So fucking glorious.
“Hillary is so good at delivering the good that when she was in the Senate Karl Rove literately sent out a memo forbidding republican senators from talking to her because she kept getting them to support progressive causes.
She’d get to know each individual senator as a person, find some area where they weren’t shitty human beings, and talk them across party lines.
Her partnerships were deemed so successful … that Karl Rove, according to a source close to him, sent word last year to halt Republican cooperation with her—an edict that has been ignored.
As the atmosphere in Washington has deteriorated, Clinton has emerged within the Senate as the unlikeliest of figures: she, not George W. Bush, has turned out to be a uniter, not a divider.
She walks softly but carries the biggest sticks. This is going to be great”
Why I would pull my hair in frustration every time a Bernie voter pointed out that she was friendly with or supported by a bigot or republican. You do realize that Republicans are basically your -coworkers- when you’re in the senate, right?
That leaders of bigoted special interest groups have an impact on our country whether someone meets with them & tries to reel them in or just leaves them to their own hateful devices.
Hillary Clinton would AT LEAST meet up with these people to let them know she had her eye on them, and at most to get them to do the most progressive thing they were capable of.
Destroy the concept that you can’t be fat and disabled.
Destroy the stigma that surrounds people who are overweight and in wheelchairs.
Destroy the photos of people riding electric wheelchairs in Walmart with long, hateful, fatphobic captions about how they’re lazy and entitled.
And I’m looking at every single member of the disabled community because we (and I say we because even I’ve been guilty of this) are just as guilty of this as the abled community.
Which is really, really, really unfair.
Because disability advocacy is supposed to be about showing how we’re all equal despite the differences in our bodies (and/or minds).
And it’s shocking that so many people will talk about how beautiful people with disabilities are in one breath and then will use their next breath to fat-shame overweight people with disabilities.
I’ll put it bluntly: If your version of disability advocacy is screaming at an overweight person in a wheelchair because “they don’t really need that chair, they’re just fat” then you’re not a disability advocate. You’re just a bully.
when you have no choice but to be in a loud place and your head phones stop working
Person: I don’t want pets.
Society: Yeah, pets are a big responsibility, not everyone has the time or money for that, and not everyone likes animals.
Person: I don’t want kids.
Society: Whaaaat? How can you not want kids? You’ll surely change your mind when you have your own! Your life is pointless without them! PROCREATE!
I have never seen this comparison and I love it so much!
Also, there's a heavy dose of misogyny going on.
When die-hard Sanders supporters say, “Nothing could convince me to vote for Hilary Clinton….”
They think they’re saying: “I’m such a progressive purist that I cannot bear to compromise my ideals.”
But they’re really saying: “I have so much privilege that, not only can I feel confident that a Trump presidency won’t get me killed (or even seriously inconvenienced), but I can’t even comprehend that people who say otherwise are expressing a genuine, literal fear and not indulging in hyperbole.”
what kind of pokemon is this?
When you use a dog filter on your gecko. (via emilyxsnapp)
Not to make everything about politics, but I'd vote for Alpha WAY before I'd vote for Trump
I love this
Eh, while it’s great that these characters are independent, something about all these princesses of color not finding love at the end of their movies rubs me the wrong way. Just like how Disney patted itself on the back for a black princess but she was Frogger damn near the whole movie.
And it would’ve been a great opportunity to cast moc in romantic roles from that culture :/
^^^ I’m so conflicted because yes, always having a love interest is annoying but poc never get to have a love interest
Having the princesses of color not find love reinforces the idea that we have to strong and independent and aren’t needing of any support
But I do like it because it deviates from the norm
It might be cool if they had dudes in the movie who were interested and they had the princesses be like, “naw, I got shit to do, but maybe later!”
Cause then it would obviously be a choice, instead of a worldstate that WoC don’t get hetero love (I’m not even gonna wish for queer love).
This is actually a good example of the need for intersectional feminism.
- it is very common that white girl characters have love interests and finding love be the plot line and basis for all their stories and interactions.
- It is uncommon for a girl character of color to be seen as a potential love interest, in need of defense by a male character and/or support from a male character full stop.
This is because of the history of social devaluation of woc and infantilization of white women.
- it is subversive for white female characters to not have love interests for once and to focus on strength outside of male attention.
while at the same time
- is it subversive for woc to be love interests and treated with care and reverence and with support in relationships on screen.
