Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

Thursday, September 12, 2024

Linda Ronstadt, Taylor Swift and Stevie Nicks

That's Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Trump's Prison Yard Rap" -- one of the two comics he did last night. Go, Linda Ronstadt! Ron Dicker (HUFFINGTON POST) reports:

Linda Ronstadt blasted Donald Trump for bringing his “hate show” campaign rally to the Linda Ronstadt Music Hall in her hometown of Tucson, Arizona, on Thursday. But the singer saved the sharpest statement for later in her Instagram takedown of the Republican presidential nominee.

“Trump first ran for President warning about rapists coming in from Mexico,” the “Blue Bayou” performer wrote on Wednesday. “I’m worried about keeping the rapist out of the White House.”

Go, Linda! Good to see someone gets it. You'd never know Trump was running for election to read COMMON DREAMS and IN THESE TIMES where the whole point is to tear apart Kamala Harris.

Thank you, Linda, for being a strong voice.

In other news, we've got Miss Sassy:

Someone at the Republican National Committee should slip JD Vance a biography of his running mate because he doesn’t seem to know how Donald Trump has marketed himself for decades.

After the former president “decisively lost” the presidential debate against Kamala Harris — as Fox News host Neil Cavuto put it — followed quickly by a ringing endorsement of the Democratic ticket by Taylor Swift, Republicans have been left trying to find a positive spin on the one-two punch.

Step forward vice presidential nominee and Ohio senator Vance, who sat down for an interview with Martha MacCallum, also of Fox News.

Referencing the endorsement of the Harris-Walz ticket by Swift — perhaps the most influential recording artist in the world — MacCallum asked Vance how the campaign would speak to women voters who care about what she thinks.

The Ohio senator replied: “We admire Taylor Swift’s music, but I don’t think most Americans, whether they like her music or not, are going to be influenced by a billionaire celebrity who I think is fundamentally disconnected from the interests and the problems of most Americans.”

Given that Trump has spent more than 40 years cultivating an image as a “billionaire celebrity,” who as a politician is often characterized as being out of touch with most Americans, only running to return to the White House out of self-interest, and whose economic platform benefits billionaires to the detriment of the majority of the population, this was — to put it mildly — tone-deaf.

Equally true, I really think Miss Sassy lacks any credibility to speak to how someone can influence anyone. Miss Sassy is the least popular v.p. nominee of all time.

In other music news, Paige Skinner (HUFFINGTON POST) reports:

Stevie Nicks followed Taylor Swift’s lead by posting a photo with her pet and writing on social media that it’s “time to research and choose” a presidential candidate.

“As my friend so eloquently stated, now is the time to research and choose the candidate that speaks to you and your beliefs,” the Fleetwood Mac singer wrote Wednesday on social media. “Only 54 days left until the election. Make sure you are registered to vote! Your vote in this election may be one of the most important things you ever do.”

She signed the post: “Stevie Nicks[,] Childless Dog Lady.”

While Nicks didn’t endorse a particular candidate, the “Childless Dog Lady” line is a reference to a comment Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance he made in 2021, when he referred to Democrats as “childless cat ladies.”

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, September 12, 2024. The question for this morning? Who are they trying to get elected?

There are fifty three days until the US presidential election. If you're planning to vote and you're not registered yet, you need to register.

The big news this week remains the debate between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party's presidential nominees. Of the debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and Convicted Felon Donald Trump, Jeet Heer (THE NATION) notes:

With Tuesday’s debate between Trump and Kamala Harris, Trump no longer had the protective cover of a hapless and flailing rival. Quite the reverse: Harris dominated the debate, relying in particular on a masterful strategy of hitting topics that Trump is especially touchy about. This deliberate baiting of Trump threw him off message. Instead of pounding away on what he sees as his best topic (opposition to undocumented immigrants), Trump was goaded into defensive and aggrieved answers about crowd size, the January 6 attempted coup, and his response to the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville in 2017. At one point, Trump became so unhinged that he started shouting about immigrants eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio—a racist canard that has much popularity on the online right but, as debate moderator David Muir of ABC News pointed out, has no basis in fact. All of this made Trump sound unhinged.

As David Weigel of Semafor acutely noted, Harris had a strategy that she deftly executed: “She invoked a fact from the Trump years that Democrats felt had been forgotten by voters since 2020, she said something that would set her opponent off, and then she used his familiar eruptions in response to urge voters to take the offramp on the Trump era.”

This strategy of baiting Trump was based on a sound understanding of the psychology of the former president. Trump is a touchy narcissist who holds grudges and likes to repeat favorite talking points. Harris keyed her comments to hit Trump’s hot buttons. She teased Trump into getting angrier and more incoherent.

In a sense, Harris was replicating Muhammed Ali’s famous rope-a-dope technique that was used to such great affect in his 1974 match with George Foreman. Ali made himself into a punching bag, which tired Foreman out and allowed Ali to deliver the winning punches. In Harris’s case, rope-a-dope meant allowing Trump to meander on into incoherence, a strategy of selective silence. It’s noticeable that Trump spoke for considerably longer than Harris: 43.03 minutes for Trump, 37.41 minutes for Harris, a difference of 15 percent. But Harris wasn’t letting Trump walk over her. Rather, she was giving the dope enough rope to hang himself.

Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling (THE NEW REPUBLIC) explains:

Remarkably negative reactions to Donald Trump’s performance during his first formal matchup against Vice President Kamala Harris have left conservatives reeling—and Trump panicking.

On Wednesday, the former president attempted to wiggle out of any further debates against Harris, claiming that he had actually beaten Harris and deserved to be acknowledged for the “K.O.”

“In the World of Boxing or UFC, when a Fighter gets beaten or knocked out, they get up and scream, ‘I DEMAND A REMATCH, I DEMAND A REMATCH!’” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Well, it’s no different with a Debate. She was beaten badly last night. Every Poll has us WINNING, in one case, 92-8, so why would I do a Rematch?”

Later, in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, Trump insisted that he didn’t believe he “had to do it a second time,” only to suggest that he could be open to following through on the two other debates slated to be hosted on NBC and Fox in the coming weeks.

(No polls have indicated that Trump would win by such a large margin. A CNN flash poll after the debate indicated that 63 percent of Americans felt that Harris outperformed Trump.)

Oh, that garbage MAGA right. Lying about the debate. How can --

Oh wait.

It's not just MAGA.

No.

There's a worthless piece of crap with a radio show that no one listens to and he writes bad columns on those oh-so rare moments when he's sober who an idiot left outlet elected to post to their site. That his 'journalism' is incoherent and his coverage of the debate reads as though he's read some coverage on it but didn't actually watch what he's covering, what's more significant is the lies and conspiracy that he promotes in his column. He finds David Muir, for example, correcting the record regarding Donald's lie about immigrants killing and eating dogs in Springfield suspect. JD Vance and Donald have both been repeating that lie and doing so for days before the debate. Miss Sassy even got asked about it by the press well before the debate.

It is a slur and a lie and it was intended to scapegoat others and panic people over immigrants.

