Michael Tracey on X - "Wow. In a June 2020 NYT/Siena poll, Trump was backed by only 5% of Black voters. In the new June 2024 NYT/Siena poll, Trump is backed by 30% of Black voters. That's an astronomical jump, and it's being replicated in poll after poll. If Trump were to receive 30% of the Black vote in 2024, it would be the largest percentage for any Republican since Nixon in 1960, who received 32% of the Black vote"
i/o on X - "2016 Democrat: Wait, you're telling me that America's first racist white nationalist president is running again in 2024?
2024: Yes, but he's losing white support.
2016 Dem: Good! He can't possibly win without the racists!
2024: Well, actually he's ahead in the polls because his black support has sextupled.
2016 Dem: You're kidding, right?
2024: No, I'm dead serious.
2016 Dem: OK, but the Hispanics will never vote for him.
2024: His support among Hispanics might even be higher than it is among blacks.
2016 Dem: This is crazy. I feel like moving to Canada.
2024: Don't despair. White people might save the day for Biden.
2016 Dem: Wait, Biden is still alive?"
Damn internalised white supremacy!
Meme - "Bond: paid
Tower: saved
Libs: mad"
Meme - Jeff Tiedrich @itsJeffTiedrich: "Donald Trump can't walk down a ramp"
Jeff Tiedrich @itsJeffTiedrich: "the wildest thing about Joe Biden tripping on a sandbag is that Donald Trump stole classified war plans, hid them, moved them, lied about returning them, showed them off to god knows how many random people and probably even sold them. for fuck's sake, people, FOCUS"
Google Just Quietly Changed Its Search Results For "Bloodbath Definition" And We Have The Screenshots - "Recently, national media outlets have curiously chosen to take a particular line out of context... Trump is appealing to auto workers with promises to keep the American car-making industry competitive by imposing very costly taxes (tariffs) on imported vehicles. The Biden campaign posted March 16 on X: “Donald Trump said there would be a ‘bloodbath’ if he wasn’t elected and that if he lost there would be no more elections.” The next day, Biden’s account shared on X the “bloodbath” clip and wrote, “It’s clear this guy wants another January 6. Politicians, pundits and social media users debated Trump’s “bloodbath” remark in the days following the speech. Some major news outlets including The New York Times, ABC and The Associated Press wrote that Trump warned of a “bloodbath” in headlines without the auto industry context. Although the text of the articles explained the context, when headlines alone are shared on social media, it doesn’t tell the full story. But that wasn’t enough as Google just quietly changed its search results for “bloodbath definition” and it looks funny. Websters did the same. See below. This is how coordinated they are... Looking up “bloodbath definition” on 2 top search engines (Google vs DuckDuckGo). Spot the difference"
Jake on X - "🚨Brave New World Why would Google change the definition of the word bloodbath to eliminate the meaning of a financial loss? The communist left redefines language to support their narrative. Are they staging a post election bloodbath like they did J6?"
Trump’s Violent Language Toward EVs - The New York Times - "He has long claimed electric cars will “kill” America’s auto industry. He has called them an “assassination” of jobs. He has declared that the Biden administration “ordered a hit job on Michigan manufacturing” by encouraging the sales of electric cars."
Biden's 'Bernie brothers' remark lights up social media - "“What we can’t let happen is let this primary become a negative bloodbath,” Biden told more than 100 donors gathered at a private residence in Bethesda."
Biden was threatening to kill Bernie and his voters
Meme - NBC News: "Democrats at every level across the country are capitalizing on a potentially seismic shift in the political landscape that could upend what was to be a bloodbath of a midterm election for an otherwise disillusioned party."
NBC News @NBCNews: "Former President Donald Trump vowed at a rally that there would be a "bloodbath" if he's not re- elected in November."