The “norms” for two groups of women are different based on the historical interaction both groups have had to suffer under patriarchal and sexist/racist media.
This is why its okay to feel hurt and roll your eyes when you see people screaming about how michonne from the walking dead “dont need no man” because she’s too “strong” to want to be desired and cared for, while at the same time feel hurt and roll your eyes when Black Widow is suddenly too helpless to get herself free from a basic ass cage and needs to be rescued by her randomly inserted love interest.
Shout out to @kaylapocalypse for saying this so much better than I could.
Next level, cat is on top of fitted sheet.
Level after that, cat is beneath fitted sheet.
Final level, you are not sure WHERE the cat is, but there is definitely a cat.
DON'T mistake me, I love Bernie, and I want to live in a world where he could have pulled this off. But the Dems had valid reasons for not embracing him.
“Democratic Party aids life-long Democrat against opportunistic independent” seems like it should be a smaller story than “Russia uses Wikileaks to interfere in a US election”.
Bernie Sanders just stood up and asked that all votes be awarded to Hillary. A truly classy and touching move.
And five thousand throats just called for a second. The ayes have it!
A week ago, we were watching the RNC roll call where the committee contrived to shove extra votes into Trump’s heap by manipulating previously unused rules. State after state was shocked to find that the votes they reported bore no relationship to what was announced from the podium. That process ended in protest and confusion.
What a perfect contrast to tonight where every delegate had a chance to have their vote reported and recorded, and then Bernie topped it off with a wonderful gesture of unity.
Democrats have the first woman nominee ever of a major political party. And the ceremony that brought that result was a celebration of both the diversity of Democratic voters and the unity of Democratic purpose. What a great moment.
I like that she made it possible for trans people to change their gender on their passport (thus making it possible for them to legally change their gender).
I like that she was a vocal critic of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and helped end it.
I like that she believes climate change exists and is a problem caused by humans.
I like that she wants to raise the national minimum wage to at least $12 per hour.
I like that she wants to raise taxes on the very wealthy.
I like that she wants to preserve the Affordable Care Act, which made it possible for me to get health insurance and afford the medicine that makes me well.
I like that she’s been an unabashed supporter of family planning and a woman’s right to choose.
I like that she worked hard to prevent deadbeat dads from avoiding child support through bankruptcy.
I like that she’s got productive, common sense ideas for immigration reform with a clear, full path to citizenship.
I like that she wants to close background check loopholes for buying guns.
I like that she’s been a critic of current campaign finance laws.
I like that she finished her time as a Senator with a 95% rating from the Human Rights Campaign.
I dunno…I feel like I could write this list for a very very long time, which is what makes me excited about Hillary Clinton.
OK, I'm suddenly wishing James Bond were real. And, you know, competent.
In mid-June the company announced that the intruders appeared to include a group it had previously identified by the name “Cozy Bear” or “APT 29” and been inside the committee’s servers for a year. A second group, “Fancy Bear,” also called “APT 28,” came into the system in April. It appears to be operated by the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence service, according to federal investigators and private cybersecurity firms.
3. From the same article: Pro-Putin Russian hackers have been a thorn in the side of American cybersecurity for years now.
The first group is particularly well known to the F.B.I.’s counterintelligence unit, the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies. It was identified by federal investigators as the likely culprit behind years of intrusions into the State Department and White House unclassified computer system.
4. Wikileaks, along with publishing the emails, published unredacted credit card numbers, passport numbers, social security numbers, and home addresses of hundreds of Democratic donors. They called this “not an error.” This is known as doxxing, and it is illegal in US jurisdictions.
Doxing is always illegal, whether it is done against a federal employee, a state employee, or a regular person. There are federal and state laws that specifically address doxing government employees. With regular citizens, doxing falls under various state criminal laws, such as stalking, cyberstalking, harassment, threats, and other such laws, depending on the state. Since these doxing threats and activities are made on the internet, the law of any state may be invoked, though most often an investigator will look to the state in which the person making the threat is located, if this is known, or the state in which the victim is situated. A state prosecutor can only prosecute violations of the laws of his or her own state, and of acts that extend into their state. When acts are on the internet, they extend into all the states.
Misinformation was spread that doxing is legal. I am not sure how or why anyone fell for that misinformation. Surely, people must understand instinctively, even if they were misled about the law, that if they are threatening someone or putting them at risk, or tormenting or harassing the other on the internet, that this must be illegal. Common sense would tell you that bullying or jeopardizing another would be illegal in some way. So yes, doxing is illegal, no matter who the target.
