Other progressive lawmakers echoed that message, with Rep. Cori Bush declaring: “Abolish the filibuster. Codify Roe. Expand the Supreme Court. Protect abortion rights by any means necessary.”
After a leaked draft ruling provided the most concrete evidence yet that the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority is set to end the constitutional right to abortion, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez late Monday said Democrats in Congress must pull out all the stops to enshrine Roe v. Wade into federal law as “people’s futures and equality are on the line.”
“We need all of the above. This is an emergency.”
“People elected Democrats precisely so we could lead in perilous moments like these—to codify Roe, hold corruption accountable, and have a president who uses his legal authority to break through congressional gridlock on items from student debt to climate,” Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wrote in a pair of tweets. “It’s high time we do it.”
“If we don’t, what message does that send? We can’t sit around, finger point, and hand-wring,” the New York Democrat added. “It’s time to be decisive, lead with confidence, fight for a prosperous future for all, and protect the vulnerable.”
If we don’t, what message does that send? We can’t sit around, finger point, & hand wring as people’s futures + equality are on the line.
It’s time to be decisive, lead with confidence, fight for a prosperous future for all and protect the vulnerable.
In September 2021—weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court let Texas’ draconian abortion ban take effect—the House of Representatives passed the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), legislation that would enshrine into federal law the right to abortion care free from medically unnecessary restrictions such as mandatory waiting periods, which are commonplace in states across the U.S.
“Removing medically unjustified restrictions on abortion services would constitute one important step on the path toward realizing reproductive justice,” the legislation states. “This Act is intended to protect all people with the capacity for pregnancy—cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others—who are unjustly harmed by restrictions on abortion services.”
“If there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.”
But the bill has stalled in the U.S. Senate thanks to opposition from the entire Republican caucus and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), an opponent of abortion who has previously voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Earlier this year, Manchin joined Senate Republicans in filibustering the WHPA.
Other progressive lawmakers joined Ocasio-Cortez in calling on Democratic leaders to do everything in their power—including launching another push to abolish the 60-vote legislative filibuster—to defend abortion rights from the Supreme Court and Republicans, who are reportedly scheming to pursue a nationwide abortion ban if they take control of Congress in November and the high court overturns Roe.
“This will endanger the very people who need access to legal abortion,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said of the leaked draft ruling authored by right-wing Justice Samuel Alito.
The draft opinion states that Roe, a 1973 decision, was “egregiously wrong from the start” and should be overturned along with Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 ruling that largely reaffirmed Roe.
“The Senate must pass the House legislation to codify Roe, abolish the filibuster, and expand SCOTUS,” Tlaib added late Monday.
Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) tanked their party’s attempt to temporarily weaken the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation earlier this year and—to the dismay of progressives—Democrats have done nothing since to diminish the 60-vote rule’s power.
“Abolish the filibuster. Codify Roe. Expand the Supreme Court. Protect abortion rights by any means necessary,” Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) tweeted Tuesday. “We need all of the above. This is an emergency.”
In a joint statement after Politico published Alito’s draft opinion, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) condemned the document as an “abomination,” arguing it would mark “one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.”
But the Democratic leaders didn’t provide any indication that they intend to target the filibuster as part of a renewed effort to pass the WHPA.
Speaking to CBS News Monday night, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)—the lead sponsor of the WHPA in the Senate—said congressional Democrats are “going to support states that resist” the Supreme Court but lamented that options at the federal level are “limited” due to the party’s narrow majority in the upper chamber.
Such an excuse for inaction is unlikely to satisfy progressive members of Congress or advocates who are planning to take to the streets in the nation’s capital and across the country Tuesday.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, urged his colleagues to “pass legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country NOW.”
“And if there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not,” Sanders added, “we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.”
Originally published on Common Dreams and republished under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
Some democracies fall apart because of invasion by a neighbor, terrorism, or a natural disaster, but most are taken down by their own own greedy oligarchs.
Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / CC
It’s important now, in light of both world events and the way the Republican party has been captured by a small group of rightwing billionaires and white supremacists, to introduce Americans to an 18th century word that is new to most people alive today, at least in the context of partisan politics.
That word is: faction.
The crises caused by faction were a big deal at the founding of our republic. Faction was a matter of conversation among average people.
Prior to Reagan’s deregulation and tax-cutting binge, America didn’t have a single billionaire and the average income of American CEOs—restrained as they were by a top income tax rate of 74 percent—was only around 30 times that of the average worker.
It was the same when the South was seized by an oligarchic faction of plantation owners and turned from a whites-only democracy into a neofascist oligarchy in the 1840s and 1850s.
Factions are destroyers of democracies.
It was a faction of oligarchs led by Vladimir Putin that took over Russia after that country adopted Milton Friedman’s neoliberal policies of privatization, low taxes, and deregulation, producing an explosion of billionaires who weakened the new Russian democracy by pouring outsized chunks of their money into Russia’s politics.
Russian President Putin’s disastrous decision to invade Ukraine was caused by a deficiency of democracy in Russia; whenever a country is taken over by a single person or a small group of people, such terrible decisions are inevitable. History is littered with them.
And it all starts with a faction of wealthy people corrupting politics.
Faction always leads to the “doom loop” of democracy, which is why Aristotle warned about faction as much as does Bernie Sanders. It happens pretty much the same way all over the world, all across the centuries.
Here in America, it’s something the Founding generation, Lincoln’s generation, and FDR’s generation each had to deal with. FDR called the faction of his day the “Economic Royalists.”
Today, we’re again facing the doom loop caused by what the Founders called faction.
The faction-caused Doom Loop goes like this:
Government makes the rules that regulate taxes and corporations, and uses those rules to prevent wealthy people or businesses from corrupting the government itself.
These “guardrails of democracy” include taxation that’s high enough that oligarchy doesn’t emerge, along with tight regulation of money in politics.
Those corporations and individuals who mostly own/control the marketplace want to “throw off the shackles of government.”
So they get together and pour money into the political process, essentially buying all the politicians and judges they need.
Then their wholly-owned legislators and judges remove laws or change their interpretation to weaken or even eliminate those guardrails of taxation and regulation that protect democracy.
Removing the taxation and regulation guardrails increases the profits of the corporations and the wealth of the morbidly rich oligarchs.
They then recycle a small portion of that “new” money back to the politicians to either maintain the status quo or deteriorate the guardrails even further.
Eventually the guardrails become so weak that the government’s ability to control the excesses of the faction breaks down and the oligarchs take over, transitioning the democracy into oligarchy.
Oligarchic government then, typically within a decade or so, turns into a strongman autocracy, as we see with today’s Russia and almost saw with Trump’s presidency.
This analysis is not, by the way, a radical position or one do you need a college degree to understand.
President Jimmy Carter explained it to me on the radio seven years ago, and any reading of history finds it scattered through the accounts of the Revolutionary, Civil War, and New Deal eras.
And with a billionaire in the White House for four years, with several billionaires in his cabinet, signing billionaire-friendly executive orders and corruptly devastating the EPA, IRS, and several other federal agencies, we approached the brink.
To put it in straightforward terms:
Powerful rich people motivated primarily by a desire to increase their own wealth and power—when they act together as a faction to accomplish that goal, like Lewis Powell suggested to America’s business leaders and wealthiest men in 1971—will always try to change a democracy into an oligarchy.