Unhinged Trump Threatens More Violence By Promising To Trigger A 'Landslide' On Election Day | Babylon Bee - "Being the movement downslope of a mass of earth and rock, landslides have been known to kill people and cause massive property damage to communities around the country every year. This is the first time a former president has threatened to trigger one on election day if the election doesn't go the way he thinks it should. "Landslides kill 25-50 people in the United States every year on average either from falling rocks, debris flows, or collapsing buildings," said a spokesman for The United States Geological Survey, Dr. Ned Jones. When asked how the former President might go about triggering one of these horrible landslides, The United States Geological Survey could not comment but reminded people to move to a second story in buildings whenever possible and to avoid river valleys and other low areas. "It is very important that you stay out of the path of an incoming landslide triggered by Donald Trump and if you can't get away you must curl into a ball to try to protect your head," reiterated Dr. Jones. "A former president of this nation is literally threatening to kill people with a landslide," said Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. "He promised a bloodbath was coming if he wasn't elected and now we know what his plan is. We'll be following this landslide plot closely, so keep it tuned in here, folks." Experts like Maddow say this is yet another example of Donald Trump's tendency to make threats of political violence, similar to that one time on January 6, 2021, when he told his followers to "do an insurrection" to stop the vote certification for Joe Biden."
Meme - Jodie @JodiePP1948: "Are you really that delusional, he called for a bloodbath if he doesn't win. Wake the fu*k up."
Jodie @JodiePP1948: "This is going to be bloodbath for the GOP and no one is safe."
Meme - (((Tara Dublin))), Rock Star Author @taradublinrocks: "There is no context removed from this, you fucking idiot He threatened a bloodbath for the country if he doesn't win. That is what he said. Not for the auto industry. For the country. Donald Trump wants all of his perceived enemies dead. Just ask Mike Pence"
(((Tara Dublin))), Rock Star Author @taradublinrocks: "#RedWave is a euphemism for our periods. You know, when we bleed from our wherevers, @realDonaldTrump? Enjoy the bloodbath at the polls, traitor #BlueWave2018 #ImpeachTrump"
Benny Johnson on X - "Every single president in modern history has increased their net worth after leaving office except for one— Donald Trump.
Obama: $1.3m vs. $70m
George Bush: $20m vs. $40m
Clinton: $1.3m vs. $241.5m
George W. Bush: $4m vs. $23m
Carter: $2.3m vs. $10m
Nixon: $2m vs. $10m
Reagan: $10.6m vs. $15.4m
Trump: $3b vs. $2.3b
Trump is also the only one being criminally charged for supposedly overstating his net worth, yet other politicians use their office to increase theirs. Will the DOJ investigate the others?"
Escape The Echo Chamber | Facebook - "On January 6th American voters saw a whole parade of reasons why politics is broken in the US. Neither the a Democrats or Trump were truthful about the January 6th riots. In their day-long festivities, Biden lamented the horrors of Trump calling the 2020 election illegitimate. Unmentioned was that both Biden and his VP have previously called the 2016 election illegitimate. The riot was not an insurrection, according to the FBI who investigated. Meanwhile Congressional Democrats memorialized officer who died protecting the Capitol when none were killed and the Hamilton cast did their part with show tunes. Meanwhile Trump does what Trump does and spins his story with little attachment to the truth. Trump didn’t incite the riot, for anybody who still cares about facts, but it’s also arguably that his response to the riot wasn’t good. The Russian collusion story was bogus, as we’ve extensively covered here, but Biden did win the election. We have the bulk of the facts now and, while there were many problems with how the election was conducted, Biden still had the electoral votes needed to win regardless. If you favor one side then you might find the falsehoods favoring your party to be more honorable. The hard truth is that politicians today feel there is little risk deceiving voters. That’s not a good environment for a successful republic."
FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6 - "The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence” By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI"
About "Whataboutism" and Political Hypocrisy - "If you’re Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for example, a question in July about mobs toppling statues in public spaces elicited not a denunciation but a koan: “People will do what they do.” Indeed, people will do what they do. Some people, for example, will break into the Capitol and occupy the Speaker’s office. But limiting oneself to the serene observation that this is what they do would constitute a grave failure to repudiate an offense against law, order, and democracy. Nikole Hannah-Jones, who won a Pulitzer Prize for creating the New York Times’s “1619 Project,” also expressed equanimity and even pride regarding last year’s unrest. “It would be an honor,” she said, if the burning police stations and looted stores came to be described as the “1619 Riots.” In any case, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.” Hannah-Jones went on to explain, “Any reasonable person would say we shouldn’t be destroying other people’s property, but these are not reasonable times.” Reasonable people also say that mobs should not overrun the seat of government or be gratified if someone calls that assault the “1776 Riots.” But if declaring “these are not reasonable times” changes everything, then the loophole devours the rule, or even the idea of having rules. When protesters surrounded a Seattle police station, forcing officers to evacuate it, and declared the adjacent area an “autonomous zone,” mayor Jenny Durkan was reassuring: “Don’t be so afraid of democracy.” Civic and political leaders in Philadelphia were equally non-judgmental about the shattered glass and boarded stores on their streets. “I don’t think we need to be parsing whether there needs to be looting,” said one city council member. Rioting was “understandable but regrettable,” Jesse Jackson said in June, a quasi-criticism no one would think to apply to the Capitol Hill mob. In the wake of last week’s riot, formulations like these have become deeply embarrassing... What exactly is this whataboutism which conservatives have committed so flagrantly? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as, “The practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.” Also, “the practice of raising a supposedly analogous issue in response to a perceived hypocrisy or inconsistency.” The term came into use in the twentieth century, often to describe a rhetorical gambit wherein any criticism or question about the Soviet Union’s human rights violations elicited an objection about the West’s transgressions... Whataboutism offends against the good-faith pursuit of truth and clarity by evading a legitimate question and dragging in irrelevancies. Whether or not 9/11 was evil has nothing to do with the Trail of Tears. Nor am I obliged to accede to the stipulation that I must first denounce whatever historical crime you happen to mention before you consent to take note of the shocking atrocity that took place downtown a few hours ago. To nail conservatives for whataboutist responses to the Capitol riot requires demonstrating conduct like Irwin Corey’s, or that of some Soviet apparatchik responding to a question about the Gulag with one about Jim Crow. When Senator Marco Rubio and commentator Ben Shapiro, for example, complain about media double standards—lenient for BLM, severe for MAGA—Graham dismisses the “superficial parallels” and Peters the “false equivalencies.” We should, of course, reject false equivalencies—because they’re false. But to complain about false equivalencies necessarily implies that there are true equivalencies. It also strongly implies that different cases, though not identical, can be comparable in ways that fairly illuminate some underlying question. If whataboutism entails “raising a supposedly analogous issue in response to a perceived hypocrisy or inconsistency,” then raising plausibly analogous issues in response to a demonstrable hypocrisy or inconsistency does not qualify as whataboutism. Whether issue X is or isn’t analogous to issue Y, whether inconsistency Z is apparent or real, irrelevant, or germane—these disagreements become elements of any fair debate. And because it is legitimate for one side to raise such questions, it is illegitimate for the other side to use facile, tendentious accusations of whataboutism to rule them out of order. The point of that tactic is not to win a debate but stifle it... It is strange, in general, to assert that riots that occurred whole, entire months ago—gosh, who can even count how many?—are self-evidently unrelated to a more recent riot. It is a particularly odd dismissal of the hazy, archaic past coming from a reporter for the New York Times, which mentioned the 1955 murder of Emmett Till in 82 different stories over the course of 2020. In May 2018 Times contributor Lindy West defended the cancellation of Roseanne Barr’s television show, a skirmish in the “cancel culture” wars. It is “our collective responsibility” to fight racism and hate, West wrote, “and right now cultural power is all we have.” West did not expand on her use of the first-person plural, but it was pretty clear that if you had to ask, you weren’t part of it. The “cultural power” that “we have” is a strong clue. It’s the power exercised by media and academic institutions, in particular, opinion leaders shaping the national conversation to determine which stories get told, which voices heard, which arguments taken seriously. The whataboutism indictments mean that we, who wield this cultural power, can deliver crazy and dangerous pronouncements during one historical circumstance, and then a few months later use that power to decree that the earlier pronouncements are irrelevant to whatever points we’re making today. Cultural power means never having to say you’re sorry and never having to feel you’re constrained. Go ahead: take outrageous positions or issue preposterous formulations today, confident that if they make you or us look bad in the future, we, the culturally powerful, will join together to manufacture a consensus that even alluding to those embarrassments is now impermissible. It will be as if they never happened. Kant’s categorical imperative about committing or defending only those actions you would uphold as universal principles is ground down to a speed bump. Cultural power demolishes universality with situational assertions of relativity: That was then; this is now. If some annoying troll complains about our inconsistency or hypocrisy, we’ll respond with accusations of whataboutism, an update of the credo voiced by Eric Stratton in Animal House: You f---ed up. You took us seriously... “The wonderful thing about being on the right side of history is that we can encourage big tech censorship without any fear that it might one day be used against us.”"
