra met with Uighur activists and community members in the Netherlands.

“During the April 9 lunch with Ambassador Hoekstra, the Platform chairman and government liaison described the conditions of the Chinese government-run camps in Xinjiang and estimated that between 2.5 and five million Uighurs have been interned there,” one cable said. “He explained that torture occurs in these camps, which are divided into “A/B/C regimes,” with those in the harshest regime unable to even see the sunlight.”

The cable went on to note that Hoekstra’s subsequent tweet about their lunch had “gained significant attention with 148 retweets and 264 likes as of April 16.  The tweet also attracted the attention of the Minister Counselor of the local Chinese embassy, Ribiao Chen, who criticized via tweet Post’s outreach as a distraction from the spread of COVID-19 in the United States.”

China’s Xi Jinping Sees Trump as a Walking Power Vacuum

Outside of State, officials say, it’s been mostly the National Security Council, by way of Matt Pottinger, the deputy National Security Advisor, who has tried to press the president and other senior administration officials to use the Uighur camps as a way to hold Xi’s government accountable. The NSC last year brought on a Uighur American, Elnigar Iltebir, as the director of the China desk.

“It’s something the China folks in the administration have cared a lot about. It’s the one issue that they felt like they had shifted the debate in a useful way,” said the former Republican national security official. “They think they’ve shifted the conversation. There’s been a lot of international attention on this. And it’s all been on the part of the national security team. Can they claim they have changed things on the ground? That’s harder to say.”

On Capitol Hill, the discussion has been far different. The plight of the Uighurs has attracted outrage among lawmakers and spurred bipartisan action. A bill to sanction the Chinese government over its conduct passed Congress on May 27 with near-unanimous support. It was signed into law by Trump the day that Bolton’s allegations broke. And on Thursday, very few of the Senate GOP’s China hawks seemed eager to make an issue of the book’s shocking account or to even call on Trump to address it. 

“I can’t imagine the president saying, yeah, concentration camps are fine,” Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), a frequent critic of the Chinese government’s treatment of religious minorities, told The Daily Beast. Asked about Trump’s appetite to take up the Uighurs’ cause versus Congress, Lankford replied, “it’s not that he’s done nothing on it… The challenge is, where do you find the leverage to be able to change that behavior?”

In 2014, Beijing launched what it called its “Strike Hard Campaign against Violent Terrorism.” It was an intensification of already-repressive measures in Xinjiang. Political reeducation, conducted violently, has been its primary characteristic, with a goal of erasing Uighur culture and faith. A “Regulation on De-extremification” pushed by Beijing in March 2017 accelerated internment of the Muslim minority. It prevented outward displays of Muslim faith in the western Xinjiang province, including the wearing of religious hair-coverings, the growth of what it called “abnormal” beards and even private displays of faith. 

A Uighur man, Kairat Samarkan, described to Amnesty International researchers his experiences in a re-education camp with 6,000 others from October 2017 to February 2018. Torture was rife, featuring techniques that the CIA notoriously used in its unacknowledged black-site prisons against terrorism suspects. Leaked Chinese documents published by the New York Times contained references to Xi urging the Chinese Communist Party to “emulate aspects of America’s ‘war on terror’ after the Sept. 11 attacks.” 

Samarkan was hooded, “made to wear shackles on his arms and legs and was forced to stand in a fixed position for 12 hours when first detained,” according to a September 2018 Amnesty report. Internees at the camp were coerced into chanting “Long live Xi Jinping” before meals and study speeches of the CCP. 

The same Amnesty report found, by September 2018, an estimated one million people interned in the camps. State surveillance, rife through the widespread unencrypted WeChat platform, enables the internment of Muslims. So does China’s advanced use of facial-recognition software, biometric data collection and even DNA. A contemporaneous Human Rights Watch report found that it is common for Xinjiang residents to have numerous relatives “in a mix of political education camps, pre-trial detention, and prison.”

But during the first two years of the Trump presidency, the White House never asked the Pentagon “to consider the Uighur Muslim situation,” recalled a former senior Defense Department official.

“The president’s signing [this week] of an 11th-hour bill to sanction China for human-rights abyss seems more like a reaction to Amb. Bolton’s book revelations, rather than a reflection of Trump’s concerns about human rights,” said the ex-senior Pentagon official.