Investing in politicians and think-tanks, it turns out, is the single most effective investment a faction of oligarchs can make in a republic once its guardrails are sufficiently weakened to allow it to happen on a large scale.
Consider how, prior to Reagan’s deregulation and tax-cutting binge, America didn’t have a single billionaire and the average income of American CEOs—restrained as they were by a top income tax rate of 74 percent—was only around 30 times that of the average worker.
Congress routinely passed laws that were widely popular, like Medicare and the Voting Rights Act, because back then politicians were more responsive to the people than to the morbidly rich.
Today, after Reagan’s massive tax cuts and deregulation efforts, we have hundreds of billionaires, and CEO pay in some industries runs a thousand times that of their workers. And legislation with approval rates as high as 80 percent—like funding education and healthcare—are blocked in the Senate.
Democracies were growing and strengthening around the world from the time of the American Civil War until the 1980s. But, around that time, country after country began to consider Reagan/Thatcher style neoliberalism.
Some countries, like China, explicitly rejected neoliberalism and trickle down economics, and instead adopted Alexander Hamilton’s “American Plan.” As a result, their economies and their middle-classes grew. China’s middle class today, for example, is larger than the population of the entire United States.
But far too many others, encouraged by their elites, took the plunge and drastically cut taxes on the morbidly rich, cut business oversight and regulation, and loosened their laws regulating money in politics.
By 2005, as Reagan’s neoliberalism spread around the world, countries that were losing their middle classes (like America has over the last 40 years) began to flip into oligarchies and then autocracies.
Democracies around the world began to backslide.
Like the USA, country after country has followed Reaganism/neoliberalism to set aside limits on corporate and oligarch participation in politics, with predictable results. As Freedom House noted in their most recent annual report:
“The present threat to democracy is the product of 16 consecutive years of decline in global freedom. A total of 60 countries suffered declines over the past year, while only 25 improved.”
America, they note, is one of the countries in a “decline” of democracy.
While a few of those democracies in decline fell apart because of invasion by a neighbor, terrorism, or a natural disaster, most are being taken down by their own internal factions, typically the nation’s own oligarchs.
In 1776 the United States was the first major experiment in democracy in the past several thousand years and, although it was badly flawed by both slavery and a lack of rights for women, the idea of even the minority of white men deciding the future of their country was a revolutionary departure from thousands of years of kings, popes and brutal warlords.
The era of the Enlightenment, particularly throughout the 1700s, brought vigorous discussions of whether democracy was even possible, or if it would always be doomed to collapse back into oligarchy and autocracy.
The recurrent concern of the people of that era was that wealthy factions would arise and corrupt any democracy back into something resembling a kingdom with wealthy lords and autocratic rulers.
As Lord Bolingbroke wrote in his Memoirs, published in 1752 (the year after Bolingbroke died and James Madison—who would later midwife our Constitution—was born):
“A Party then is, as I take it, a set of men connected together … pretending to have the same private opinion with respect to public concerns; … but when it proceeds further, and influences men’s conduct in any considerable degree, it becomes Faction.”
And what are factions that have seized control of political parties almost always all about? Bolingbroke laid it out with a clarity that still resonates today:
“In all such cases there are revealed reasons, and a reserved Motive. By revealed reasons, I mean a set of plausible doctrines, which may be styled [called] the creed of the party; but the reserved motive belongs to Faction only, and is the THIRST OF POWER. [emphasis Bolingbroke’s]
When greedy people rise up as a faction to try to seize a government, Bolingbroke wrote, they always claim to be acting in the best interests of the people.
Consider today’s Republican Party, backed by billionaires and openly opposed to union rights while reaching out to blue-collar voters, as you read Bolingbroke’s words:
“The creeds of parties vary like those of sects; but all Factions have the same motive, which never implies more or less than a lust of dominion, though they … generally are covered with the specious pretenses of … zeal for the public, which flows, in fact, from Avarice, Self-Interest, Resentment and other private views.”
Bolingbroke was widely read among the Founding generation, and Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” echoed his sentiments in Federalist 10, in which he warns us of the dangers of faction.
First, he defines the term “faction,” to separate it from the notion of just being a political party or a special interest group:
“By a faction,” Madison writes in Federalist 10, “I understand a number of citizens … who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse [opposed] to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” [emphasis mine]
In other words, factions aren’t political parties or advocates for the public good. They are, pure and simple, politically active wealthy people opposed to the public good and thus a poison in the bloodstream of a democracy.
Madison devotes the entirety of Federalist 10 to warning both his colleagues and future generations of Americans against them. Controlling faction, he wrote, was the most important function of the Constitution:
“To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.”
Even the most famous British historian of that era, author of The History of England David Hume, wrote in his essay Of Parties in General (1741) about the dangers of wealthy people getting together to form a faction that could take over and corrupt a government, all to increase their own profits and wealth:
“As much as legislators and founders of states ought to be honoured and respected among men, as much ought the founders of sects and factions to be detested and hated; because the influence of faction is directly contrary to that of laws.”
By “contrary to that of laws,” Hume meant that a faction—a group of wealthy and powerful people—would do everything they could to corrupt the political process and weaken or destroy laws that might restrain their greed:
“Factions subvert government, render laws impotent, and beget the fiercest animosities among men of the same nation, who ought to give mutual assistance and protection to each other.”
Hume, being a conservative of that era, was skeptical that any democracy could ever survive the assault of political parties that had been taken over by factions of the rich:
“And what should render the founders of parties more odious is, the difficulty of extirpating these weeds, when once they have taken root in any state. They naturally propagate themselves for many centuries, and seldom end but by the total dissolution of that government, in which they are sown.”
And, wrote Hume, once they’ve taken over a “free” government, they’re even harder to get rid of than weeds. Eventually, if not stopped, they’ll consume the only thing that could restrain them, the government itself:
“They are, besides, plants which grow most plentifully in the richest soil; and … they rise more easily, and propagate themselves faster in free governments, where they always infect the legislature itself, which alone could be able, by the steady application of rewards and punishments, to eradicate them.”
As President Jimmy Carter told me seven years ago when we were discussing the Supreme Court’s corrupt Citizens United decision:
“It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. … So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over.”
We’re quite far down the road to wealthy factions so corrupting our government that it has ceased to operate as a functioning republican democracy.
Our best hope for stopping a further slide into oligarchy and ultimately strongman autocracy is to pass legislation that will regulate money in politics.
Tragically, every Republican in the US Senate except Lisa Murkowski voted against strengthening our voting rights and removing some of the power of money in politics.
Hopefully such legislation can be revived this year, although with both Manchin and Sinema now openly taking money from the same billionaire faction that funds the GOP, it’s going to be a hell of a lift.
Nonetheless, reversing the core of Reaganism’s oligarchic agenda is the only way to stop the ongoing faction-driven collapse of American democracy. If we are to break out of the doom loop of democracies that consumed Russia 20 years ago, we must:
Regulate great wealth by raising personal and corporate taxes back to where they were before Reagan.
Restore the hundreds of good-government-protecting regulations on money in politics Congress passed and were signed into law by Presidents Ford and Carter (and in almost every state legislature) but overturned in 2010 by the Supreme Court in their corrupt 5:4 Citizens United decision.