That the drunkard wants to question it isn't that surprising -- I think we all understand the concept of 'wet brain' -- but that a left outlet would publish thar garbage?

Yeah, I question that. I question a lot of the garbage going up these days.

At FAIR, Julie Hollar rightly notes:

New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger has issued a lengthy warning in the Washington Post (9/5/24) on the dangers another Donald Trump presidency would pose to a “free and independent press.”

Sulzberger details Trump’s many efforts to suppress and undermine critical media outlets during his previous presidential tenure, as well as the more recent open declarations by Trump and his allies of their plans to continue to “come after” the press, “whether it’s criminally or civilly.” He documents the ways independent media have been eroded in illiberal democracies around the world, and draws direct links to Trump’s playbook.

You might expect this to be a prelude to an announcement that the New York Times would work tirelessly to defend democracy. Instead, Sulzberger heartily defends his own miserably inadequate strategy of “neutrality”—which, in practice, is both-sidesing—making plain his greater concern for the survival of his own newspaper than the survival of US democracy.

“As someone who strongly believes in the foundational importance of journalistic independence,” Sulzberger writes, “I have no interest in wading into politics.”

It’s a bizarre statement. Newspapers, including the Times, regularly endorse candidates. Presumably, then, he’s referring to the “news” side of the paper, rather than the opinion side.

But, even so, you can’t report on politics without wading directly into them. Which political figures and issues do you cover, and how much? (See, for example: media’s outsize coverage of Trump since 2015; media’s heavy coverage of inflation but not wage growth.) Which popular political ideas do you take seriously, and which do you dismiss as marginal? (See, for example, the Times‘ persistent dismissal of Bernie Sanders’ highly popular critiques.) These decisions shape political possibilities and set political agendas, as much as the Times would like to pretend they don’t (FAIR.org, 5/15/24).

Sulzberger goes on (emphasis added):

I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection.

Sulzberger is always raging against critics who, he claims, want him to skew and censor his paper’s reporting (FAIR.org, 5/19/23). The Times must instead be steadfastly “neutral,” he claims. But those very political coverage decisions that media outlets make on a daily basis make it impossible for the outlets to be neutral in the way Sulzberger imagines.

Neutrality could mean, as he suggests, independent or free from the influence of the powerful in our society. This is possible—if difficult—for media outlets to achieve. Yet the Times, like all corporate media, doesn’t even try to do this.

Instead, the Times seems to take neutrality as not appearing to take sides, which in practice means finding similar faults among both parties, or not appearing overly critical of one party or the other (FAIR.org, 1/26/24). This strategy didn’t work particularly well when Republicans and Democrats played by the same set of rules, as both parties took the same anti-equality, pro-oligarchy positions on many issues.

But it’s particularly ill-suited to the current moment, when Republicans have discarded any notion that facts, truth or democracy have any meaning. If one team ceases to play by any rules, should the ref continue to try to call roughly similar numbers of violations on each side in order to appear unbiased? It would obviously be absurd and unfair. But that’s Sulzberger’s notion of “neutrality.”

It's a powerful piece, as we've come to expect from her, but while you're reading it, take the points being made -- strong ones -- and apply them to our own left sites.

What we're seeing at COMMON DREAMS and elsewhere is appalling and disgusting.

Are they trying to elect Donald Trump because that's what they're doing with their garbage crap that fails to realize there's a very real threat to our democracy.

This site started in 2004, after the election. It started because a number of us were doing a post-election analysis. What did we do, what should we have done, how can we address this?

I knew nothing about blogs. I used the internet to e-mail and that was probably it. But blogging kept coming up in the conversation. There had been a great game that someone had made during the election -- a SURVIVOR spoof -- that had been popular (and should have been, it was clever) online but it was felt that more should have been done in terms of blogs.

I don't do powerless. After the analysis, I looked online for about 30 minutes to figure out blogging (never have to this day, I'm sure) and started this site and my hands shook as I typed that first meaningless entry here.

The community built up around this site and made it anything that it is or was.

I'm not a big believer in electoral politics -- a point I've made here many times. I think the elections are the least important things we can do. I think we have to hold politicians' feet to the fire. I think we have to mobilize and make demands.

I didn't think, for example, Mitt Romney winning in 2012 would have been the end of the US. I lived under Reagan in the White House, for example, and the American people survived. We would have survived Mitt, no problem.

Donald Trump is not Mitt Romney. He has demonstrated who he is and he is someone very dangerous. He is a threat to America.

I've watched what passes for the 'left' waste everyone's time in the last years on garbage, garbage, garbage.

Too many have acted as though what happens to LGBTQ+ people isn't important or isn't as important as whatever pet overseas issue that's caught their fancy.

LGBTQ+ replaced all women as the most vulnerable to right-wing attacks.

When women's rights were attacked, we would see the squishy 'left' hide behind 'identity politics' and refuse to stand up with us. Our rights weren't important, we were a 'special interest.'

And I've watched the same piece of garbage 'left' now do the same to the LGBTQ+ community. If we're not all going to stand together on the left, we're going to be divided and conquered.

Yet I can still go to Twitter and find men -- under their own name -- with videos posted of them threatening to do violence in Target stores. Not only are the videos not taken down, but where is law enforcement. You're making a threat on Twitter to shoot up a Target and no one reported you?

This is how the squishy part of the left or 'left' has allowed the climate we're in to thrive.

You've refused to stand with the LGBTQ+ community the same way you refused to stand with women as late as the '00s. The same way you didn't stand with Black people until The Civil Rights Movement.

Now there are lefties in this country who stand with everyone and we're so lucky for that.

But a father got sentenced for beating and bloodying his son because he thought his son was gay and there's nothing on the left about it other than Greg Owen's report for LGBTQ NATION. The child is two-years-old. This is outrageous and its a direct product of the hate that hate that MAGA right has repeatedly promoted.

We did a joint-post this week and it should have gone up sooner on Sunday but did we link or not? The bigger point of the piece for me and Wally and Betty was to show what was going on online with the hatred towards Black people and LGBTQ+ people that's all over Twitter. And then it became a conversation about if we linked to it, actually linked to it, are we promoting it?

I don't know and I couldn't answer that question. I debate so much that I do online. I'm noting the David Muir nonsense attack from the drunk -- but not linking to it -- but I'm not noting some other crazed conspiracies about the debate because I don't want to promote them and is that right or is that wrong, I have no idea.

But there is so much on Twitter that people are completely unaware of, that promotes hate, that promotes violence. And you can just go to Twitter and type in "MAGA" and you should get a sample of it. You should see their manipulated photos of African-Americans in chains with the calls to bring back slavery, for example. This is what we're up against and the squishy pseudo left has no idea and wants to waste all of our time.

The attacks on Kamala Harris seems to be all that COMMON DREAMS can offer.

I'd love to know how they think this helps. Because the attacks are nonsense, bad enough, but when they use their platform -- as a left site -- to magnify attacks on Kamala, they aren't just hurting her, they're helping to destroy democracy.

These are our choices: Kamala Harris or Donald Trump.