Congress began receiving briefings on the dire situation in Xinjiang as early as 2013, and would ask for increased detail from 2014 to 2018 “as things were ramping up with the concentration camps and the system of mass surveillance techniques the Chinese put into play,” according to a Senate Democratic aide who requested anonymity. While that aide had no knowledge of what information was made available to Trump, the aide said it would be “incomprehensible” for the president not to have been briefed about the plight of the Uighurs ahead of Xi’s April 2017 visit to Mar-a-Lago, the first time the two leaders met face to face.

For a variety of reasons—including his prioritizing of a trade deal and his strong personal affection for Xi—the president rarely weighs in on the repression of Uighurs while in public. And when he does, it can lead to jarring moments on live TV.

In July 2019, Trump met at the White House with several envoys of persecuted religious minorities; part of the meeting was televised or streamed online live. One of the attendees was a Uighur rights advocate.

When the activist began telling Trump about “concentration camps,” mentioning that she hadn’t been able to see her detained dad since 2013, the president responded: “Where is that? Where is that in China?”

Read more at The Daily Beast.

Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!

Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

Source link

قالب وردپرس

from World Wide News https://ift.tt/2AP31Qb

#World Wide News

[orbemnews]

Facebook, Google and Twitter C.E.O.s to Face Lawmakers Again: Live Updates Here’s what you need to know: Jack Dorsey, left, the chief executive of Twitter; Sundar Pichai, the chief executive of Google; and Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Facebook, will appear before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on March 25.Credit…Lm Otero Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press The chief executives of Facebook, Google and Twitter will face skeptical lawmakers again next month when a congressional committee questions them about the ways disinformation spreads across their platforms. The House Energy and Commerce Committee said Thursday that it would hold a hearing on March 25 with Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Sundar Pichai of Google and Jack Dorsey of Twitter. The committee has been examining the future of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that shields the platforms from lawsuits over much of the content posted by their users. The attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, which included participants with ties to QAnon and other conspiracy theories that have spread widely online, has renewed concerns that the law allows the platforms to take a hands-off approach to extremist content. “For far too long, Big Tech has failed to acknowledge the role they’ve played in fomenting and elevating blatantly false information to its online audiences,” a group of the committee’s top Democrats said in a statement. “Industry self-regulation has failed.” Andy Stone, a spokesman for Facebook, said the company “believes it’s time to update the rules of the internet, and this hearing should be another important step in the process.” The House Judiciary Committee announced its own set of hearings on the tech industry on Thursday. It said it would hold multiple hearings on how to update antitrust laws to address the power of the tech giants. The committee questioned chief executives before concluding a lengthy investigation into the companies last year. The Judiciary Committee’s first hearing will take place on Wednesday. An all-electric Renault Zoe. Renault’s chief executive, Luca de Meo, last month presented a plan to return the automaker to profitability.Credit…Samuel Zeller for The New York Times Renault, the French carmaker, reported a loss of 8 billion euros, or $9.7 billion, in 2020 as the pandemic gutted sales, but the company said that was profitable in the later part of the year. Most of the annual loss stemmed from Renault’s stake in its troubled partner, Nissan. Losses at the Japanese carmaker drained €5 billion from the bottom line, Renault said. In addition, Renault car sales plunged 20 percent for the year, to just short of three million vehicles. “After a first half impacted by Covid-19, the group has significantly turned around its performance in the second half,” Luca de Meo, Renault’s chief executive, said in a statement, without giving a figure. He said that 2021 was “set to be difficult given the unknowns regarding the health crisis as well as electronic components supply shortages.” In 2021, shortages of semiconductors, a problem for almost all carmakers, could cut production by as much as 100,000 vehicles, Renault said. Mr. de Meo, who became Renault’s chief executive in July, last month announced a plan to return to profitability that includes cuts in production capacity, sales of fewer models and increased parts sharing among vehicles to simplify manufacturing. Manessa Grady and her sons Zechariah, 8, left, and Noah, 9, were among the millions of Texas residents who lost power this week.Credit…Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times In California, wildfires and heat waves in recent years forced utilities to shut off power to millions of homes and businesses. Now, Texas is learning that deadly winter storms and intense cold can do the same. Bill Magness, the president and chief executive of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s grid operator, said on Thursday that Texas was “seconds and minutes” from a catastrophic blackout this week as rotating outages were used to control the flow of electricity. The country’s two largest states have taken very different approaches to managing their energy needs — Texas deregulated aggressively, letting the free market flourish, while California embraced environmental regulations. Yet the two states are confronting the same ominous reality: They may be