We must continue to work and speak out against faction and do everything we can to make America “a more perfect union.” Otherwise, our nation will be consumed by what Bolingbroke called the “THIRST of POWER.”
This article was first published on The Hartmann Report and published on Common Dreams and republished under Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
“There is no longer any question: These companies knew and lied about their product’s role in the climate crisis, they continue to deceive, and they must be held accountable.”
Fossil fuel executives who testified Thursday at a U.S. House of Representatives hearing focused on decades of coordinated industry misinformation refused to pledge that their companies will stop lobbying against efforts to combat the climate emergency driven largely by their businesses.
That joint refusal came in response to a challenge from Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform—who at the end of the hearing announced subpoenas for documents the fossil fuel companies have failed to provide.
Earlier in the hearing, Maloney had asked if the Big Oil CEOs would affirm that their organizations “will no longer spend any money, either directly or indirectly, to oppose efforts to reduce emissions and address climate change.”
Big Oil CEOs unanimously refuse to pledge to Congress to "no longer spend any money directly or indirectly to oppose efforts to reduce emissions and address climate change".
Advocates for climate action pointed to the moment as yet another example of major polluters impeding planet-saving policy.
“The silence, non-answers, and repeated deflections from Big Oil’s Slippery Six exposed once and for all that the fossil fuel industry won’t back off its commitment to spreading climate disinformation and lobbying against climate action in order to protect their bottom line,” Richard Wiles, executive director of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement.
“For the first time ever, fossil fuel executives were confronted under oath with the evidence of their industry’s decadeslong efforts to deceive the American people about climate change,” Wiles continued. “They not only refused to accept responsibility for lying about the catastrophic effects of their fossil fuels—they refused to stop funding efforts to spread disinformation and oppose climate action.”
“There is no longer any question: These companies knew and lied about their product’s role in the climate crisis, they continue to deceive, and they must be held accountable,” he added. “Today’s hearing and the committee’s ongoing investigation are important steps in those efforts.”
The only real backdrop to today's hearing with Big Oil CEOS is: These companies knew all about climate change in the 1980s and chose to lie about it systematically for decades, which is why we're in our current hideous political fix.
Maloney and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who chairs the panel’s Subcommittee on the Environment, had threatened to subpoena the industry leaders—collectively dubbed the #SlipperySix—if they declined to join the hearing, entitled, “Fueling the Climate Crisis: Exposing Big Oil’s Disinformation Campaign to Prevent Climate Action.”
The historic event included testimony from four industry executives—ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods, BP America CEO David Lawler, Chevron CEO Michael Wirth, Shell Oil president Gretchen Watkins—and leaders from industry trade groups: American Petroleum Institute (API) president Mike Sommers and U.S. Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne Clark.
Kyle Herrig, president of the watchdog group Accountable.US, warned that “lawmakers should be wary of testimony from executives who have consistently put their industry’s bottom line over the health of the climate and the American people, no matter their rhetoric.”
Yep. We are seeing the fossil fuel savior framework all over the place. We need them, we have always needed them, and we will always need them. https://t.co/SltC52FPoy
Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, a pair of climate misinformation scholars at Harvard University, have warned of a “fossil fuel savior frame” that “downplays the reality and seriousness of climate change, normalizes fossil fuel lock-in, and individualizes responsibility.”
Both Oreskes and Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn observed the presence of such framing during the hearing. Henn said that “it’s striking how much all these Big Oil execs come across as hostage-takers: ‘You need us. You can’t live without us. You’ll never escape.”
It’s striking how much all these Big Oil execs come across as hostage takers: “You need us. You can’t live without us. You’ll never escape.” #SlipperySixpic.twitter.com/mT8bPZJu8j
The fossil fuel witnesses’ initial remarks and responses to lawmakers’ questions were full of industry talking points. They advocated for “market-based solutions” like carbon taxes while failing to offer specifics. They also highlighted carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology and hydrogen—both of which progressive green groups have denounced as “false solutions”—as key to reaching a “lower-carbon future.”
FACT CHECK: Exxon's CEO just said the International Energy Agency says the world will continue relying on fossil fuels.
That is false.
Earlier this year, the IEA said: "There is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply in our net zero pathway."
While suggesting a long-term need for oil and gas, the executives claimed to believe in anthropogenic climate change and said fossil fuel emissions “contribute” to global heating. Some critics called them out for using that term, rather than “cause” or “drive.”
First misleading ExxonMobil statement: GHG "can contribute to climate change." No, not "can contribute." They DRIVE climate change, and they come primarily from @exxonmobil 's primary product: oil and gas.https://t.co/BO6oAofbeA
Using the the word “contribute” rather than cause, saidHuffPost environment reporter Chris D’Angelo, “downplays/dismisses the science, which shows they are the primary driver… Frankly, it’s climate denial—the very topic of this hearing.”
After inquiring about how long all four executives had been in their current roles, the panel’s ranking member, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), asked whether they had ever signed off on a climate disinformation campaign. They all said no—which experts and activists promptly disputed.
While progressives on the panel grilled the executives, Republicans repeatedly apologized to the CEOs for Democrats’ supposed “intimidation” efforts. Blasting the GOP lawmakers’ actions as “pathetic,” Henn said that “they really do see themselves as servants to Big Oil.”
.@RepGarretGraves (R-$759,995 oil and gas) literally explains that his state of Louisiana is completely screwed by fossil-fueled global warming but he can't and won't do anything about it because oil & gas is so profitable. "Why would we stop?"#SlipperySixpic.twitter.com/uXzf23E3a9
— Brad Johnson SUBSCRIBE TO HILLHEAT.NEWS (@climatebrad) October 28, 2021
The panel’s GOP members also tried to redirect attention to planet-heating activities of other countries, particularly China, and complained about President Joe Biden’s move to block the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, even inviting Neal Crabtree, a welder who lost his job when the project was canceled, to testify.
Republicans trotting out as a political prop a witness who supposedly lost his job due to climate policy, as if they or Big Oil ever cared about workers. Meanwhile real labor voices are speaking the truth, thank you @steelworkers: https://t.co/Fz0pk6q3wr
“The GOP’s strategy at this hearing is clear: It will not attempt to claim Big Oil *didn’t* mislead on climate,” tweeted climate reporter Emily Atkin of the HEATED newsletter. “Instead, the GOP is claiming Democrats are wasting time by focusing on climate change, and that it isn’t important to ‘everyday Americans.'”
Thanking Atkin for spotlighting the Republicans’ strategy, ClimateVoice noted that new polling shows the U.S. public does care about the issue. According to survey results released this week, a majority of Americans see climate as a problem of high importance to them and support Congress passing legislation to increase reliance on clean electricity sources.
Maloney, in her closing remarks Thursday, lamented that the hearing featured “much of the denial and deflection” seen in recent decades. She also called out the companies for not turning over requested documents, refusing to “take responsibility” for their contributions to the climate crisis, and continuing to fund groups like API. The chair vowed that her committee will continue its investigation.
Originally published on Common Dreams by JESSICA CORBETT and republished under Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
CEO Mark Zuckerberg had repeatedly promised to stop recommending political groups to users to squelch the spread of misinformation
Leaked internal Facebook documents show that a combination of technical miscommunications and high-level decisions led to one of the social media giant’s biggest broken promises of the 2020 election—that it would stop recommending political groups to users.