And Donald is deranged and a real threat.

So I don't get your nonsense attacks on Kamala.

I've seen far more moderate male politicians promoted by COMMON DREAMS and others.

I have no idea.

I don't even read Norman Solomon's garbage because he's a cheap whore. In 2008, he was all over KPFA and KPFK and anywhere that would have him acting as a neutral party analyzing the Democratic presidential contenders. He never once informed the listeners that he was supporting Barack Obama and was, in fact, a pledged delegate for Barack. Now his readers? Different story. He knew his bad columns would be dropped by the real press (which actually pays him for them) if he didn't do the minimum required self-disclosure.

So I'm not really interested in what a whore has to say about Kamala. I do find it interesting that outlets presenting as media are okay with printing someone who lied repeatedly.

There is joy and excitement over Kamala's campaign and I know that because I see it as a go in front of various groups to speak about the importance of this election.

I just don't see it online.

I see a lot of people with a lot of wish lists.

Now COMMON DREAMS would argue that they did a ton of coverage of Kamala right before the **debate**. They did. They had one piece after another on what she needed and say and do.

I'm really not remembering that happening with Barack Obama.

But I guess when a woman runs, every asshole has an opinion and thinks they're smarter than the candidate.

You are harming yourselves and that's fine with me, slit your own wrists.

I hear over and over, every time I speak, from people telling me they've had to stop going to COMMON DREAMS, IN THESE TIMES and elsewhere because of this nonsense.

So if your site shut down, that's on you and I honestly don't care.

But before that happens, please note what you're doing -- and that does matter to me.

You are acting as though this election is not important and as though the two candidates are the same -- although a 21-year-old male said to a group yesterday that COMMON DREAMS is actually acting as though Kamala is worse than Donald.

Your coverage is disappointing and it could harm voter turnout.

That I do care about.

If, in July, the ghost of John McCain had become the Democratic Party nominee, I would be voting for him in November. I said long ago that I would be voting for the Democratic Party's nominee no matter who it was.

I didn't realize, until BROS (yes, the film), how much hatred was on the right. I didn't realize what MAGA was up to. Donald has encouraged them and has invited them to unleash their hate and rage. He is a threat for that reason alone. But he's a threat to democracy because he doesn't accept election results, because he talks of military tribunals for his political opponents, because he's corrupt and crooked -- Go down the list.

I would be voting for John McCain if he were the nominee.

He's not.

Kamala is.

And I'm thrilled to death that she is.

Go to the July snapshot where we first addressed the possible candidates. These are dictated, I'm thinking out loud. You can see me go from Kamala not being the right choice to stating maybe she would be.

I know Kamala Harris and have for years. We're not friends.

But as I was dictating that snapshot, everything that she's done over the years I've known her starts coming together in my mind and she is the perfect choice.

She can be a president of change.

I am thrilled that she's on the ballot. I'm thrilled to campaign for her and I'm thrilled to be able to vote for her.

She can do this.

But she's got to get votes to do that.

B-b-b-bbut Gaza!

STFU. I'm seriously so sick of this faction of Americans that I don't even want to cover Gaza right now. Your stupidity is harming us all.

1) Donald Trump is not going to help Palestinians.

2) Oh, look at me, I told Kamala I'm not voting for her -- Uh! What? She's not catering her campaign to me now! Even after I told her I wasn't voting for her!

Grow the hell up.

We're on top of an election and votes are needed. If you're announcing you're not voting for her, fine. Don't expect the campaign to waste valuable time trying to woo you after you've said you're not voting for her. That's a waste of time and resources.

She's running a campaign to reach out to Americans who want to ensure that we have basic rights and that we have a democracy.

That really is the most important thing right now.

For Americans, it is. Will we have a democracy or not?

So I'm just not in the mood for all the garbage that we're seeing at left and 'left' outlets.

Now maybe that's because we have US troops in Iraq.

Still.

And maybe because I remember these same left and 'left' outlets insisting that they wouldn't stop until all US troops were out of Iraq. And then Barack got elected and they stopped.

We didn't stop here.

So if Kamala's elected (and I pray she is), we'll be holding her accountable every damn day. That is what we do here. There? Over there? The so-called left sites?

They didn't continue to call for US troops out of Iraq. Their non-stop coverage of Gaza right now? Back then they picked it up every few months and that was it. There were no calls for Barack to get a peace deal together for the region or to recognize the rights of Palestinians.

They can't even be honest today.

Oh! Corruption in politics! Oh that Supreme Court case! Oh!!

Excuse me.

Barack did not use public financing in 2008.

Now in 2004, John Kerry flirted with not doing it.

But the push back was so hard that he dropped the idea within hours of an NYT report.

But Barack does it and to this day people don't want to talk about that. That was a reform put in place in the post-Watergate era.

I'm not really in the mood to watch you attack Kamala who is not president considering your long history of silence on various Democrats who came before. Silence that has continued, please note, even after the man is no longer president.

There is a standard that's being created for Kamala that is unfair and unreasonable.

Let's wind down with something of value. Dahlia Lithwick (SLATE) writes:

During Tuesday night’s debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, critics almost immediately became obsessed with Harris’ face-management choices: “If she wants to win, Harris needs to train her face not to respond,” tweeted GOP pollster and aspiring face-trainer Frank Luntz. “It feeds into a female stereotype and, more importantly, risks offending undecided voters.”

Other “female stereotype” haters were quick to agree. Christian conservative Carmine Sabia opined, “Kamala Harris has been way over coached on doing facial expressions because of the muted mics.” New York Post columnist Miranda Devine posted: “Kamala Harris is doing obviously rehearsed routines instead of answering questions. Then she does rehearsed and exaggerated facial expressions when Trump talks. She comes across as fake and weak.”

Harris fans of course begged to differ. The slow blink, the chin stroke, the quirked brow, the squinting, laughing eyes? This was the stuff of legend. It was a brilliant tactical attack on Trump’s ego. It was a self-meming performance of the face of every woman who has ever been forced to listen to a bunch of unreconstructed insanity spewing from someone who has unidirectionally failed upward.

Put aside for a moment Luntz’s implication that female political faces need to be trained, like small dogs or cucumber plants. There is no better proof that we still can’t quite define what we require of women in public life than that we demand that their faces be either vibrant and expressive or cold and dead. I’m old enough to remember that we have, in previous iterations of this battle, mandated that women train their voices, their wardrobes, their hair, and their partners into waxy submission so as not, to quote Luntz, “risk offending undecided voters.” But what does it signify that Kamala Harris, who has—against all political odds—managed to produce a voice, a wardrobe, a head of hair, and a spouse that all elicit very little horror when displayed publicly, is nevertheless excoriated for the sin of having Too Much Face?