woefully unprepared for the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters caused by climate change. Blackouts in Texas and California have revealed that power plants can be strained and knocked offline by the kind of extreme cold and hot weather that climate scientists have said will become more common as greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere. The problems in Texas and California highlight the challenge the Biden administration will face in modernizing the electricity system to run entirely on wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and other zero-emission technologies by 2035 — a goal that President Biden set during the 2020 campaign. The federal government and energy businesses may have to spend trillions of dollars to harden electricity grids against the threat posed by climate change and to move away from the fossil fuels responsible for the warming of the planet in the first place. These are not new ideas. Scholars have long warned that American electricity grids, which are run regionally, will come under increasing strain and needed major upgrades. “We really need to change our paradigm, particularly utilities, because they are becoming much more vulnerable to disaster,” Najmedin Meshkati, an engineering professor at the University of Southern California, said about blackouts in Texas and California. “They need to always think about literally the worst-case scenario because the worst-case scenario is going to happen.” Video transcript Back transcript Congressman Calls Robinhood’s Help Line and Gets Voicemail After telling the House Financial Services Committee about the suicide of Robinhood user Alex Kearns, who died believing he had lost $730,000 on the brokerage app, Representative Sean Casten called its help line. June 2020, Alex Kearns, who was 20 years old at the time, from Naperville, Illinois, killed himself, largely thanks to a bug in the Robinhood system. The bug was that he turned on the app, it said he owed $730,000 that he did not have, because of options positions that he thought canceled out but didn’t appear to. He called the help line. The help line, of course, was not manned, as we’ve discussed. He sent several panicked emails — three, to be precise — did not receive a response. Ultimately there was a response from the emails saying that, in fact, his positions were covered. But by that point, it was too late, because he had taken his own life. The — this is a gentleman who is 20 years old. Under Illinois law, he was not allowed to buy a beer, but he was allowed to take on $730,000 in positions and exposure that he did not have the liquidity to cover. Your mission, Mr. Tenev, is to democratize finance. But the history of financial regulation is to protect people like Alex Kearns from the system. As the old joke goes, if you’re playing poker and you can’t figure out who the fish is at the table, you should leave the table because you’re probably the fish. And there is an innate tension in your business model between democratizing finance, which is a noble calling, and being a conduit to feed fish to sharks. So I’m nervous. I think I got an exposure. And I call your help line now. Let’s call and let’s listen in the time we have remaining to what I’m going to hear on the other end of the phone. Voicemail: “Thank you for calling Robinhood. Please visit us at robinhood.com or on our app for support. If you have an urgent trading need, please make sure to include details of it when reaching out. Thanks have a great day.” After telling the House Financial Services Committee about the suicide of Robinhood user Alex Kearns, who died believing he had lost $730,000 on the brokerage app, Representative Sean Casten called its help line.CreditCredit…via C-Span The chief executives of Robinhood, Reddit, Citadel and Melvin Capital Management were among the witnesses at a hearing on the GameStop trading frenzy held by the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday. Vlad Tenev, the chief executive of Robinhood, was the target for both Democrats and Republicans, fielding more than half of the lawmakers’ questions. “I love your company because it does, when correctly managed, provide investment opportunities for individuals who are currently frozen out of the markets for one reason or another,” said Representative Anthony Gonzalez, Republican of Ohio. He added: “At the same time, though, I believe a vulnerability was clearly exposed in your business model.” Representative Sean Casten, an Illinois Democrat, capped his sharp questioning of Mr. Tenev, in which he relayed the story of a 20-year-old college student who killed himself last summer believing that he’d lost more than $700,000, by dialing the Robinhood help line and letting everyone listen in as a short message was played and the call was terminated. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, said Robinhood’s decisions had “harmed customers,” and accused it of passing on hidden costs to its customers. Keith Gill — known on YouTube as Roaring Kitty — testified that his interest in the company was based on his belief that the market was underestimating the brick-and-mortar retailer’s value. His testimony included winking references — such as dangling what appeared to be his oft-worn red headband off a picture of a kitten visible over his shoulder and the statement “I am not a cat” — to internet meme culture. Several harsh questions were directed at Kenneth C. Griffin, the chief of Citadel. Members of Congress asked skeptical questions about Citadel’s practice of paying to trade against customers at online brokers like Robinhood. Mr. Griffin tried to explain the intricacies of the business but was often cut off. “Our folks are tired of bailing you all out when you screw up and gamble with the retirement fund. And that’s exactly what happens every single moment,” Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, said to him. Source link Orbem News #CEOs #Face #Facebook #Google #lawmakers #Live #Twitter #Updates