The Markup first revealed on Jan. 19 that Facebook was continuing to recommend political groups—including some in which users advocated violence and storming the U.S. Capitol—in spite of multiple promises not to do so, including one made under oath to Congress.
The day the article ran, a Facebook team started investigating the “leakage,” according to documents provided by Frances Haugen to Congress and shared with The Markup, and the problem was escalated to the highest level to be “reviewed by Mark.” Over the course of the next week, Facebook employees identified several causes for the broken promise.
The company, according to work log entries in the leaked documents, was updating its list of designated political groups, which it refers to as civic groups, in real time. But the systems that recommend groups to users were cached on servers and users’ devices and only updated every 24 to 48 hours in some cases. The lag resulted in users receiving recommendations for groups that had recently been designated political, according to the logs.
That technical oversight was compounded by a decision Facebook officials made about how to determine whether or not a particular group was political in nature.
When The Markup examined group recommendations using data from our Citizen Browser project—a paid, nationwide panel of Facebook users who automatically supply us data from their Facebook feeds—we designated groups as political or not based on their names, about pages, rules, and posted content. We found 12 political groups among the top 100 groups most frequently recommended to our panelists.
Facebook chose to define groups as political in a different way—by looking at the last seven days’ worth of content in a given group.
“Civic filter uses last 7 day content that is created/viewed in the group to determine if the group is civic or not,” according to a summary of the problem written by a Facebook employee working to solve the issue.
As a result, the company was seeing a “12% churn” in its list of groups designated as political. If a group went seven days without posting content the company’s algorithms deemed political, it would be taken off the blacklist and could once again be recommended to users.
Almost 90 percent of the impressions—the number of times a recommendation was seen—on political groups that Facebook tallied while trying to solve the recommendation problem were a result of the day-to-day turnover on the civic group blacklist, according to the documents.
Facebook did not directly respond to questions for this story.
“We learned that some civic groups were recommended to users, and we looked into it,” Facebook spokesperson Leonard Lam wrote in an email to The Markup. “The issue stemmed from the filtering process after designation that allowed some Groups to remain in the recommendation pool and be visible to a small number of people when they should not have been. Since becoming aware of the issue, we worked quickly to update our processes, and we continue this work to improve our designation and filtering processes to make them as accurate and effective as possible.”
Social networking and misinformation researchers say that the company’s decision to classify groups as political based on seven days’ worth of content was always likely to fall short.
“They’re definitely going to be missing signals with that because groups are extremely dynamic,” said Jane Lytvynenko, a research fellow at the Harvard Shorenstein Center’s Technology and Social Change Project. “Looking at the last seven days, rather than groups as a whole and the stated intent of groups, is going to give you different results. It seems like maybe what they were trying to do is not cast too wide of a net with political groups.”
Many of the groups Facebook recommended to Citizen Browser users had overtly political names.
More than 19 percent of Citizen Browser panelists who voted for Donald Trump received recommendations for a group called Candace Owens for POTUS, 2024, for example. While Joe Biden voters were less likely to be nudged toward political groups, some received recommendations for groups like Lincoln Project Americans Protecting Democracy.
The internal Facebook investigation into the political recommendations confirmed these problems. By Jan. 25, six days after The Markup’s original article, a Facebook employee declared that the problem was “mitigated,” although root causes were still under investigation.
On Feb. 10, Facebook blamed the problem on “technical issues” in a letter it sent to U.S. senator Ed Markey, who had demanded an explanation.
In the early days after the company’s internal investigation, the issue appeared to have been resolved. Both Citizen Browser and Facebook’s internal data showed that recommendations for political groups had virtually disappeared.
But when The Markup reexamined Facebook’s recommendations in June, we discovered that the platform was once again nudging Citizen Browser users toward political groups, including some in which members explicitly advocated violence.
From February to June, just under one-third of Citizen Browser’s 2,315 panelists received recommendations to join a political group. That included groups with names like Progressive Democrats of Nevada, Michigan Republicans, Liberty lovers for Ted Cruz, and Bernie Sanders for President, 2020.
“What do we do when we destroy the planet?” asked one demonstrator. “We have nothing else.”
Tens of thousands of people marched through the streets of Brussels on Sunday to demand Belgium’s elected leaders and others from around the world finally dispense with proclamations, broken promises, and half-measures and instead “act” on the climate emergency.
“We need a Belgian Green New Deal and we propose more than 100 concrete solutions to make it happen.”
With U.N. climate conference (COP26) set for next month in Glasgow, the estimated 70,000 or more people who took part in the march offered a dramatic show of force for the nation’s climate movement.
Zanna Vanrenterghem of Greenpeace Belgium toldThe Brussels Times on Sunday that her government’s climate pledges so far “are not ambitious enough,” but that words are no longer enough. “It is one thing to talk about climate,” she said, “and another to take concrete action.”
Ahead of the march, Vanrenterghem said the message from the Klimaatcoalitie (Climate Coalition), which she co-chairs and that organized the march, was a simple one: “We demand ambitious, solidarity-based and coherent measures. We need a Belgian Green New Deal and we propose more than 100 concrete solutions to make it happen.”
Up to 70 000 people took on the streets of #Brussels today for the #climate strike.
The first mobilization since the pandemic exceeded all expectations and sent a strong message to leaders ahead of #COP26 🌍
Thousands of people and 80 organizations took part in the protest, aiming for the biggest such event in the European Union’s capital since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, which stopped the climate movement’s weekly marches in its tracks.
Cyclists, families with children and white-haired demonstrators filled city streets, chanting slogans demanding climate justice and waving banners in English, French and Dutch. One carried a stuffed polar bear on her head, and others were dressed as animals endangered by human-caused climate change.
The crowds was large—with the march often stretching further than the eye could see—and participants each sharing their various reasons for attending. Signs and banners said things like “Destroy the System/Not the Planet”; “Walk the Talk”; and “Protect What You Love.”
Lucien Dewanaga, a marcher who spoke with AP, asked the question: “What do we do when we destroy the planet? We have nothing else. Human beings have to live in this world. And there is only one world.”
According to Vanrenterghem, extreme weather within Belgium and elsewhere in the world over the past year have offered only more reasons for leaders to turn lofty rhetoric into the concrete policies that scientists say are necessary to stave off the worst impacts.
“The tough climate actions of the past few years have put the climate crisis high on the political agenda,” she said. “Now is the time for politicians to turn their promises into concrete action.”
Originally published on Common Dreams by COMMON DREAMS STAFF and republished under a Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
“Ever notice how ‘deficit hawks’ vote for record-high defense spending, yet claim bills that help people and challenge lobbyists are ‘too much?'” asked Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Sen. Joe Manchin on Thursday derided his own party’s plan to spend $3.5 trillion over the next decade to combat the climate crisis, invest in child care, and expand Medicare as “fiscal insanity.”
“All this operatic moaning about $3.5 trillion is ridiculous hypocrisy. Manchin has casually voted for nearly three times that for defense spending.”
But progressive lawmakers and commentators were quick to point out that Manchin (D-W.Va.)—along with other conservative Democrats who are currently standing in the way of Democrats’ reconciliation package—have had no problem greenlighting the Pentagon’s increasingly bloated budget year after year after year.