On the one hand, it’s more of the same simple misogyny that will forever move the goalposts on how women can behave in public office so as to soothe doubters who think they should stay out of the ring. But when the candidate was pitted against Donald J. Trump—whose only discernible remaining power lies in his ability to threaten and discomfit women—the critique that Harris somehow owed the public and the former president a kind of button-down blank receptivity and amiability is simply ridiculous. The assumption seems to be that Trump gets to lie about you, insult you, threaten and mischaracterize, and that—with microphones turned off by design—your political obligation is to smoothly accept it. Almost all the memes that emerged after Harris’ face began to garner attention Tuesday night were variations on “When your graduate school adviser/law review editor/senior partner tells you that he’d make the changes in his draft himself but he has guests coming over for dinner and it’s his job to man the sous vide.” They’re all about what your face reflexively does when it’s not socially acceptable to speak your grievances out loud.

Actually, we have one more thing from the public e-mail account. The Center for Reproductive Rights issued the following:

Key agencies within the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) took significant strides this summer to improve family planning services, remove unnecessary barriers to care, and offer more accessible forms of birth control.

Here are three recent moves by HHS agencies:

1. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Approves First Dissolvable Birth Control Pill

On July 22, 2024, the FDA approved Femlyv, a new type of birth control. Combining two active ingredients that have been used in oral birth control pills since the 1960s, Femlyv is unique because of its delivery mechanism: it is the first orally disintegrating contraceptive.

This new treatment option will help make the birth control pill more accessible, especially for individuals who have trouble swallowing pills.

2. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Releases Guidance on Medicaid Family Planning Requirements and Best Practices

On August 8, 2024, CMS released new guidance on family planning services. The guidance:

Reiterates the standards that state Medicaid agencies must adhere to, including ensuring enrollees have access to free, comprehensive family planning services from their choice of providers.
Highlights strategies to enhance access, such as an extended supply of contraceptives given at one time, access to over the counter (OTC) contraceptives like Opill, and payment reforms that improve intrauterine device (IUD) access immediately postpartum.
Clarifies confidentiality requirements, both specific to Medicaid and generally under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and provides recommendations to integrate contraceptive quality measures.

3. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Updates Practice Recommendations for Contraception

Wednesday, September 11, 2024

Perv Elon Musk needs to back away from Taylor Swift

That's Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Miss Sassy Is Not Trump's Stepping Stone" and it went up about an hour or so ago.

Ann's noting "Frankie Beverly " (I'm posting this and will come back in a few moments from now to include her post that she's finishing right now). She is correct (she's read parts of it to me over the phone), Frankie Beverly was one of a kind. In other music news, Jack White and Meg White have hit Convicted Felon Donald Trump with a cease-and-desist order to stop using their "7 Nation Army" song at his rallies. The former husband and wife were the musical group White Stripes.

Of course, the big news is that following tonight's memorable debate, Taylor Swift announced she was endorsing Kamala Harris. Some MAGA nut jobs are losing their s**t over this.

Kwan Wei Kevin Tan (BUSINESS INSIDER) reports:

It didn't take long for Elon Musk to fire off a jab at Taylor Swift after she endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris.

"Fine Taylor … you win … I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life," Musk wrote in an X post on Wednesday morning.

Musk was weighing in on Swift's latest Instagram post, in which she endorsed Harris.

Swift posted her endorsement on Tuesday night, shortly after Harris completed her first presidential debate with former President Donald Trump.

"I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election. I'm voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them," Swift wrote in her post.

"I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos," she continued, before signing off with the label "Childless Cat Lady."

Can that old man stop being gross? He's 53. He needs to shut up. He's ugly. I don't get how these ugly old men think money makes them attractive. He looks like a freak. That forehead alone is freaky. He's trash garbage and you just know he's got bits of toilet paper sticking out of his crack because that's the kind of gross jerk he is.

Can skeezer just back off Taylor Swift?

Manish Adhikary (INDIA TODAY) notes:

Musk, you are a tech mogul. Not some man lurking in the YouTube comments section. This is the same man who backs Republican candidates while also pretending to be "all about free speech." Supporting a party that wants to regulate women's bodies while creepily offering Taylor Swift a child? You're just handing out contradictions like it is candy.

And let's discuss this Republican lean. Musk recently revealed his admiration for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and other right-wingers, claiming they are the ones who understand business and innovation. Yet, here is a man whose empire has been built on government subsidies and tax breaks, all while preaching about how he is the ultimate capitalist. It is like watching someone trash the welfare system while cashing in food stamps. Make it make sense!

Elon Musk is disgusting. Always has been.

Closing with Ava and C.I.'s "Kamala destroys Donald (Ava and C.I.):"

Wednesday, September 11, 2024. Last night, Donald Trump and Jill Stein exposed themselves and no body wanted to see that. Kamala Harris, however, stood tall and the country should be applauding.

In Philadelphia, Democratic Party presidential nominee Kamala Harris faced off against the Convicted Felon and GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

It was memorable.

The closest Donald got to the truth was when he declared, " I have been a leader on fertilization." Yes, yes, he has. He is the king of bulls**t. However, he was referring to IVF so, yes, he was again lying.

The 90 minutes played out like a competency hearing and he kept failing.

It started with Kamala attempting to shake Donald's hand. She walked up to him and he tried to avoid her.

Of course he tried to avoid her. He's nearly 80 years old and vastly out of shape. She has youth on her side and looks vibrant, while he's gotten so fat, he looks as though he's carrying Chris Christie's child. When you look like Donald, you don't want to stand next to anyone -- not even Chris Christie whose weight Donald has long mocked and now look at Donald.

And that was just the start.

Donald was so bad that little Liz Peek was spinning hard for FOX "NEWS" about how unfair it was for Donald. She was the one relative at the competency hearing that doesn't feel great-grandpa should have to give up his keys.

Let's note the section on abortion first (it's where the IVF issue comes up). And we'll be using ABC NEWS' transcription throughout. ABC's David Muir and Linsey Davis moderated.

LINSEY DAVIS: I want to turn to the issue of abortion. President Trump, you've often touted that you were able to kill Roe v. Wade. Last year, you said that you were proud to be the most pro-life president in American history. Then last month you said that your administration would be great for women and their reproductive rights. In your home state of Florida, you surprised many with regard to your six-week abortion ban because you initially had said that it was too short and you said, "I'm going to be voting that we need more than six weeks." But then the very next day, you reversed course and said you would vote to support the six-week ban. Vice President Harris says that women shouldn't trust you on the issue of abortion because you've changed your position so many times. Therefore, why should they trust you?

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, the reason I'm doing that vote is because the plan is, as you know, the vote is, they have abortion in the ninth month. They even have, and you can look at the governor of West Virginia, the previous governor of West Virginia, not the current governor, who's doing an excellent job, but the governor before. He said the baby will be born and we will decide what to do with the baby. In other words, we'll execute the baby.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And that's why I did that, because that predominates. Because they're radical. The Democrats are radical in that. And her vice presidential pick, which I think was a horrible pick, by the way for our country, because he is really out of it. But her vice presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth, it's execution, no longer abortion, because the baby is born, is okay. And that's not okay with me. Hence the vote. But what I did is something for 52 years they've been trying to get Roe v. Wade into the states.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And through the genius and heart and strength of six supreme court justices we were able to do that. Now, I believe in the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. I believe strongly in it. Ronald Reagan did also. 85% of Republicans do. Exceptions. Very important. But we were able to get it. And now states are voting on it. And for the first time you're going to see -- look, this is an issue that's torn our country apart for 52 years. Every legal scholar, every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative, they all wanted this issue to be brought back to the states where the people could vote. And that's what happened, happened. Now, Ohio, the vote was somewhat liberal. Kansas the vote was somewhat liberal. Much more liberal than people would have thought. But each individual state is voting. It's the vote of the people now. It's not tied up in the federal government. I did a great service in doing it. It took courage to do it. And the supreme court had great courage in doing it. And I give tremendous credit to those six justices.