5. Wikileaks has offered support to the racist, sexist agitator and Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulos after his ban from Twitter for inciting hate mobs. This support was not merely a tweet or two extending a hand: it was an offer to build an entire new social network fine-tuned to Yiannopoulos’ needs.
After his bankruptcy and business failures roughly a decade ago Trump has had an increasingly difficult time finding sources of capital for new investments. As I noted above, Trump has been blackballed by all major US banks with the exception of Deutschebank, which is of course a foreign bank with a major US presence. He has steadied and rebuilt his financial empire with a heavy reliance on capital from Russia. At a minimum the Trump organization is receiving lots of investment capital from people close to Vladimir Putin.
10. Trump’s right hand man, Paul Manafort, was for almost a decade an advisor to Viktor Yanukovych, the ousted president of Ukraine who now lives in exile in Russia and is a major Putin ally. Trump’s other top staffers tend towards supporting the Russian government/elite in various ways.
11. There is nothing in the DNC emails that indicates breaking of any laws.
12. Bernie Sanders only declared himself a Democrat this election cycle. The DNC was not obligated to support him, and yet they did - there are emails where staffers complain about bending over backwards for the Sanders campaign. There’s also an email from the Sanders campaign demanding a private jet to be paid for by the DNC after Bernie had reached the point where it was mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination. (They also called Lin-Manuel Miranda a baby for not doing a fundraiser on his off day, which is frankly hilarious.)
12c. Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic nomination by 3,775,437 votes. He lost badly among registerd Democrats, black Democrats, and Latino Democrats. If the DNC is incompetent enough not to secure their servers against hackers, they are sure as shit not capable of stealing nearly four million votes.
13. Hillary Clinton does not have mind-control powers and is not responsible for every single word typed in a private DNC email server.
14. The release of the emails was timed for when Trump would have a large amount of goodwill - the “convention bump,” as noted in several large-scale polls by reputable organizations - and before the Democrats/Hillary would have a chance to respond to the bump at their own convention.
15. Trump has engaged in much worse political ratfucking of his same-party opponents than the DNC did in its emails, in public, and it is widely known that the RNC has been attempting to sabotage him for months.
16. It ain’t like Putin hasn’t done shit like this before. He killed a journalist with plutonium. I could go on about what he does inside his country, but I’m not super familiar with it, and frankly "sitting head of state ordered the assassination of a journalist in exile by means of nuclear material" is fucked up enough.
Conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from these facts:
1. Wikileaks, whatever its intentions in the past, is not a neutral whistleblower and cannot be, given the money their founder draws from the Russian government.
2. The DNC did not engage in any political ratfuckery beyond what is normal for any and especially this cycle, nor did they break any laws.
3. Wikileaks is not a progressive actor, given its support for both Milo Yiannopoulos and Vladimir Putin.
4. The hackers sat on the material for more than a month, and the reveal of the documents was timed to hurt Hillary Clinton and buck up Trump.
Other conclusions that can be drawn:
1. Trump and Putin colluded somehow on this hack job.
2. Putin wants Trump in the White House because Trump has, among other things, publicly stated that he will not defend NATO states bordering Russia if Russia invades, and is willing to sponsor illegal activity to make this happen.
Conclusions the FBI has drawn:
The FBI is publicly saying that they suspect the Russian government did this. Several unnamed US officials suspect this was “a deliberate attempt to influence the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump, according to five individuals familiar with the investigation of the breach.”
(Also, on that note - the DNC is not gonna accuse a foreign state of trying to influence the election via cyberterrorism without some cold hard proof. That’s not an accusation you throw around lightly, especially when you represent one of the two largest parties in America.)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz complaining about an independent tanking her anointed candidate should not make you mourn the death of American democracy. What should be making you furious - and terrified, honestly - is that a foreign state, led by an autocrat with a history of human rights abuses, has used a “pro-transparency” organization to achieve its goal in installing a malleable strongman and has committed cyberterrorism in the process.
Please don’t vote third party this election. Please.
It truly is a testament to the power of positive thinking (and the inability of humans to learn from the misfortune of others) to see people continually believe that Trump will do anything that he says he will do.