“Ever notice how ‘deficit hawks’ vote for record-high defense spending, yet claim bills that help people and challenge lobbyists are ‘too much?'” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) asked in a tweet Thursday evening.
“All this operatic moaning about $3.5 trillion is ridiculous hypocrisy. Manchin has casually voted for nearly three times that for defense spending”
Noting that the reconciliation package includes yearly spending of $350 billion while the proposed military budget for Fiscal Year 2022 is $770 billion, the New York Democrat wrote: “Guess which got rubber stamped and which gets deemed a ‘spending problem.'”
Last week, the House of Representatives passed the $770 billion military policy bill—which includes $740 billion for the Pentagon alone–by a vote of 316-113, with just 38 Democrats voting no. The Senate is expected to pass its version of the National Defense Authorization Act in the coming days.
In a column published late Thursday, The Week‘s Ryan Cooper observed that Manchin “voted for every single one of the military budgets over the last decade—in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020.”
“He voted for all $9.1 trillion,” Cooper wrote. “While he occasionally complained about wasteful military programs and asked for an audit of the Pentagon, these quibbles were never enough to get him to vote differently. He helped inflate the already-bloated war budget and regularly boasted about thus ‘supporting’ the troops. This year, he did it again.”
“So on one level, all this operatic moaning about $3.5 trillion is ridiculous hypocrisy,” Cooper continued. “Manchin has casually voted for nearly three times that for defense spending—money that killed hundreds of thousands of people and turned half the Middle East into a smoking crater. A modest fraction of that total to help parents pay their bills, give seniors dental coverage, fight climate change, and so forth is not some intolerable burden on the economy.”
West Virginia activists in kayaks presented that critique directly to Manchin on Thursday as the Democratic senator listened from his yacht:
In ongoing talks over the reconciliation package, Manchin is pushing for a top-line spending level of $1.5 trillion. That figure is at least $2 trillion less over 10 years than Democrats’ current plan, which would spend $3.5 trillion over the next decade.
As Win Without War executive director Stephen Miles noted Thursday, Manchin’s preferred $1.5 trillion number is “less than we’ll spend at the Pentagon over the next two years.”
“And Manchin’s talking about a DECADE of spending across the entire rest of the government,” Miles wrote on Twitter. “During that time we’ll spend somewhere north of $8 trillion, possibly closer to $10 trillion. Just. at. the. Pentagon.”
Originally published on Common Dreams by JAKE JOHNSON and republished under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
“It’s important to address the fact that billionaire heirs may never pay tax on billions in stock gains.”
Sen. Ron Wyden, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, warned Tuesday that House Democrats’ newly released tax plan would let U.S. billionaires off the hook by omitting key reforms that progressive lawmakers, advocacy organizations, and President Joe Biden have embraced.
“It would be a monumental mistake for Congress to pass a bill that really exempts billionaires,” Wyden (D-Ore.) told the New York Times in response to the House Ways and Means Committee’s proposal, which was spearheaded by Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.).
While the House plan (pdf) would hike taxes on large corporations and the top 1% of earners in the U.S., analysts and Democratic lawmakers have voiced concerns that it doesn’t go nearly as far as it should to raise revenue for policy priorities and tackle the nation’s runaway income inequality, which the coronavirus crisis has made even worse. According to one recent analysis, the collective wealth of U.S. billionaires has risen by $1.8 trillion—62%—during the pandemic.
Wyden’s committee is in the process of crafting a tax plan of its own as Democrats race to compile their sprawling budget reconciliation package, which is expected to include major investments in green energy, healthcare, housing, and other key areas.
Specifically, Wyden and progressive organizations criticized the House Ways and Means Committee for failing to tackle a loophole that allows the ultra-wealthy to pass on massive fortunes to their heirs tax-free. Earlier this year, Biden released a tax plan that would close the loophole.
“It’s important to address the fact that billionaire heirs may never pay tax on billions in stock gains,” Wyden toldHuffPost on Monday. “The nurses, firefighters, and teachers who pay their taxes with every paycheck know the system is broken when billionaire heirs never pay tax on billions in stock gains.”
Steve Wamhoff, director of federal tax policy at the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), echoed Wyden’s concern, noting in an interview with the Washington Post that “if the Ways and Means plan was enacted as is, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk would still pay an effective rate of $0 on most of their income if they pass their assets on to their heirs.”
“It’s obviously a big improvement over the tax code we have now,” Wamhoff said of the House plan, “but there are a lot of things Biden suggested that would go a lot further.”
I agree with Chairman @RonWyden: we need to pass a bill that ensures that billionaires and corporations are finally paying their fair share. A wealth tax and my Real Corporate Profits Tax are two ways to get that done. https://t.co/xTtTQ8PGx2
On Tuesday, the progressive advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires made the House plan’s shortcomings the focus of a new mobile billboard campaign that features an image of Bezos—the richest man in the world—accompanied by the caption, “Oops! Missed me! (Thanks, Richie Neal!)”
“Richard Neal and the House Ways and Means Committee failed the president, failed the country, and failed history. It’s that simple,” Morris Pearl, chair of the Patriotic Millionaires, said in a statement. “This is not what the American people voted for when they elected Joe Biden as president.”
To remedy the proposal, the Patriotic Millionaires urged the House Democratic leadership to make several changes, including:
End the preferential tax rate for capital gains income over $1 million as President Biden requested. There is no intellectual or economic justification for working people in America to pay a higher tax rate than investors.
Eliminate the “stepped up basis” that allows the heirs of billionaires to avoid capital gains taxes on inherited assets (provide a reasonable exemption for family farms and small businesses). The committee’s failure to address this problem at all is particularly troubling.
End the Carried Interest Loophole which allows fund managers to mischaracterize their “ordinary” income as capital gain income for tax purposes. The Ways and Means proposal extends the hold time for investments to five years. Given that most private equity firms hold investments for six years, this change will have essentially zero effect. The loophole should be eliminated entirely.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), whose “Tax the Rich” dress at the lavish 2021 Met Gala made waves on social media, said Tuesday that “members of both parties have tried to halt taxing the wealthiest in our society” even after billionaires made enormous wealth gains during the pandemic.
“It’s unacceptable,” the New York Democrat added. “We must tax the rich.”
According to a June survey released by Americans for Tax Fairness, 72% of U.S. voters support closing “loopholes that let the wealthy avoid paying taxes on the profits from assets they transfer to heirs.” The poll also found that 62% of voters support raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%.
The House Ways and Means Committee proposal would only raise the corporate rate to 26.5%.
As Chuck Collins and Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies argued in a blog post on Monday, “The public has a tremendous appetite to do much more to address the grotesque concentrations of democracy-distorting wealth and power—and to shut down the ways that billionaires and a few hundred global corporations manipulate our tax system.”
“House Democratic tax writers do not go far enough to raise revenue or reduce extreme wealth inequality,” Collins and Anderson wrote. “The tax reforms would generate an estimated $2.2 trillion—just barely more than the revenue lost due to the 2017 Republican tax cuts.”
We do have socialism in this country—but it’s not Democrats’ policies. The real socialism is corporate welfare.
You may have heard Republicans in Congress rail about how the Democrats’ agenda is chock-full of scary “socialist” policies.
We do have socialism in this country—but it’s not Democrats’ policies. The real socialism is corporate welfare.