LINSEY DAVIS: There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born. Madam vice president, I want to get your response to President Trump.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, as I said, you're going to hear a bunch of lies. And that's not actually a surprising fact. Let's understand how we got here. Donald Trump hand-selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would undo the protections of Roe v. Wade. And they did exactly as he intended. And now in over 20 states there are Trump abortion bans which make it criminal for a doctor or nurse to provide health care. In one state it provides prison for life. Trump abortion bans that make no exception even for rape and incest. Which understand what that means. A survivor of a crime, a violation to their body, does not have the right to make a decision about what happens to their body next. That is immoral. And one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government, and Donald Trump certainly, should not be telling a woman what to do with her body.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I have talked with women around our country. You want to talk about this is what people wanted? Pregnant women who want to carry a pregnancy to term suffering from a miscarriage, being denied care in an emergency room because the health care providers are afraid they might go to jail and she's bleeding out in a car in the parking lot? She didn't want that. Her husband didn't want that. A 12 or 13-year-old survivor of incest being forced to carry a pregnancy to term? They don't want that. And I pledge to you when Congress passes a bill to put back in place the protections of Roe v. Wade as president of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law. But understand, if Donald Trump were to be re-elected, he will sign a national abortion ban. Understand in his Project 2025 there would be a national abortion ban. Understand in his Project 2025 there would be a national abortion -- a monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages. I think the American people believe that certain freedoms, in particular the freedom to make decisions about one's own body, should not be made by the government.

LINSEY DAVIS: Thank you, Vice President Harris.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, there she goes again. It's a lie. I'm not signing a ban. And there's no reason to sign a ban. Because we've gotten what everybody wanted. Democrats, Republicans and everybody else and every legal scholar wanted it to be brought back into the states. And the states are voting. And it may take a little time, but for 52 years this issue has torn our country apart. And they've wanted it back in the states. And I did something that nobody thought was possible. The states are now voting. What she says is an absolute lie. And as far as the abortion ban, no, I'm not in favor of abortion ban. But it doesn't matter because this issue has now been taken over by the states.

LINSEY DAVIS: Would you veto a national abortion ban if it came to --

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I won't have to because again -- two things. Number one, she said she'll go back to congress. She'll never get the vote. It's impossible for her to get the vote. Especially now with a 50-50 --essentially 50-50 in both senate and the house. She's not going to get the vote. She can't get the vote. She won't even come close to it. So it's just talk. You know what it reminds me of? When they said they're going to get student loans terminated and it ended up being a total catastrophe. The student loans -- and then her I think probably her boss, if you call him a boss, he spends all his time on the beach, but look, her boss went out and said we'll do it again, we'll do it a different way. He went out, got rejected again by the supreme court. So all these students got taunted with this whole thing about -- this whole idea. And how unfair that would have been. Part of the reason they lost. To the millions and millions of people that had to pay off their student loans. They didn't get it for free. But they were saying -- it's the same way that they talked about that, that they talk about abortion.

LINSEY DAVIS: But if I could just get a yes or no. Because your running mate JD Vance has said that you would veto if it did come to your desk.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I didn't discuss it with JD In all fairness. JD -- And I don't mind if he has a certain view but I think he was speaking for me but I really didn't. Look, we don't have to discuss it because she'd never be able to get it just like she couldn't get student loans. They couldn't get -- they didn't even come close to getting student loans. They didn't even come close to getting student loans. They taunted young people and a lot of other people that had loans. They can never get this approved. So it doesn't matter what she says about going to congress. Wonderful. Let's go to congress. Do it. But the fact is that for years they wanted to get it out of congress and out of the federal government and we did something that everybody said couldn't be done. And now you have a vote of the people on abortion.

LINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, I want to give you your time to respond. But I do want to ask, would you support any restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I absolutely support reinstating the protections of Roe v. Wade. And as you rightly mentioned, nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion. That is not happening. It's insulting to the women of America. And understand what has been happening under Donald Trump's abortion bans. Couples who pray and dream of having a family are being denied IVF treatments. What is happening in our country, working people, working women who are working one or two jobs, who can barely afford childcare as it is, have to travel to another state to get on a plane sitting next to strangers, to go and get the health care she needs. Barely can afford to do it. And what you are putting her through is unconscionable. And the people of America have not -- the majority of Americans believe in a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. And that is why in every state where this issue has been on the ballot, in red and blue states both, the people of America have voted for freedom.

LINSEY DAVIS: Vice president Harris --

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Excuse me, I have to respond. Another lie. It's another lie. I have been a leader on IVF which is fertilization. The IVF -- I have been a leader. In fact, when they got a very negative decision on IVF from the Alabama courts, I saw the people of Alabama and the legislature two days later voted it in. I've been a leader on it. They know that and everybody else knows it. I have been a leader on fertilization, IVF. And the other thing, they -- you should ask, will she allow abortion in the eighth month, ninth month, seventh month?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Come on.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Would you do that? Why don't you ask her that question --

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Why don't you answer the question would you veto –

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That's the problem. Because under Roe v. Wade.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Answer the question, would you veto--

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You could do abortions in the seventh month, the eighth month, the ninth month -

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: That's not true.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And probably after birth. Just look at the governor, former governor of Virginia. The governor of Virginia said we put the baby aside and then we determine what we want to do with the baby.

LINSEY DAVIS: President Trump, thank you.

For someone who lies so easily, he still can't commit to signing or not singing a national ban on abortion. And he still can't stop lying about abortion.

Let's drop back to the day after the June debate between Donald and Joe Biden when we wrote:

There are basic ground rules and when we're not establishing them, we're giving Donald the go-ahead to lie and lie bigger, to lie and lie more.

Donald pursed his lips repeatedly while tilting his head this way and that as though he thought he were a super model. Instead, he just emphasized wrinkles and looked odd -- odder than usual in fact.

The make up was a little better. It's only taken him, what, eight years to make it look nearly human. So if you're ready to give him eight years, he can almost adapt. Almost but not quite.

And there's still the issue of the curling iron. That's right, children, Donald Trump uses a curling iron.

He's a bottle blond, we should all know that. 78-year-old men are not naturally sassy blonds (a point we've made for over a decade with regards to Robert Redford). But, watching the debate and his modified hair do, we had to make some calls. Yes, our 78-year-old Donald had his curled for the debate. They curled the hair under on top and then brushed it out and they curled it back on the sides. That's what America needs in the White House: An elderly man obsessed with his hair.