Back in January, a trio of young girls known as the "USA Freedom Kids" performed at a Donald Trump rally in Pensacola, Florida. The routine, which involved the girls whirling in flashy American-flag dresses and singing a song that denounced the other presidential candidates as sworn enemies, was roundly mocked on social media, where viewers likened the video to performances honoring North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.
Should we all just start calling Tr--p "Dear Leader" now? This is some North Korea-level brainwashing: https://t.co/lO9tHUmbXe— Joe Adalian (@TVMoJoe) January 14, 2016
Now Jeff Popick, the creator behind the patriotic trio and father of the youngest member in the group, says he plans to sue Trump, alleging his campaign violated several verbal agreements and subsequently stiffed the group of proper monetary compensation.
It started in Pensacola. When Popick first reached out to the Trump campaign about performing, he spoke with various people including former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. His understanding from the campaign was that the Kids would make two appearances in Florida, where Popick lives. The first event didn't come to fruition, and Popick says he asked for $2,500 in payment for the second performance, in Pensacola. The campaign made a counter-offer: How about a table where the group could pre-sell albums?
According to Popick, no table ever showed up—and the incident was the first of a series of broken promises and unreturned phone calls that went on all the way to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. There, Trump's team allegedly offered Popick a consolation prize and promised that the girls could perform because of all the previous disappointments. That performance never materialized either and now he says he's planning to file suit. He wouldn't specify how much he'd sue for, but he explained that it wasn't a "billion-dollar lawsuit" and suggested a performance at a Trump venue similar to the RNC one could also work.
"He might still be the best candidate as president of the United States—or not," Popick told the Post.
Popick's experience fits squarely with the narrative of many others who say they were ripped off by the real estate magnate for a variety of broken contracts. For more, head to our regular feature "The Trump Files."
It’s awful when people say shitty, hateful things at you. But a different kind of awful happens when you try to talk about it and people tell you to stop feeling your feelings. Feelings happen. It’s ok to feel hurt.
PSA: my snake is my baby. It’s okay if you don’t like snakes, but please don’t say mean and hurtful things. I love my snake like I love my furry pets. It’s not very nice to threaten the safety of my babiessss
if a marginalized group tells you that a word or phrase is harmful/toxic towards them and they wish you’d stop using it, it’s not an opportunity for you to flex your fucking debate skills
Just a reminder, Georgia is suing the current administration over the trans bathroom directive. Because women need to be protected from trans women who need to pee, but not from people actually engaged in abusing them.
In a win for folks who believe women's bodies are public property, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a supermarket employee who followed a customer around the store, secretly recording a video of the view up her skirt. Citing a "gap" in Georgia's criminal statutes, Judge Elizabeth Branch and five colleagues ruled earlier this month that "upskirting" is permissible under current law.
"It is regrettable that no law currently exists which criminalizes [the appellant’s] reprehensible conduct," Branch wrote.
Security footage from a Publix store in Houston County, Georgia, shows employee Brandon Lee Gary stooping down behind a woman and aiming his cellphone camera underneath her skirt as she picked an item from the supermarket shelves. Then he did it at least three more times. Upset after catching him on the floor behind her repeatedly, the woman left the store. She later returned to complain to the store's manager, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Gary later admitted to police officers that he was responsible for the video recordings.
Following the June 2013 incident, a local judge convicted Gary of criminal invasion of privacy, deciding that "there's no more blatant invasion of privacy than to do what [Gary] did," according to the appeals court ruling. But in Gary's appeal, the court examined whether his conduct was actually criminal under the state's invasion-of-privacy law. The statute forbids "any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view."
On July 15, the court ruled 6-3 that the space underneath the woman's skirt did not count as a "private place." In a four-page meditation on the meaning of "place," including definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's New World, the majority determined that the relevant location meant the supermarket, and not the space concealed by the woman's clothing. The recordings, according to six judges, were taken in a public place.
In an angry dissent, Judge Amanda Mercier slammed her colleagues' decision, arguing that the legal understanding of "private place" should include places on an individual's body that are "out of public view," and which people can expect to be "safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance."
"We have decades of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence setting forth limitations on law enforcement’s ability to merely pat down an alleged suspect on top of their clothing to protect the sacrosanct bodily privacy of even those who are accused of violating criminal laws," Mercier wrote. "But today, with the stroke of a pen, we are in effect negating the privacy protections from the intrusions of fellow citizens."