Thousands of big American corporations rake in billions each year in government subsidies, bailouts, and tax loopholes—all funded on the taxpayer dime, and all contributing to higher stock prices for the richest 1 percent who own half of the stock market, as well as CEOs and other top executives who are paid largely in shares of stock.
Big Tech, Big Oil, Big Pharma, defense contractors, and big banks are the biggest beneficiaries of corporate welfare.
How? Follow the money. These corporations and their trade groups spend hundreds of millions each year on lobbying and campaign contributions. Their influence-peddling pays off. The return on these political investments is huge. It’s institutionalized bribery.
An even more insidious example is corporations that don’t pay their workers a living wage. As a result, their workers have to rely on programs like Medicaid, public housing, food stamps and other safety nets. Which means you and I and other taxpayers indirectly subsidize these corporations, allowing them to enjoy even higher profits and share prices for their wealthy investors and executives.
Not only does corporate welfare take money away from us as taxpayers. It also harms smaller businesses that have a harder time competing with big businesses that get these subsidies. Everyone loses except those at the top.
It’s more socialism for the rich, harsh capitalism for the rest.
It should be ended.
I’m as sensitive as anyone to the sufferings of Afghans now, but I’ve had it with the sanctimony of journalists and pundits who haven’t thought about Afghanistan for 20 years—many of whom urged we get out—but who are now filling the August news hole with overwrought stories about Biden’s botched exit and Taliban atrocities.
Yes, the exit could have been better planned and executed. Yes, it’s all horribly sad. But can we get a grip? The sudden all-consuming focus on Afghanistan is distracting us from hugely important stuff that’s coming to a head at home:
(1) Republican politicians and right-wing media worsening the surging Delta variant of COVID by fighting masks and vaccinations, as cities and school systems struggle to decide what to do;
(2) wildfires and floods consuming much of America, as House Democrats absurdly threaten to oppose Biden’s $3.5 trillion budget blueprint containing important measures to slow climate change;
(3) Texas on the verge of passing the nation’s most anti-democracy voting restrictions, adding to voter suppression measures in 24 other states, at the same time the “For the People Act” and the “John Lewis Voting Rights Act”—which would remedy these horrendous laws—languish in the Senate because Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema refuse to do anything about the filibuster.
Enough sanctimony over Afghanistan. Enough about Biden’s falling approval ratings. We’ve had enough wall-to-wall coverage of the Olympics and then Andrew Cuomo and now the airport in Kabul. Can we please focus on the biggest things that need and deserve our attention right now? The window of opportunity to do anything about them will close sooner than we expect.
If we don’t take action now on COVID and the critical importance of vaccinations and masks, on climate change and Biden’s $3.5 trillion package, and on voter suppression and the necessity of the For the People and the John Lewis Voting Rights Acts, we may never.
Clearly there is something going on here and it seems blazingly obvious to everyone except those gathered to partake. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) of 2021 began in Orlando, Florida on Friday. And nearly straight away this thing grabbed the show by the horns (above).
Or at least the Twitter reaction and meme factory was impressed. For all the wrong reasons. The four years of the “former guy” were hard to live through for sane people. But it is becoming more and more apparent that those that reveled in those times were not just angry political weirdos but, possibly, certifiable.
First was the warning from the Chief of the Capitol Police that pro-former-guy and right wing militia members were plotting to set bombs, literally, off at the Capitol to coincide with Biden’s upcoming State of the Union Address.
“We know that members of the militia groups that were present on January 6th have stated their desires that they want to blow up the Capitol and kill as many members as possible with a direct nexus to the State of the Union.”
Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman
Now, as the always bizarre anyway CPAC conference convenes they decide to set up a Gold-calf worship statue and parade it around for the faithful.
That "golden calf" statue of Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida? pic.twitter.com/unwbEPUxwv
— Mr. Naturalism (The Antichrist Unicorn) (@MNaturalism) February 26, 2021
Another seems to think BigBoy Burgers had something to do with the statue’s origin:
OMFG whoever built this golden calf of Trump *must* have known about Bob's Big Boy. COME ON.
The only thing missing is the burger, probably because Trump already ate it with a large fry and washed it down with a Diet Coke. pic.twitter.com/UP6vR8ylVL
At least they had some modicum of civility, truth, and intelligence back then. Wish we had someone like Ike back at the helm instead of Trump aka "the golden calf"… pic.twitter.com/nUhrlLt80r
February 12, 2021 marks the fourth day of former President Trump’s second impeachment trial. His lawyers have the chance today to rebut the House impeachment managers’ cases for Trump’s conviction.
The impeachment managers shared never before seen video evidence, as well as media reports and court documents demonstrating how some perpetrators believed that they were acting at the direction of Trump.
Trump’s legal team took the tack, not usual from past explanations of Trump conduct, that it was all just typical talk and nothing unusual for a speech by a “politician”. Shades of “locker room talk” and other times so many went out of their way to poo poo an outrageous statement. Only in those cases no-one died.
This was followed by standard denials and refutations.
“This is ordinary political rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the language that has been used by people across the political spectrum for hundreds of years. Countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principals. “
van der Veen also added “You can’t incite what was already going to happen,”
“No thinking person,” van der Veen said, “could seriously believe” that the speech “was in any way an incitement to violence or insurrection,” as Democratic House impeachment managers have charged. “Nothing in the text could remotely be construed as encouraging, condoning or enticing unlawful activity of any kind.”
Reactions:
All Trump had to say at 1:30 pm or even 2:30 pm was “get out of the Capitol, that’s not what I wanted you to do. Stay outside.” He indicted himself as much by what he didn’t say on January 6th as what he did.
Today isn't about making sound constitutional arguments. It's about giving Senate Republicans something to say to reporters and constituents when they vote no on conviction.
If this were a law school exam answer it would get an F. The point is Trump’s use of speech constituted an abrogation of his constitutional duties as president. Trump lawyer is not addressing this, the main point.
This one you could have predicted — Trump's defense is Trump is a victim. They are using this forum to justify every terrible thing he's done as not his fault. The king of alternative facts is creating "reality" now again.
Wow! Trump defense team has just claimed that the House Impeachment managers have manipulated, manufactured and tampered with evidence. This is a HUGE accusation no lawyer should take lightly! #ImpeachmentTrial
Using a location that conjures a war reference about remembering a slaughter is already a veiled message to extremists
Faced with a world without his Twitter account Trump appears to be reaching out to symbolism and and tacit messaging to continue to try and build anger and foment a civil war.
Texas officials were quoted as saying that they oppose Trump’s visit outright, citing the possibility that he would be citing more violence and that maskless fans could create a coronavirus surge, as has happened in relation to other Trump events.
By choosing Alamo, TX, “coincidentally”, for some kind of news conference, vaguely related to his unfinished and disastrous border wall, he is likely sending a message to the most violent and most extreme of his “army” of followers across the nation.
The Battle of the Alamo, which took place at the Alamo Mission (no where near Alamo, TX), a former Spanish religious outpost which had been converted to a makeshift fort, is a historic symbol of Texans’ resistance and their struggle for independence. The battle cry of “remember the Alamo” first became popular during the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848.
There is no sign that Trump is trying to reduce the potential for violence, more likely it’s the opposite
Further, they say that they will never stop or give up “because this is like 1776”. Apparently, Trump would like to add “Remember the Alamo” to this brain-worm controlled thought process. Interestingly, since Trump began his run for president stating that “Mexicans are Rapists”, using a symbol from the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 has a kind of dual purpose – Mexicans are the enemy in his book, apparently, and so is the U.S. government.