He was also someone suddenly interested in "legal scholars."

Every "legal scholar" -- he repeatedly insisted -- wanted ROE V WADE overturned.

No, that's not true.

But more to the point, legal scholars aren't the group largely effected by abortion. Women, some of whom are legal scholars, are effected. It has a direct impact on our lives and we -- the majority of us -- did not want ROE V WADE overturned.

If people listened -- the ones not so far gone that they can't truly hear -- they would have grasped that fact and grasped that, in a 90 minute debate, Donald couldn't address women.

He just lies and, yes, women grasp it.

We grasp that abortion is a medical procedure. We grasp that Donald bragging about this state doing this and this state doing that is not something to brag about. Our healthcare options and resources should not be dictated by the state we live in. Supposedly, we're all Americans and all Americans should have the right to determine their own health care.

Asked how he was going to address the addiction crisis in the US, Donald ignored reality to run again to the border.

And as we noted a week after that:

We say Joe won the debate -- in part due to Donald's lies. And it goes to the media and the male dominance of the media -- especially our so-called 'independent' media on YOUTUBE -- that something as ridiculous as Donald Trump claiming women were aborting babies right after they gave birth to them was not the biggest moment of the debate and a non-stop ridicule in the media as just how stupid Donald is.

But what women grasp, apparently men don't -- neither do male-identifying women who'll do anything to get by in the male-dominated media.

Donald showed up with his gray hair dyed and curled with a curling iron again. He also carried the same lies with him.

There is no abortion taking place after a birth. As Linsey Davis rightly pointed out, "There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born."

That alone made it a better debate. In June, the moderators were too busy to provide facts. And the media that they were a part of refused to make that the lead story the day after the debate. No one needed to pour over records and do hours of research to refute his lie that babies were being aborted after birth.

There is no abortion after birth. Donald Trump's mother might have wished that it existed -- we wouldn't blame her if she did -- but it does not exist.

That's all he has ever had, a base of lies that caters to the stupidity of his base. They're so damn ignorant that they heard his abortion remarks in June and it didn't register with them.

And, no, the majority of women -- the majority of Americans -- did not want ROE overturned.

Let's note him lying -- Wait. The would require us reposting the entire transcript because all he did was lie. But let's note where his lie got pushback from the moderators.

DAVID MUIR: We're going to turn now to immigration and border security. We know it's an issue that's important to Republicans, Democrats, voters across the board in this country. Vice President Harris, you were tasked by President Biden with getting to the root causes of migration from Central America. We know that illegal border crossings reached a record high in the Biden administration. This past June, President Biden imposed tough new asylum restrictions. We know the numbers since then have dropped significantly. But my question to you tonight is why did the administration wait until six months before the election to act and would you have done anything differently from President Biden on this?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: So I'm the only person on this stage who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings. And let me say that the United States Congress, including some of the most conservative members of the United States Senate, came up with a border security bill which I supported. And that bill would have put 1,500 more border agents on the border to help those folks who are working there right now over time trying to do their job. It would have allowed us to stem the flow of fentanyl coming into the United States. I know there are so many families watching tonight who have been personally affected by the surge of fentanyl in our country. That bill would have put more resources to allow us to prosecute transnational criminal organizations for trafficking in guns, drugs and human beings. But you know what happened to that bill? Donald Trump got on the phone, called up some folks in Congress, and said kill the bill. And you know why? Because he preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem. And understand, this comes at a time where the people of our country actually need a leader who engages in solutions, who actually addresses the problems at hand. But what we have in the former president is someone who would prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem. And I'll tell you something, he's going to talk about immigration a lot tonight even when it's not the subject that is being raised. And I'm going to actually do something really unusual and I'm going to invite you to attend one of Donald Trump's rallies because it's a really interesting thing to watch. You will see during the course of his rallies he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about windmills cause cancer. And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom. And I will tell you the one thing you will not hear him talk about is you. You will not hear him talk about your needs, your dreams, and your, your desires. And I'll tell you, I believe you deserve a president who actually puts you first. And I pledge to you that I will.

DAVID MUIR: Vice President Harris, thank you. President Trump, on that point I want to get your response.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I would like to respond.

DAVID MUIR: Let me just ask, though, why did you try to kill that bill and successfully so? That would have put thousands of additional agents and officers on the border.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: First let me respond as to the rallies. She said people start leaving. People don't go to her rallies. There's no reason to go. And the people that do go, she's busing them in and paying them to be there. And then showing them in a different light. So, she can't talk about that. People don't leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics. That's because people want to take their country back. Our country is being lost. We're a failing nation. And it happened three and a half years ago. And what, what's going on here, you're going to end up in World War 3, just to go into another subject. What they have done to our country by allowing these millions and millions of people to come into our country. And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don't want to talk -- not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame. As far as rallies are concerned, as far -- the reason they go is they like what I say. They want to bring our country back. They want to make America great again. It's a very simple phrase. Make America great again. She's destroying this country. And if she becomes president, this country doesn't have a chance of success. Not only success. We'll end up being Venezuela on steroids.

DAVID MUIR: I just want to clarify here, you bring up Springfield, Ohio. And ABC News did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community --

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I've seen people on television

DAVID MUIR: Let me just say here this ...

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The people on television say my dog was taken and used for food. So maybe he said that and maybe that's a good thing to say for a city manager.

DAVID MUIR: I'm not taking this from television. I'm taking it from the city manager.

In the last two days, we've posted multiple videos about the right-wing lie that immigrants in Springfield are stealing dogs and eating them. Here's the most recent one that we've noted previously.

You never needed that fact checked. It wasn't happening.

The lie is told to outrage people and to stir up resentment. We all grasp that, right?

So if it truly was happening or was even truly suspected of happening the story would not be "Hattian Immigrants Steal and Eat Dog." No, the headline would be, "Man/Woman Kills Hattian Immigrant Who Ate Dog."

Because as scared and crazy and worthless as MAGA is, as stupid as they are, if even they paused for a moment they would grasp that some American -- in this gun crazed nation -- is going to turn around and kill someone -- or at least attack them -- if that person ate their dog.

People have been shot due to fender benders in parking lots. Outside of Kristi Noem, we can't imagine any American looking the other way if someone should kill and eat their dog.

Donald's a geriatric idiot and he demonstrated that over and over in the debate.

It wasn't just that, time and again, Kamala Harris wiped the floor with him, it wasn't just that even the moderators wiped the floor with him, it was that the floor wiped the floor with him.

Donald showed up and showed America how empty his world is, how shallow his mind and that he believes he can continue his con job on the American people.

There was one point where we wondered if the debate might even cut into his MAGA base?

Face diapers.

That's what MAGA crazies call the masks.

It was the biggest sacrifice for them -- they are the greatest generation because they survived having to a wear a mask in public in the midst of a global pandemic!!!!

But did they catch, in last night's debate, when Donald start claiming credit for the masks?