Common law literally relies on "whataboutism", and philosophers seek logical consistency by applying principles to different situations. Special pleading aka double standards are beloved by the left
Rightwing group pushes Wisconsin voter purge that 'could tip' 2020 election - "Earlier this year, Wisconsin election officials sent out notices to about 234,000 people – 7% of registered voters in the state – suspected of changing home addresses this year. They planned on giving people until the spring of 2021 to confirm their registrations before they were removed. But on Friday, county circuit judge Paul Malloy sided with Will and ordered the state to remove the voters from the state’s rolls within 30 days. Wisconsin officials are appealing the ruling. In a 3-3 split vote Monday, the Wisconsin Elections Commission declined to move forward with the removals, citing the pending appeal."
How The Wisconsin Elections Commission Destroyed Fair Elections In Wisconsin - "The judge held them in contempt of court and ordered them to pay a fine each day they refused to follow his order, but instead of complying, the WEC’s three Democrat-appointed commissioners—Mark Thomsen, Ann Jacobs, and Julie Glancey—filed an appeal. The Fourth District Court of Appeals had twice before declined the WEC’s requests to throw out the order, but once it became clear that commissioners would actually have to remove the names from the rolls, the District Court’s three liberal judges—JoAnne Kloppenburg, Jennifer Nashold, and Michael Fitzpatrick—remarkably reversed course and allowed the WEC to continue to ignore the clear letter and intent of state law and keep 234,000 phantom voters on Wisconsin’s rolls for as long as two years. The one protection Wisconsin had against the use of these phantom voters to commit massive fraud would be the state’s Voter ID law, but unethical county clerks in Dane and Milwaukee Counties found a loophole that rendered this protection largely moot."
Mary Margaret Olohan on X - "From a source in the senate: “Palestine protestors taking over the Senate basement right now”"
Jack Poso 🇺🇸 on X - "If anyone has trouble understanding, why leftists are allowed to frequently crash the US Capitol and agitate like this and when conservatives do, it is the worst attack since the Civil War, you must understand it is not hypocrisy. It is hierarchy"
Thread by @America1stLegal on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "we sued the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the censorship arm of DHS. Our lawsuit unearthed new docs showing that the deep state knew the risks of mass mail voting in 2020 but censored these criticisms as “disinformation.” By September 2020, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) was aware that the evidence established that in-person voting did not increase the spread of COVID-19. CISA was also aware that mass “vote-by-mail” schemes posed “major challenges,” including “the process of mailing and returning ballots,” the “high numbers of improperly completed ballots (figures not yet released),” and “the shortage of personnel to process ballots in a prompt manner.” Despite its awareness of mail-in voting risks, absentee voting challenges, and the harmlessness of in-person voting, CISA continued supporting the unprecedented voting policy changes implemented across the states in 2020. By October 2020, CISA had created a chart specifying six significant fraud risks presented by mail-in voting:
1. Implementation of mail-in voting infrastructure and processes within a compressed timeline may also introduce new risk.”
2. “For mail-in voting, some of the risk under the control of election officials during in-person voting shifts to outside entities, such as ballot printers, mail processing facilities, and the United States Postal Service.”
3 “Integrity attacks on voter registration data and systems represent a comparatively higher risk in a mail-in voting environment when compared to an in-person voting environment.”
4. “The outbound and inbound processing of mail-in ballots introduces additional infrastructure and technology, increasing potential scalability of cyber attacks.”
5. “Inbound mail-in ballot processes and tabulation take longer than in-person processing, causing tabulation of results to occur more slowly and resulting in more ballots to tabulate following election night.”
6. “Disinformation risk to mail-in voting infrastructure and processes is similar to that of in-person voting while utilizing different content. Threat actors may leverage limited understanding regarding mail-in voting processes to mislead and confuse the public.”...
Yet, The Washington Post and other similar outlets covered up the evidence and focused on CISA’s “independence from Trump” and CISA Director Chris Kreb’s “statements about the security of mail-in ballots” that “directly contradict” Trump. Of all the risks it identified, CISA appeared to focus by far the most on monitoring and censoring the mail-in voting risk “narrative.”... CISA apparently contracted Deloitte to report on “Daily Social Media Trends” relating to the U.S. Election — including narratives relating to “Vote-By-Mail” — and to flag specific social media posts for CISA’s awareness and attention...
In Missouri v. Biden, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that “the platforms’ censorship decisions were made under policies that CISA has pressured them into adopting and based on CISA’s determination of the veracity of the flagged information.”... According to congressional investigators, CISA targeted entire “narratives” for censorship"
Supreme Court Gives Joe Biden The Legal OK To Assassinate Donald Trump
Even for the Huffington Post, this is a wild headline. But all the wolf crying is continuing
Supreme Court: Trump Has 'Absolute Immunity' For 'Official Acts' - "The opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and agreed to by the other five conservative justices, finds that Trump has immunity for conduct involving officials solely within his own administration but not necessarily for actions involving state officials and people not in government. “First, with respect to any criminal conduct relating to a President’s ‘core constitutional powers’ — those subjects ‘within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority’ — the President is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution,” the opinion says. It found he has no immunity at all for actions that are not “official.”It sent the case back to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine which actions alleged in the indictment constitute “official” actions for which he has immunity to make sure prosecutors cannot use evidence obtained regarding that conduct... “The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official,” the opinion says. “The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.”... “Trump’s threatened removal of the Acting Attorney General likewise implicates ‘conclusive and preclusive’ Presidential authority. As we have explained, the President’s power to remove ‘executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed’ may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts,” Roberts wrote. “Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.” But because Trump’s pressuring of then-Vice President Mike Pence was regarding his role as president of the Senate, prosecutors could possibly show that Trump’s actions regarding Pence are not immune — though they would have to prove this in an evidentiary hearing."
A fairer article. It might be more shocking that left wingers believe that it's within the US President's constitutional authority to assassinate political rivals. The projection is telling
Following Trump verdict, Dr. Phil denounces weaponization of justice system: Need ‘an end to this craziness’ - "Talk show star Dr. Phil McGraw blasted the "weaponization" of the justice system following last week’s guilty verdict for former President Trump. During a recent episode of "Dr. Phil Primetime," the host lamented the ongoing political war that has kicked into high gear following Trump’s conviction last week. The social worker called out politicians in power for using the justice system against their political enemies and urged conservatives to avoid seeking retribution for the verdict once they’re in power. "It is not the right way forward for America," McGraw declared in a clip he posted Monday at the conclusion of his show segment, titled "Trump Verdict: A Judicial Travesty."... McGraw then cited Pope Francis’ recent book which called for "no resentment" among people and the point that forgiveness is the only real way to end wars. The host applied the principle to America’s political war: "That is true of any war, including our current cultural war. We need our Justice Department to return to the business of meting out justice and not running the political agendas of those currently in power blindly seeking convictions, warranted or otherwise, in attacking political opponents."... "We are not some banana republic, for God's sakes." He also asked whether soon, political opponents will resort to even worse measures, like assassinating one another. "We’re better than that. We must be better than that!" he continued, adding, "I don’t like what I see happening in our country… I don’t like seeing the weaponization of our justice system, agencies and powerful government actions that frankly just make my skin crawl for all of us and for our grandchildren." He then called out those who let their hatred of Trump or their hatred of Biden embody their actions. "If you let your hatred for Donald Trump compromise your ability to find true North on your moral compass, shame on you. If you let your disgust for Biden make you blind to the inevitable consequences of pursuing revenge, then God help the children who will inherit the dystopian nightmare we create," he said."
Some former 'Never Trump' voters now say they're backing GOP nominee after his conviction - "Shaun Maguire, a Los Angeles-based venture capitalist and a former Hillary Clinton campaign donor, declared on social media that he donated $300,000 to the Trump campaign within an hour of the verdict, and wrote in an essay that "the double standards and lawfare that Trump has faced" "boiled my blood." He told The Free Press, "We were told that Donald Trump would be the end of democracy, but it turns out that lawfare tactics have been escalated by the Democrats and not by the Republicans. And so it’s from that backdrop that I believe the Republican Party is less of a danger to democracy than the Democratic Party right now." University of Chicago Law School lecturer Adam Mortara similarly donated $3,300 to the Trump campaign after not voting in 2020 and opposing him during the 2016 GOP primary, hoping a Trump victory would have a "deterrent effect" on weaponizing the legal system against political foes. "What’s gotten me off the sidelines is that if he does not win, and by a rather sizable margin, that will validate this type of weaponization of the judicial system in the future," Mortara told The Free Press. "Before, I would’ve said it’s not a danger to America if Joe Biden wins the election. Now, I kind of think it is." New Jersey marketing consultant Kate Nitti was described as a "lifelong Democrat" who began turning against her party when living in New York City following the COVID lockdowns, voting Republican for the first time in the 2021 mayoral race, followed by support for GOP hopeful Lee Zeldin in the 2022 gubernatorial race. While previously supporting Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s candidacy, the recent conviction may lead to her pulling the lever for Trump. "I’m no fan of Trump. That said, I have a huge problem with contorting the law or using prosecutorial authority in the name of ‘saving democracy,’ which has been the Democrats’ message for the past four years," Nitti said. "I still consider myself a liberal. I just don’t think Biden Democrats reflect what that used to mean." Jack MacGuire, a Texas-based travel consultant who voted for Clinton in the 2016 election and supported neither Trump nor Biden in 2020, says the trial "galvanized" him. "What happened has every level of corruption and deceit and a willingness to use whatever means necessary to stay in power. It just absolutely galvanized me to say enough is enough. I’m all in with the MAGA people, because this has to end," MacGuire told The Free Press. California-based guitar instructor and recording engineer Emery Barter was another "lifelong Democrat" who canvassed for Clinton in 2016 and voted for Biden in 2020, but "hyper-progressive policies" implemented in his hometown of Oakland has made him second-guess his support for Democrats and question the media's coverage of the political landscape. "I used to trust the media, but now I feel the media has drifted away from reporting the truth. I just feel everything is completely made up," Barter said. Barter went on to say that Trump doesn't "scare" him and, "The narrative is just worn out." "The idea that this threat to democracy is so great that we must sacrifice democracy to stop this threat through lawfare—it’s an all-consuming idea that can’t be rewarded," Barter said, adding, "If you don’t pay attention and you just check the bluest box, you end up voting for people that aren’t actually interested in carrying out their core function anymore." Daniel Kotzin, a stay-at-home dad and husband of former Levi Strauss executive Jennifer Sey, had voted for Obama twice and Clinton in 2016. He previously considered voting for Trump in 2020 as a critic of the COVID lockdowns but ultimately backed the Libertarian Party candidate due to the then-president's vaccine push. But now he thinks Trump is the "best option." "The persecution of Trump is what decided for me because it made me think that perhaps he is different. He is going to put some dirt in the gears. They hate him too much. It really literally is because they’re pursuing him so aggressively and relentlessly that I want to support him. And I can’t be the only one. It’s too much," Kotzin told The Free Press. "I don’t want a Democrat right now. I don’t want to be ruled by experts. I don’t want better experts. I want no experts. Trump is just going to try and break stuff, and not listen to anything that anyone tells him to do. And I don’t think that’s necessarily a long-term solution. That’s just what we need right now," he added."