Buried somehow in these references is the idea that somehow the “Patriots” in his “army” were “oppressed” by the U.S. Government (which he is the current “leader” of) and Mexico (by the racist belief that people are a threat simply due to their race & heritage) and they must therefore fight back and get revenge.
This kind of convoluted circular logic is typical of the propaganda that has, amazingly, led to thousands of radicalized Trump followers looking for blood and wishing for a second civil war. Since this brainwashing is not a simple thing to reverse, once various “Big Lies” are accepted as truth, the situation has the potential to get much worse before it gets better.
“Remember the Alamo” is literally a battle cry that means it is time to fight back. Trump is not likely staging his circus at that location by chance. Should the press and the 84+ million Americans that do not want Trump as a dictator stand up to this insanity? Should the press take off the kid gloves and clearly state what this subterfuge os clearly all about?
Without need for hyperbole, Biden emphasizes the importance of voting blue in Georgia to real world problems
As the minutes wind down until the critically important senate runoff elections in Georgia, President-elect Joe Biden said that, if the two Democratic senators are elected, Americans will receive $2,000 COVID-19 relief checks, and implied it could happen very soon:
‘By electing John and the Reverend, you can make an immediate difference in your own lives, the lives of people all across this country, because their election will put an end to the block in Washington of that $2,000 stimulus check, that money that will go out the door immediately to help people who are in real trouble.’
President-elect Joe Biden
What he is referring to, of course, is that fact that while congress passed the higher dollar amount for the stimulus checks, once the bill got to the senate, currently controlled by the Republicans and Mitch McConnell, the proposed increase was blocked and the previous bill was maintained reducing the checks back to the original $600 figure.
This transpired, in spite of the fact that Trump, in his usual confused and chaotic style, pressured his own party, over whom he supposedly has absolute power, to vote for the higher amount, and therefore they were forced to defy him in order to block the passage of the higher amount.
It is unclear if this was some kind of reckless ploy, perhaps an attempt by Trump to make himself seem like the “good guy”, and to force the senate to look bad in comparison, including, for example high profile senators that might, in the future, want to run against him, assuming he is even eligible to run. As has been seen lately (and for a long time before that) anything is possible regarding his motives.
What Biden is saying, though possibly a bit exaggerated regarding the timing, is nevertheless correct, that with a victory by both Jon Ossoff and the Rev. Raphael Warnock the senate would be evenly split with 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. In that scenario, the vice president, who will be Kamala Harris once she and Biden are sworn-in, will be able to cast any tie-breaking vote as needed, giving the Democrats the narrowest of margins, but enough to push through the stimulus checks and, potentially, the first order of business for the new administration.
Later in the appearance President-elect Joe Biden reiterated:
[CHEERING]
“And that’s not an exaggeration. That is a literal– that’s literally true. If you send John and the Reverend to Washington, those $2,000 checks will go out the door, restoring hope and decency and honor for so many people who are struggling right now. And if you send senators Perdue and Loeffler back to Washington, those checks will never get there. It’s just that simple. The power is literally in your hands.”
January 6th will be remembered, but not for what Trump’s devotees are threatening
Since the end of the Bush years and Obama’s rise there has been a simple yet devastating truth haunting the Republican Party. The demographic realities do not support a continuation of the racist stance that was the bedrock of the party’s appeal for more than half a century. The Southern Strategy does not work when the non-white majority is growing daily.
Instead of shifting gradually, for example during the eight years of Obama, a bolt from the blue sent the party back to the stone age with a fluke, a mistake of history, called Donald Trump. A “Rhino” who was able to say anyone who disagreed with his disgusting extreme racist politics was the real “Republican in name only”.
That has led to the current “civil war” within the Republican Party. In essence it is the suicide party of Trump, rather dead than rainbow, vs. the “democratic” Republicans, those that believe that the US Constitution and the rule of law should be upheld, even if it means that people of color have a demographic advantage and must be included in government going forward.
Groups like the Lincoln Project and RVAT (Republican Voters against Trump) helped to defeat him and represent a more “sane” idea of what they believe the Republican should be about in the future. In reality, the fanatical backing that a reality show demagogue has managed to assemble is both too large and too sick to change anytime soon, particularly not if that change involves disavowing racism as a core belief.
While talking about his former Party, Schmidt touches on the larger issues for the rest of America
Therefore, as Steve Schmidt, a GOP strategist who co-founded the Lincoln Project, said is a series of tweets this weekend, the coming ‘civil war’, oddly scheduled for January 6th and being announced by many wackos, from “Proud Boys” to Republican senators and congressmen, is not one of a country divided, but the death throes of the Republican Party itself:
“The die is cast for the Republican Party. It will be destroyed on January 6th”
Referring to the suicidal nature of this hopeless attempt to declare a “real” civil war, one where Trump’s 70 million-plus base literally take up arms against the rest of the country including the government, military and law enforcement infrastructure.
The implication that the threatened war would never take hold, that the armed forces and the entire infrastructure of the country is not ready to commit treason in order to save a crying baby who lost an election, is an unspoken phrase underscoring the prediction of what will actually take place:
That date “will commence a political civil war inside the GOP,” he continued.
He also admits that the Trump led “autocratic” leaning Republicans outnumber the p”pro-democracy” wing of the party and, therefore, the party as a whole will collapse.
“The autocratic side will roll over the pro-democracy remnant of the GOP like the Wehrmacht did the Belgian Army in 1940. The ’22 GOP primary season will be a blood letting. The 6th will be a loyalty test. The purge will follow.”
The implication of his words are that the party will be split with the Trump faction to remain, weaker yet held together by zealous insanity, while any sane former Republicans will be “purged” and will have to go it alone:
“Fascism has indeed come to America and as was once predicted it is wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. This movement must be defeated. It cannot be appeased, accommodated or negotiated with. It must be recognized for what it is and we must all recognize the new age of American politics it has wrought,” he wrote.
The future will eventually reflect current reality; ethnic diversity can not be wished away by racism
What is missing from the post is an answer to the question of what this new fascist Republican party will do with a small minority and a leader who will likely be in exile or jail. Perhaps “Trump the Martyr” will cast a long powerful shadow over American politics for years. More likely he will be immortalized in the dustbin of history.
His most rabid and crazed followers may commit illegal acts, for which they will pay with incarceration or fate, but more than a few impotent and isolated incidents are highly unlikely. Like Trump himself, it will be the incompetence and stupidity, along with the corruption and evil, that will be remembered from his rise, and derided and, rightly, mocked in his fall.
New bill is a joke for those struggling, unhappy, viral memes abound
A second stimulus package has been in the works for months now, supposedly. The current version of the proposed stimulus bill, which would, if passed, be the second Covid-19 relief package since the start of the pandemic, is still under discussion.