Repeatedly, Donald insisted that any good thing since the beginning of time was his glory and due to him and anything that was bad was the fault of someone else.

They January 6th attempted coup?

Not his fault.

Those people didn't understand him.

No, they understood what he was calling for.

They're lucky they've only been put behind bars. They're lucky that they weren't publicly executed.

On his directive, they carried out treason. The punishment for treason can be execution.

They're damn lucky that the worst they have had to face is prison time.

We didn't rush to judgment on that. We waited for evidence and testimony to emerge. At this point, there's no denying what happened. It was an attempt to erase an election and to overthrow the country. It was an attempted coup. And Donald would pardon his henchmen.

On that section of the debate, we'll note Kamala's remarks because we're not going to whitewash Donald's treasonous actions by including his meandering web of lies.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I was at the Capitol on January 6th. I was the Vice President-Elect. I was also an acting senator. I was there. And on that day, the president of the United States incited a violent mob to attack our nation's Capitol, to desecrate our nation's Capitol. On that day, 140 law enforcement officers were injured. And some died. And understand, the former president has been indicted and impeached for exactly that reason. But this is not an isolated situation. Let's remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing antisemitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? There were fine people on each side. Let's remember that when it came to the Proud Boys, a militia, the president said, the former president said, "Stand back and stand by." So for everyone watching who remembers what January 6th was, I say we don't have to go back. Let's not go back. We're not going back. It's time to turn the page. And if that was a bridge too far for you, well, there is a place in our campaign for you. To stand for country. To stand for our democracy. To stand for rule of law. And to end the chaos. And to end the approach that is about attacking the foundations of our democracy 'cause you don't like the outcome. And be clear on that point. Donald Trump the candidate has said in this election there will be a bloodbath, if this -- and the outcome of this election is not to his liking. Let's turn the page on this. Let's not go back. Let's chart a course for the future and not go backwards to the past.

Kamala destroyed Donald.

That was the big news from last night.

It wasn't the only news; however.

Robert Kennedy Junior remains in the race.

He has transitioned into Jill Stein. No doubt, Junior would claim his transition into Jill Stein was caused by atrazine in the water.

If you missed it, Jill Stein did about 15 Tweets yesterday -- that's a lot of work for that grifter. In two of them, she mentioned Donald Trump by name. In seven, she called out Kamala Harris by name. She also did that in the two Tweets naming Donald.

Forever and a day, Junior used to insist he wasn't trying to help Trump. He was running a real campaign, he would lie.

But what he did was run for president to help Trump win. And, yes, that's what Jill is doing as well. She can lie -- she always lies -- but all you have to do is look at her Tweets.

There's not a lot you can say to defend her unless you're a liar.

Her Tweets make clear that she is at war with Kamala and that she is giving Donald a pass. Let's stop pretending otherwise.

Donald is a danger to democracy.

What's at stake?

Ryan Grenoble (HUFFINGTON POST) reports:

Justice Elena Kagan thinks the Supreme Court’s conservative majority may not stop at abortion rights, she told a crowd at the New York University School of Law on Monday, warning that the logic used to overturn Roe v. Wade could be broadly applied elsewhere.

“I don’t think you’re overreading the bigger question,” Kagan said in a conversation with Melissa Murray, a law professor and podcast host who’d asked about the implications of Roe’s reversal, according to The New York Times.

With its landmark 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the high court dismantled the right to abortion based on the argument that it is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” as Justice Samuel Alito wrote at the time.

“That’s the entirety of the majority’s reasoning,” Kagan said.

If you extend that argument elsewhere, said Kagan, it’s possible to strike down what would otherwise be firm constitutional protections.

“Then you say the same thing for contraception,” she warned. “Then you can say the same thing for interracial marriage. Then you could say the same thing for gay marriage.”

Are you getting what's at stake?

Aidan McLaughlin (MEDIAITE) explains:

And while Biden takes heat from the left for his enabling of Israel’s onslaught in Gaza, Trump has promised to be even more supportive of it. “Israel is the one. And you should let them go and let them go finish the job. He doesn’t want to do it,” Trump said of Biden at their June debate. “He’s become like a Palestinian.” What’s more, Trump has said he would crush the only true anti-war movement in the country right now, the one protesting U.S. support for Israel, and deport its members out of the United States.

If that’s not enough to convince you, take Trump’s running mate, whose views on foreign policy are more precisely articulated than Trump’s. Carlson has frequently touted JD Vance as anti-war — so much so that he reportedly argued to Trump that if he did not select Vance, U.S. intelligence agencies would have him assassinated so that whatever “neocon” he did select would ascend to the presidency.

When Trump eventually picked the Ohio senator, Carlson said those who oppose Vance do so only because he opposes “killing other people in pointless wars” and “they thought he would be harder to manipulate and slightly less enthusiastic about killing people.”

But Vance is not anti-war. Like many right-wing contrarians that have grown in popularity in the Trump era, he is steadfastly opposed to supporting Ukraine against Russia’s invasion. Yet that is an outlier in an otherwise militaristic foreign policy outlook.

Vance steadfastly supports arming Israel, and has proposed a more muscular approach to Iran. “We need to do something with Iran,” Vance said in July. “But not these weak little bombing runs. If you’re going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard.” His views are hard to distinguish from those of Lindsey Graham, a man so comically enamored by the mere thought of bombing Iran that Carlson has often labeled him a childless, bloodthirsty neo-con.

Does it make any sense to you now? Because if you're helping Trump, be honest about it. Jill Stein's in it to help Trump. Parker Molloy (THE NEW REPUBLIC) explains:

In the lead-up to the 2022 midterm elections, right-wing politicians and influencers amplified an outlandish claim that schools were installing litter boxes in bathrooms for students who identified as cats. This absurd narrative spread rapidly across social media and conservative news outlets, despite being consistently debunked by school officials and fact-checkers.

Now, in 2024, we’re in the midst of another election cycle, facing a similarly bizarre and baseless claim: Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were allegedly kidnapping and eating local residents’ pets. Within hours, prominent politicians, including vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, were amplifying this baseless story, which even made its way into official Trump campaign messaging.

These two incidents, separated by two years but linked by their absurdity and rapid spread, are prime examples of the weaponization of misinformation. But how do these false stories take root and spread so quickly?

The Springfield case offers a disturbing glimpse into the anatomy of modern misinformation campaigns. It reveals a complex mix of social media dynamics, political opportunism, and cultural anxieties that can instantly transform a local rumor into a national talking point.

Perhaps most troubling is how these stories echo historical hate-based conspiracy theories. The baseless claim about Haitian immigrants eating pets bears a striking resemblance to blood libel—the centuries-old antisemitic canard that accused Jews of kidnapping Christian children for ritualistic purposes. Both narratives prey on fear of the “other” and attribute grotesque behaviors to marginalized groups, stoking xenophobia and justifying discrimination.

And these incidents are not isolated. On August 30, former President Donald Trump made a similarly outlandish and baseless claim about transgender youth during a speech to the conservative group Moms for Liberty. Trump asserted, “Your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what’s going to happen with your child.”