However, if granted, it would contain only about half of the first round of cash assistance compared to the previous bill which had $1,200 individual payments. The new bill would provide a direct payment of only $600 to $700 per person for those that qualify.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to Twitter asking followers to respond to a poll which asked if the $600 would be enough, under the current dire circumstances, and the responses, well, are laughable
The congresswoman has been fighting to get more help to Americans overcome their financial difficulties that have only gotten worse during the first, and now second, waves of the pandemic. The options provided in the poll, as possible answers to the question “Is $600 for a second COVID check enough”, included: Yes, No, and Hell No. Hell no received a whopping 62% while a simple “No” got 32.8%. Apparently 94.8% are not happy with the sum.
The bill has yet to be finalized and representative Ocasio-Cortez made it clear to her followers that she was not in agreement with the proposed lower payment amount.
Democrats have continued to demand at least $1,200 for stimulus checks and restoring the $600 “increase” for unemployment benefits as well as continued rent and mortgage protections.
“PLEASE CALL YOUR MEMBER if you have any doubt whatsoever on what their stance is, And if you don’t want your member to vote for a $600 deal, you really need to tell them that. Don’t think ‘oh I voted for a Dem, we’ll be fine.’ No. If there’s an amount that’s too little, or any other red line that you want them to vote NO on, then you need to tell them that.”
Check out the memes that resulted from AOC’s poll, while they will not help if the $600 is approved, can definitely provide a bit of levity in the meantime!
Above: Photo Collage / Time Inc. / Mock up of Der Spiegel Concept
Changing America’s Story and Awarding Trump what he has Earned
On the same day that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris received the “Time’s Person of the Year” designation, jointly, in another of the new twists that Time likes to feature, Trump got his own award from Germany’s ‘Der Spiegel’ magazine: Loser of the year.
While anyone who has been paying attention, noticed that Trump deserved this award most, if not, all the years of his life, this year it is particularly fitting as he earned it with the most lies and potentially, the most alleged indictable crimes.
Featuring Kamala Harris as co-Person of the year is a nice touch, since she is both a woman of color and was attacked in a particularly vicious and personal way by Trump and his Republican minions during the campaign.
Further, the possibility of real partnership to oust a misogynistic and racist foe showed that humility, dignity and compassion for others could actually win against a bully and, with Kamala Harris on the ticket, could demonstrate leadership and leaders, who are not bullies or failed human beings but empathetic and fully functioning people capable of cooperation and teamwork.
For so many, indeed, over 81.2 million, the time was right to join together and take the old saying “nice guys (or gals) finish last” and turn it on its head – This year, the best man & woman won and the world’s biggest a-hole lost big, which, though long-ish, makes for a more apt phrase to sum up 2020, in the presidential race, at any rate.
Above: 80 Million in Washington D.C.? Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock
Pseudo-conciliatory tone vanishes in a haze of Tryptophan
Chalk it up to just another day in Trump-world where nonsense is fact and facts don’t exist. After making another non-concession-consession on Thursday, stating that “of course” he would vacate the White House if Biden has won the electoral college vote by December 14th (which is the deadline for those votes to be certified), on Friday, he had, apparently, re-thought that whole “be a reasonable human” thing.
In two tweets that were both marked “This claim about election fraud is disputed” the current election result “denier in chief” postulated that president-elect Biden “can only enter the White House as President if he can prove that his ridiculous ‘80,000,000 votes’ were not fraudulently or illegally obtained,” and further, that “Biden only did well in the large cities of Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Milwaukee, which he claimed have “long [been] known as being politically corrupt.”
The latter is, of course, completely false, and the former is an absurd assertion, even from this source.
Also claiming, with as much false bravado as someone in his losing position could muster, that Biden has a “big, unsolvable problem”.
Trump, laughingly, put forth the theory that “Biden only did well in the large cities of Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Milwaukee”, and added a baseless claim that those cities (that were most assuredly not the “only” ones where Biden did well) have “long [been] known as being politically corrupt.”
Um, Los Angeles ? New York City? We could go down this list all day. “Only did well?”
Which leads to the real question here: who, outside of the thoroughly brainwashed, would even consider such nonsense. Do losing teams in the Super-bowl get to dispute every point on the scoreboard, after the game is over? Does winning by more than 6 million votes count for anything in this wacko universe?
Biden can only enter the White House as President if he can prove that his ridiculous “80,000,000 votes” were not fraudulently or illegally obtained. When you see what happened in Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia & Milwaukee, massive voter fraud, he’s got a big unsolvable problem!
Perhaps, to insure absolute certainty, 80 million people should show up at the White House to remind Trump why he must, and will, be moving out on January 20th, if not before (wink).
Biden did poorly in big cities (Politico), except those of Detroit (more votes than people!), Philadelphia, Atlanta and Milwaukee, which he had to win. Not surprisingly, they are all located in the most important swing states, and are long known for being politically corrupt!
As twitter explodes with Memes and tributes to those that stepped up, the story is halfway: grand finale is yet to come
Georgia has flipped from Red to Blue. This, in case you were wondering, is big and unusual, and has not happened since 1992. Twenty-eight years ago, when Bill Clinton won the state, it was a different time and a different electorate. This year it was new voters, many under 35 that stepped up and shifted the count away from Trump and the Republicans. Black, Latina and Asian voters are on the rise and traditional white voters as a percentage are shrinking, currently just below 53%.
This is a snapshot of what the entire country is moving towards as the racial make up of the country becomes ever more diverse and inclusive. This shift was already well underway during the eight Obama years and will not stop just because Trump and his backward looking followers wish it was so.
Georgia’s heroism is set to be an ever more meaningful theme as it needs to flip again, or else the Biden administration will be severely hindered by another Republican majority, which would lead to a repeat of the problems Obama had during his tenure.
The focus on Georgia is not going away anytime soon, of course…
The run-off election for the two, suddenly insanely valuable Senate seats is already about to ramp up into the fight of the century. In a sense the races are even more important for the Republicans to win, as control of the Senate is the last chance to wield power over the next four years.
“Let me be clear, those who come to Georgia with the intention of voter fraud will be prosecuted,” said Secretary Raffensperger. “We thoroughly investigate every single allegation of voter fraud. Anyone is welcome to move to the state named the No. 1 place to do business. However, let me warn anyone attempting election mischief: If you illegally participate in our elections, you might be spending a lot more time in Georgia than you planned.”
— Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger
Don’t think for a second though that the importance is not clear to the Democrats across the country. Warnings from the Georgia Secretary of State that moving there temporarily to vote in the January Runoffs is illegal were deemed necessary; that’s how serious it is being taken across the country.
Today, before all of that gets started – let’s salute the heroes of Georgia, led by Stacy Abrams, who will certainly run for Governor again, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, the 50,000 that worked to collect and count the ballots and most of all the voters in the now-flipped-into-bright-Blue State.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
It should be pretty standard that the American people would be able to reliably expect the loser of the presidential election to accept their defeat. However, if this loser, happens to be the incumbent candidate, this assumption is actually being played out in real time.
When asked by reporter Brian Karem, “Win, lose, or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?”
Trump made no attempt to show that he cares about democracy, Trump instead responded, “Get rid of the ballots and…we’ll have a very peaceful—there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it. You know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know better than anybody else.”
Trump has been on a tirade on mail-in-ballots, yet this is the first time he has said aloud and unequivocally, that chances are, he won’t accept the out come of the election unless the outcome is: he wins.
In the latest Lincoln Project ad, the Anti-Trump group comments that Trump’s inability to concede in the event that he loses, “are statements of weakness” and when he dose lose he will have to go. Since this is America after all.