This claim, like the others, is entirely false. There is no evidence of U.S. schools sending children for gender-affirming surgeries without parental knowledge or performing such surgeries on-site. Medical experts (and anyone familiar with how transition-related health care works) have emphasized that any gender-affirming care, especially surgery, requires parental consent and extensive screening, and can often take years to get. Trump’s claim is obviously false, but it serves a political purpose to the people pushing it.

The pattern of demonizing marginalized groups through false, often outlandish accusations is not new, but the speed and reach of modern communication platforms have supercharged its impact. As the story spreads, traditional media outlets may report on the claims, often framing them as a “controversy” or “debate,” inadvertently lending credibility to the lie. Even after thorough debunking, these narratives tend to persist, continuing to circulate and shape public discourse.

Lori Rozsa (WASHINGTON POST) reports:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s election police unit is investigating alleged fraud in signature gathering for the state’s upcoming abortion referendum in a move that critics say is designed to intimidate voters.

In the past week, two people reported that an agent from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement arrived at their homes and asked them about petitions they had signed months ago to add Amendment 4 to the November ballot.

One voter, Isaac Menasche, posted on his Facebook page Wednesday that a detective questioned him about his signature and showed him a folder containing 10 pages of his personal information.

“The experience left me shaken,” Menasche wrote, adding that he had signed the petition. “Troubling that so much resources were devoted to this.”

Menasche confirmed the content of the Facebook post to The Washington Post but declined to comment further.

The investigation comes as Democrats and election experts express concern that DeSantis is using the powers of the state to derail the referendum, which would nullify a six-week abortion ban the Republican governor signed into law last year. The state’s health-care agency recently launched a website that claims the amendment “threatens women’s safety.”

“They want people to stay home and to not vote,” Democratic state Rep. Fentrice Driskell said at a virtual news conference Monday. “They want people to read these articles and hear it on social media that the police showed up at somebody’s door and intimidated them and made them feel bad about signing an Amendment 4 petition.”

Still not getting it? Are you that much of a Susan Sarandon? Last week, US House Rep Joaquin Castro's office issued the following:

SAN ANTONIO AND EL PASO, TEXAS — Today, Congressman Joaquin Castro (TX-20) and Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (TX-16) led nine of their colleagues in the Texas Congressional Delegation in a letter urging Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice to investigate recent incidents of voter suppression and intimidation by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Governor Greg Abbott. The letter was additionally signed by Reps. Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Jasmine Crockett (TX-30), Greg Casar (TX-35), Al Green (TX-09), Lizzie Fletcher (TX-07), Sylvia Garcia (TX-29), Marc Veasey (TX-33), Vicente Gonzalez (TX-34), and Colin Allred (TX-32).

“We write to you with urgent concerns over recent actions undertaken at the direction of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to raid the homes of activists, volunteers, and political operatives in South Texas and the San Antonio area and Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s efforts to remove thousands of individuals from voter rolls with little transparency. We are concerned that these actions are intended to intimidate American citizens, in particular Latinos and members of minority communities, from exercising their right to vote through political persecution or deny them that right altogether. We request that the Department investigate these actions, including for violations of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, and take any necessary action to prevent further interference with the rights of voters in the state of Texas,” the members wrote.

“At the same time as these concerning actions by AG Paxton, Governor Abbott has pursued the removal of thousands of individuals from voter rolls in Texas, including over 6,500 purported “noncitizens.” There is little to no transparency in how Governor Abbott has assessed these individuals to be “potential noncitizens,” and we fear these decisions may be made on the basis of those individuals’ perceived race or ethnicity and may deny American citizens their right to vote,” the members concluded.

On Wednesday, members of the Texas delegation held a press call about the concerns raised in today’s letter. A full recording of the press conference can be found here.

The full text of today’s letter can be found here.

Sandra Sanchez (NEWS NATION) reports:

Border Report spoke with Lidia Martinez, 80, who said her San Antonio home was raided on Aug. 20 by nine agents from Paxton’s office who took her cellphone, appointment book and laptop.

“I’ve very angry and I’m scared,” Martinez told Border Report. “They questioned me for three hours. They came in and there were seven men and two women and they came in and searched all my house. Every single thing in there. And I asked them if I could change my clothes, and they told me ‘no,'” Martinez said.

LULAC has also asked the justice Department to investigate the incidents.

“It is disgraceful and outrageous that the state of Texas, and its highest-ranking law enforcement officer, is once again using the power of his office to instill fear in the hearts of community members who volunteer their time to promote civic engagement,” LULAC’s Texas State Director Gabriel Rosales said after the searches.

“I have been contacted by elderly residents who are confused and frightened, wondering why they have been singled out. Attorney General Paxton’s actions clearly aim to suppress the Latino vote through intimidation and any means necessary to tilt the electoral process in favor of his political allies,” Rosales said.

On Saturday, LULAC is planning to hold a demonstration and voter registration rally outside Paxton’s offices in San Antonio from 10:30 a.m. to noon CST at 10010 N. San Pedro Avenue at Ramsey Street, the organization announced Friday.

Lastly, if you're still too much of a Sarandon to grasp what's at stake, there's a story we want to share. We tried to work Greg Owen's LGBTQ NATION report into our piece at THIRD but we couldn't shoe horn it in. It's very disturbing and the violence took place in the climate that MAGA has fostered -- a climate that will only get worse if Donald returns to the White House:

In Texas, a 23-year-old father of five was sentenced to six years in prison for severely beating his two-year-old son because he thought the toddler was gay.

Francisco Ricardo Sotello Baez was charged with family violence and assault after admitting to striking his young son in the face multiple times, causing him to bleed from the nose.

Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court in Bexar County agreed with the prosecution’s recommendation for six years behind bars, citing previous incidents of domestic violence, including assaulting his son’s mother, which earlier earned Sotello Baez probation and court-mandated courses to address his violent behavior.

Judge Boyd expressed disappointment those interventions had failed to modify the defendant’s conduct.

A police report and his testimony at sentencing revealed Sotello Baez’s actions toward his son were not an isolated incident. The father had repeatedly disciplined the child in an attempt to “toughen him up,” claiming he was concerned about the boy acting in a feminine manner.

Sotello Baez said the child preferred playing with Barbies and kitchen sets over the robots, cars, and soccer balls he had brought home for the boy.

He told the judge he was disappointed his first son might be gay.

Judge Boyd was visibly exasperated with the explanation.

“Basically, you beat up a two-year-old because you think your two-year-old is gay, and you wanna toughen up a two-year-old,” the judge said. “He’s two!”

This is what's at stake. Our future, our children, our democracy. And, Jill Stein, you keep attacking Kamala if you want to make clear who's side you're really on. We're already on to you, we've been on to you since 2012. We know your garbage. But we're going to make sure everyone else knows what garbage you are.

Donald Trump spouted racism and hate over and over in the debate but, Jill Stein, you didn't call him out in one Tweet. You did repeatedly slam Kamala Harris.

We saw this over and over with Robert Kennedy Junior's campaign and we see it with you.

The following sites updated: