They put the Nazi symbol on the wrong political animal symbol. These days the Republicans have evolved into that symbol, and I am speaking as a former Republican. She and her ilk who have taken it over are the reason I left the party and am now a Registered Democrat.
Nailed it.....the "20's, not so different from now. Witness Trump's party over the weekend as people went hungry, immigrants targeted by ICE, fraud, corruption and a President and his buddies lining their pockets. Not to mention sex trafficking, predatorary behavior, lies and horrific abuse.
This has been the modus operandi of convicted felon Diaper Donny and his braindead adherents ever since the orange blob and his wife, wrestler The Undertaker, descended from the heavens at Trump Tower to initially proclaim himself America's savior. They simply cheat, break every law ...... the list of criminality is too long to write. Then, constantly accuse his opponents -- regardless of political persuasion -- of doing all the vile crap he and the cult carry out, accuse everyone else of antisemitism (fooling Jews everywhere just for their influential vote), cheat at every election (while denying he lost in 2020 -- to this day!!!), build a nationwide network of liars, criminals, cheaters, uneducated, traitorous gutter trash to spread the gospel. All and more capped off with requiring his DOJ to go after his high-profile opponents as a warning to everyone it could happen to them.
“...she had without exception the most stupid, vulgar, empty mind that he had ever encountered. She had not a thought in her head that was not a slogan, and there was no imbecility, absolutely none that she was not capable of swallowing if the Party handed it out to her. 'The human sound-track' he nicknamed her in his own mind.” - George Orwell, 1984
Evil exists, always has, always will. To see it is blatantly displayed is terrifying and sickening. We know what she is and to the lengths she will go to win. We'll have our work cut out for us.
While I'm an independent, I do urge all Democrats holding statewide office to investigate StefaniQ from the top of her sour puss to the grungy toes her sycophants kiss with fervor. No one rises to the top of the vile, evil food chain without all kinds of criminal activity. Nail her and the thugs hired to protect her. There can be no complaints that Dems are unfairly persecuting and prosecuting StefaniQ as the precedent has already been established by her Ayatollah who is siccing the DOJ, FBI, CIA, ICE, et. al. on his real and perceived opponents. BTW, prosecute the piss ants in state court, beyond the reach of horrendous pardons issued on the federal level by the Traitor-in-Chief.
“…since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them…” Orwell/1984… Every high school student should be reading this book right now!
Your preview of what to expect with Eli$e. Ugh. The projection, for one thing. Whatever rhetorician came up with extrapolating anti-Semitism to this new level (and a reminder it most recently roared out of the Gaza conflict with flair--so I think Netanyahu is in on it, quite sick) and this new "twist" is a verbal sociopathy, and that Eli$e not only embraced it but, again, was its mouthpiece at the House hearings where the three female university presidents sat like apples at a shooting range, is some new strange fruit. It all appears very contrived and strategic. and if I were Jewish, I would hope to feel some deep distrust at the whole endeavor coming out of the GOP.
It's the modern version of the lawyer trap "when did you stop beating your wife?" It puts the other side on defense immediately. But what a sad game of offense. Quite offensive.
Bringing the name calling, picture labels and "cutesy" slogans underlines how little Stefanik has to offer and highlights her willingness to sell her soul to the devil for money. It became apparent long ago that she sees Trump as THE way to achieve her goals, despite his failure to keep promises to her. The Republican party will throw obscene amounts of money at this election while showing the American people that money trumps reason, food insecurity, health insurance premiums, education, the Arts and the rule of law. Trump wants her as Governor as she will be the ultimate Stepford wife who delivers the PARDON he desires so he does not have to pay Stormy Daniels, nor Jean Carroll nor the victims of his fraud, nor New York State....as ordered by the court. We need to see accountability and Stefanik will deliver more corruption on behalf of Donald Trump as she wipes the slate clean in exchange for the governorship. They will stop at nothing. We, the voters of New York, must uphold the rule of law while making sure that the victims receive what is rightfully theirs.
Holy crap! I hadn't thought about that whole pardon business if Little Miss Priss were to ever become governor. I felt comfortable knowing the state Assembly and Senate hold veto-proof power over her. Hochul, Delgado or anyone else who opposes her (maybe the male version of StefaniQ, King Andrew Cuomo, would give it another try) might want to start drawing up campaign materials that emphasize the pardon angle. That would get the Dem voters to the polls next year.
I think a NYS governor’s pardon power involves state criminal cases only, and doesn’t extend to state civil lawsuit liabilities.
So a future governor could, presumably, pardon Trump for his 34 felony convictions for falsifying business records regarding concealed payments to Stormy Daniels. But not for the civil liabilities that could eventually result from the business‑fraud civil case relating to property values or the E. Jean Carroll civil suits.
I think Trump is still appealing the felony convictions, even though he was sentenced to an unconditional discharge. And I believe he’s appealing the civil lawsuit awards.
OH. And I have an electric vehicle. It's a joy to drive past every gas station. No maintenance to speak of, no oil change necessary, no emissions. There is a learning curve with low temps and bigger draw on the battery that affects mileage, but the power of the thing is a tech marvel.
As a Michigander now, the whiplash of the Trump administration on the auto industry is devastating. Automakers here were embracing the new technology and were off to the races with design and production. The oil industry will have nothing of it, and here we are, ceding the next generation of transportation to the luddites of oil and handing a huge gift to China.
Add to the auto workers quandary (and backstabbing) all the jobs lost and money wasted as Trumpty Dumpty cancels land-based and offshore wind turbine projects.
My husband and I both have electric cars too! They are far and away superior to gas cars. I would never go back to driving one, and most people who drive an electric car say the same thing!
Good Election Day morning, all! Thank you Ken for doing painstaking sleuth work on stefanik's new campaign. It is certainly troubling and pathetic to think of people like our ghost congress person wasting resources to spread hatred and lies in the pursuit of our state's destruction. And here I thought that living in New York would be a shield against the maga madness. Ken, I hope you share this information with Governor Hochul's team. Not everyone follows stefanik the way you do. When I share news like this one Facebook with friends in NY City and Long Island (where I moved from four years ago), they tell me they hadn't heard about it. Last year, it was the ERA. This coming year, we have to let New Yorkers all around the state know what kind of misfit stefanik is to be anywhere near a public servant post. She has to lose both, the gubernatorial race and her seat in Congress. Let's all get out and vote today. Go 💙!!!
By the way, I shared the North Country's NPR report about Proposition 1 (on today's ballot) this weekend. Got comments that it was news to them. I am supporting it, and so are my downstate friends.
It's really just a "housekeeping" chore since the land below the Mt. Van Hovenberg facility has already been cleared to make way for expansion. But I admit that heads should roll for doing such work without proper permission and permits.
You should read the absolute trash written about the proposition on one of the very few social media sites I use, Nextdoor. Political topics are supposed to be off limits. but the uneducated, willfully ignorant and purposefully obstinate are all over the platform, replete with their conspiracy theories and lies. They can't even bother to read even one article or watch one newscast that clearly explained the issue, they simply connect it to Hochul and state government -- therefore, it's a conspiracy against them.
You said it, the uneducated. I point my index finger at Reagan, who cut tbe federal education budget to give tax cuts to the wealthy and, at the same time, accelerated defense spending to fight the cold war. This time around seems worse. 🤬
An “all electric” Adirondack is commendable but unrealistic at this time. The infrastructure is a decade away. Unfortunately it’s the same on a national scope. And with big Tec gobbling up the grid for AI, it could be longer. That’s also why Hochul’s electric dream needs to be gradual and and realistic
"...DeGrasse has a long history as an attack dog for Stefanik." -Wait! What? The attack dog has- an attack dog?? Of course, she does- these kind of people mean MEAN [and Cruel] "business": it's the only kind of business they are capable of [they (seem to) live for it] / [Respectfully, I, for one, do not need to be advised to worry- and I am confident that: no one here is not]...
"Rep. Elise Stefanik is absolutely running for governor and it is going to be a cruel, evil and abusive campaign that will leave the entire state disgusted."
There has been a lot written about both political parties over the decades — Republican and Democratic. And yes, our political parties are flawed. Our politics are flawed. Our public policies are flawed, along with our government.
But for the most part, I vote Democratic.
Why?
The Democratic Party, to me, has always had a heart. To care about peoples’ well-being. To care about the vulnerable. And to promote public policies to put these values into effect, however flawed.
The Republican Party never seemed to me to have a heart. And this is more true today than ever.
It’s ironic that someone who’s “written” a book about anti-Semitism on college will get so much support from Hitler-loving Republican Youth. I’m sure a vast majority of NYC voters are aware of this discrepancy.
Not sure the effort by Republicans to prevent Zohran Mamdani from taking office if he’s elected is a big plus either. She should really lean in to Trump’s endorsement. I’m sure that’s gonna help Cuomo.
Cuomo was asked about it on the Ebro In The Morning show in NYC today. Ebro: “Your boy was just on 60 Minutes, Cuomo, saying that you’re his guy! Cuomo: No. Ebro: Trump said you’re his candidate. Cuomo: (Hangs up). Co-host: I heard a click. Wow. OK. Oh well.”
On electric vehicles my biggest question besides charging stations (and cost/difficulty of setting up home charging) is how the winter cold impacts the battery and range. My hybrid gets way less mileage in winter and I don’t buy the story that it’s just more ethanol in the gasoline.
Internal combustion engines have a “benefit” that they are ALWAYS less efficient than electric motors, generating large excess of heat which in the winter is easily used to heat the passenger cabin, defrost the windshield, etc, while electric vehicles need to use battery power to warm the cabin, defrost the windows, dehumidify the cabin, and to keep the battery warm ish.
So you will lose battery life quicker in the winter. You can help that a little by wearing warmer clothes in your car, try to prevent excess snow or moisture from entering the passenger cabin, turn off accessories that you don’t need.
It makes me laugh when people with gas or diesel vehicles who run them for 5 or 10 minutes to warm up then drive to Stewart’s and leave them running while they get their coffee scoff at the fact that electric vehicles lose range in the winter.
Most people drive maybe a dozen miles a day. Even if you drive 100 miles a day chances are you drive 50, have a chance to charge for a bit, then drive another 50 miles home. Generally not a problem for a full electric vehicle.
My EV has heated seats and a heated steering wheel, both with three levels of output. I typically can be comfortable in the cold with just the steering wheel heated at the first lowest level, what a luxury. And once these are heated, I often turn them off as I'm close to my destination as the heat remains. The conservation is a fun challenge, but my comfort is not compromised.
There is no necessity in being uncomfortable, but there is a cost in mileage. If you aren’t driving long distances the difference in range is probably not a problem, and your comfort is less expensive to the environment in an electric vehicle. The cost is likely pennies a day.
While it is not an *officially* sanctioned media outlet of her campaign, it's not off base with its messaging as this is based off of her own Elise Stefanik social media . Whoever runs that puts down disgusting propoganda similar to this.
Bear in mind Karoline Leavitt used to run her social media during Congressional campaigns.
I'd like to think she won't get anywhere - but my fear is a Delgado/Hochul split which could help Stefanik.
I also tire of the grotesque memes, irresponsible bandying about of hyperbolic accusations, and tired invocation of Hitlerian references. I think John Fetterman (D-PA) was correct when he observed that all the talk of Nazis and Fascists and Hitler was divisive and unhealthy and should stop.
But when it goes on long enough, when "fascist" and "end of democracy" and "dictator" are terms thrown around every day by high-ranking politicians and mainstream reporters who should know better, then ugly and ignorant invective begins to seem normal to too many people.
We are a divided nation, but that isn't new: people value different things, and there's always been a tension between what we call, perhaps a bit too casually and imprecisely, the "left" and the "right." I remember a time, a few decades ago, when there was more political violence, more assassinations, and greater social unrest than there is today. We survived that, and we can survive this moment as well.
I'd suggest we all agree to speak a little more responsibly. No, we aren't facing the "end of democracy." No, we are not a "fascist" nation. No, none of our national leaders are "literally Hitler," nor Hitler in any meaningful figurative sense. We don't live in a totalitarian state, nor a dictatorship, nor do we have a king. There are, so far as I know, no prominent communists in either party, and very few who embrace socialism by that name.
We should spend less time in sweeping and inaccurate condemnation, and more time talking about specific issues with as much mutual respect as we can muster, trying to reach, if not agreement, then at least understanding.
We may not be totalitarian yet, but we are absolutely authoritarian now under Trump’s rule:
Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law. Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic and may be based upon the rule of a party, the military, or the concentration of power in a single person. States that have a blurred boundary between democracy and authoritarianism have sometimes been characterized as "hybrid democracies", "hybrid regimes" or "competitive authoritarian" states. Wikipedia
Hi Tonya. Thank you for a very civil reply. This is the kind of measured speech that I think is necessary if we’re ever going to understand each other.
I don’t agree with you that this administration is particularly authoritarian. Nor do I agree with every aspect of the definition of authoritarian that you offered.
Ours is a government of checks and balances achieved by having the three branches of government in tension with each other. The fact that the courts strike down some executive actions and that the president complies with the courts suggests that those checks are functioning.
Even the current government shut down is a demonstration of that. Republicans would like the continuing resolution to be passed, but they need a supermajority to achieve that. The Democrats, even though they are not a majority in either house, are able to maintain the shutdown despite the president and Republicans wishing that government be reopened. That’s further demonstration that our system of checks and balances is working.
The courts ordered that partial SNAP payments be made, and so that will undoubtedly happen.
You and I disagree about the degree to which our nation is currently an authoritarian regime. We would probably understand each other better if we went point by point through our arguments for and against that proposition.
In any case, again, I appreciate that your response was cordial and thoughtful.
You may not agree with every aspect of that definition of authoritarian government, but the current administration checks all the boxes in it. Which ones do you find objectionable? We have a reduction in democracy because they have made it harder to vote in many places, and want to make it even harder. Separation of powers? We have a supine, spineless Republican Congress who have pretty much abdicated any meaningful oversight of the executive branch, and a Supreme court who basically told him he has a get out of jail free card. They maybe don’t rule in his favor on some cases, but for the most part “his” judges, as Trump calls them, are toeing the line as well. Which brings me to civil liberties. The Supreme Court said it was OK to round up people because of the way they look, and American citizens have been targeted and abused with their stamp of approval. Due process, free speech, and the rule of law have also all been trampled under this administration.
I don’t think there’s an authoritarian switch that gets turned on and off, or even a bright dividing line. It’s more of a continuum, going from a free society to one where freedom is an illusion. We are somewhere along that continuum now and heading in the wrong direction.
You asked with which aspects of your definition of "authoritarianism" I disagreed. I went back and re-read your comment, and realized that I must have misremembered it when writing my reply. (What I get for trying to respond from my phone, I guess.) In fact, I think you gave a pretty good description of authoritarianism. So let me acknowledge my error: I *do* agree with your definition of authoritarianism.
I don't agree that this administration fits the definition. Let me respond to your most recent comment in detail.
Tanya: "We have a reduction in democracy because they have made it harder to vote in many places, and want to make it even harder."
I don't think this is a "reduction in democracy." Rather, I think reasonable efforts to make elections more secure *strengthens* our democracy. It seems to me to be common sense that voters should have to present ID; that mail-in/absentee balloting should be significantly limited; and that voting should be restricted to a fairly narrow window around election day. I think the arguments commonly made for all of these are good ones. In contrast, I think the claim that any of these significantly reduce legitimate voting tend to be unrealistic and, often, patronizing to minorities.
Tanya: "Separation of powers? We have a supine, spineless Republican Congress who have pretty much abdicated any meaningful oversight of the executive branch, and a Supreme court who basically told him he has a get out of jail free card."
You're right that Congress is highly partisan, tending to vote along party lines. That's true under Democratic administrations as well as Republican administrations. Obama's ACA passed with zero House Republicans supporting it; Trump's Big Beautiful Bill passed with zero House Democrats supporting it. You're also right that Congress is spineless, and, again, that applies to both parties. (Democratic lawmakers are on record as saying that they'd like to end the current shutdown, but they're afraid that the more radical elements of their base will primary them if they do.) Such fecklessness isn't Trump-specific: it's how our gutless Congress operates.
Meanwhile, the government remains shut down despite the President wishing to reopen it precisely because the separation of powers still functions.
Tanya: "[The Supreme Court judges] maybe don’t rule in his favor on some cases, but for the most part “his” judges, as Trump calls them, are toeing the line as well."
As with the discussion of democracy, above, this is one of those cases where you and I may have different perspectives and so interpret the same events differently. I think the Supreme Court has tended to rule in favor of Trump because it's tending to take sound Constitutional positions, and doing so because we have originalist judges who have what I believe is a sensible understanding of Constitutional jurisprudence. The fact that Trump calls them "his" judges is irrelevant: I could as easily call them "my" judges, since they're defending "my" Constitution. And yes, as you point out, they don't support Trump in every instance.
Tanya: "The Supreme Court said it was OK to round up people because of the way they look..."
What the Supreme Court did was issue a temporary stay of a lower court ruling. The Supreme Court took the position that ICE could include ethnicity as one factor when establishing probable cause. To quote Justice Kavanaugh: "To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors."
I will admit that I'm uncomfortable with any consideration of race by any government agency. That's why I oppose DEI, race-based admissions programs, etc. If ICE is going to include ethnicity as a component of its probable cause analysis, I'd like it to be closely monitored.
There's a difference between people being "rounded up" and people being questioned. There's also a difference between people who are in the company of a bunch of illegal alien workers being detained along with them -- something that tends to happen in law enforcement -- and random individuals on the street being detained. In the first instance, a reasonable argument can be made for ethnicity being a consideration given the presence of other factors; in the second case, that's a difficult position to defend, given the absence of other factors, and the Supreme Court wisely didn't defend it (per Kavanaugh's comment).
Tanya: "Due process, free speech, and the rule of law have also all been trampled under this administration."
I broadly disagree. I think all three have been strengthened, on balance. Significant reductions in the regulatory state improve access to due process and the rule of law (as opposed to arbitrary regulatory authority). Putting universities on notice that they can not engage in viewpoint discrimination is a huge boon for free speech. Ending and exposing the entirely sinister collusion between the previous administration and tech and media companies that led to censorship of reporting on COVID and various political issues is also a major gain for free speech, and something that wouldn't have happened without this administration's efforts.
Tanya: "I don’t think there’s an authoritarian switch that gets turned on and off, or even a bright dividing line. It’s more of a continuum.... We are somewhere along that continuum now and heading in the wrong direction."
I agree that it's a continuum. I think that, overall, we're going in the *right* direction.
I thought about debating all your points, but I don’t think I would change your mind. Your debating my points didn’t change mine, after all. I see flaws in your approach to things, not in your logic. Mainly it seems to me that you believe the current administration is operating in good faith, which to me seems like naivety. When someone’s words don’t match their actions it sets off my alarm bells, and they have been ringing loudly about Trump since 2015. I grew up in NYC while he was making a name for himself, and he was never known for being anything but a stupendously selfish, self aggrandizing, cheating, adulation chasing, spoiled, entitled richie rich. He hasn’t changed, but now he’s got half the country believing he cares about them and their lives, and about America, even though his every action points to where his true loyalties lie.
Just in the interest of education, because democracy lives or dies with voting, here are some facts about the limitations on voting you say seem like common sense to you. I hope you read this with an open mind and the realization that some people have great struggles and obstacles to overcome, but in this nation their vote is as precious and valuable as yours or mine. I see as suspect any attempt to fix a “problem” that many investigations and court cases have concluded simple does not exist, Republican lies about it notwithstanding.
>> "I thought about debating all your points, but I don’t think I would change your mind. Your debating my points didn’t change mine, after all."
I guess I don't see this as a debate -- at least, that's not my intention. Because you're right: people rarely change their minds, at least not immediately, based on a conversation. And that's probably good. You and I have reasons for believing what we believe, reasons rooted in our values, and it would be a little sad if those reasons were so poorly considered that we were willing to cast them aside easily.
I respond as I do because, too often, people hear only one side of the issues. Our media, entertainment, schools, and universities tend to favor one side, and I want people to know that there are reasonable people who don't agree with the dominant narrative on many issues.
So I'm not really interested in debate. I just want ALL of the viewpoints shared by tens of millions of Americans to get some exposure.
>> "Mainly it seems to me that you believe the current administration is operating in good faith..."
Tanya, I try to be careful NOT to ascribe motives to public figures. (I don't always succeed, of course.) We don't know what motivates others, whatever they say, and so I focus on the things that are done, rather than what I might imagine is the motivation.
I like a lot -- not all, but a lot -- of the things that are being done. I don't like many of the things that are being said and, as I said, I won't speculate about the motives. But I like a lot of the actions and results, and so I comment on those.
>> "Just in the interest of education..."
I've read the League of Women Voters commentary. I've read a lot on the topic from a variety of sources and perspectives. Like most Americans, I find the arguments in favor of requiring voter ID, tightened absentee-voting requirements, and an end to so-called ballot harvesting to be more compelling. I generally find the opposing arguments, such as those offered by the LWV, to be a mix of facile and patronizing. It seems obvious that democracy requires not only access to polls but careful checks on fraud, lest a vote become meaningless. In our effort to remove every inconvenience, we've sacrificed the basic checks needed to prevent fraud. We should accept some inconvenience to guarantee that every vote actually matters, and isn't canceled out by a fraudulent vote.
The idea of a MAGA shill like Elise in Albany is horrifying. No agenda except to deinigrate the opposition, no ideas to bring us forward and a denial of climate change, we are through the looking glass.
I wonder what Stefanik has to say about the antisemitism and the normalization of hate speech on the right, the most recent example of which are Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes?
She's waiting for Trumpty Dumpty to tell her what to say. Besides, she's constantly feeding her face at all those dinners she shares with Fuentes, Carlson, et. al. and too busy to comment.
Not like at all, but where to start. Jesus, Mary and Joseph....Stefanik is the personification of evil. Carrie Woerner is an impressive public servant. She serves her constituency, researches all aspects of an issue and steps up. Stefanik, on the other hand, is showing her true colors more forcefully than ever: racist, inhumane, power hungry, mean and one angry woman.
Isn't it fascinating how the angriest, most resentful people in the nation today are those who grew up in privileged households? To read the ferocity with which these people operate when issues like the safety net they cannot wait to get rid of is mentioned. It's as if they envy the poor who need SNAP, need ACA (remember, Romney started it in MA and Obama just picked up on it), increased taxes on the poor - there is a bracket starting at $1, if memory serve, while the voracious billionaire appetite for the promised $350,000 per billionaire individual each year (in perpetuity?). The crie de coeur to have so little demanded of you when you are part of the richest cohort on the face of the earth...much brainwashing went into that mindset and here we are 44 years after Reagan broke the unions which created the 20th century decades' growth of the middle class.
There was a tiktok or some kind of little video short where a guy went off on this topic
Listing how the magAholes have basically gotten everything they want (as in being able to be racist and their own racist platform = twitter) and yet all they do is whine and asking the question: "why are you so pissed off? what more do you want?"
RE: newspaper debt: Are non-profit newspapers feasible? Sounds like a direction I would want to go, now that advertising is less a factor (except online).
They put the Nazi symbol on the wrong political animal symbol. These days the Republicans have evolved into that symbol, and I am speaking as a former Republican. She and her ilk who have taken it over are the reason I left the party and am now a Registered Democrat.
Nailed it.....the "20's, not so different from now. Witness Trump's party over the weekend as people went hungry, immigrants targeted by ICE, fraud, corruption and a President and his buddies lining their pockets. Not to mention sex trafficking, predatorary behavior, lies and horrific abuse.
This has been the modus operandi of convicted felon Diaper Donny and his braindead adherents ever since the orange blob and his wife, wrestler The Undertaker, descended from the heavens at Trump Tower to initially proclaim himself America's savior. They simply cheat, break every law ...... the list of criminality is too long to write. Then, constantly accuse his opponents -- regardless of political persuasion -- of doing all the vile crap he and the cult carry out, accuse everyone else of antisemitism (fooling Jews everywhere just for their influential vote), cheat at every election (while denying he lost in 2020 -- to this day!!!), build a nationwide network of liars, criminals, cheaters, uneducated, traitorous gutter trash to spread the gospel. All and more capped off with requiring his DOJ to go after his high-profile opponents as a warning to everyone it could happen to them.
Every accusation is a confession.
Forgive me for repeating myself:
“...she had without exception the most stupid, vulgar, empty mind that he had ever encountered. She had not a thought in her head that was not a slogan, and there was no imbecility, absolutely none that she was not capable of swallowing if the Party handed it out to her. 'The human sound-track' he nicknamed her in his own mind.” - George Orwell, 1984
Evil exists, always has, always will. To see it is blatantly displayed is terrifying and sickening. We know what she is and to the lengths she will go to win. We'll have our work cut out for us.
While I'm an independent, I do urge all Democrats holding statewide office to investigate StefaniQ from the top of her sour puss to the grungy toes her sycophants kiss with fervor. No one rises to the top of the vile, evil food chain without all kinds of criminal activity. Nail her and the thugs hired to protect her. There can be no complaints that Dems are unfairly persecuting and prosecuting StefaniQ as the precedent has already been established by her Ayatollah who is siccing the DOJ, FBI, CIA, ICE, et. al. on his real and perceived opponents. BTW, prosecute the piss ants in state court, beyond the reach of horrendous pardons issued on the federal level by the Traitor-in-Chief.
See reply to Tom Labombard. It was meant to go here, by lo, I'm bleary eyed and too lazy to switch it. Thanks for the literary reference.
“…since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them…” Orwell/1984… Every high school student should be reading this book right now!
Yes. And then again.
Are you sure it hasn't been banned already?
Fantastic wide-ranging topics today.
Your preview of what to expect with Eli$e. Ugh. The projection, for one thing. Whatever rhetorician came up with extrapolating anti-Semitism to this new level (and a reminder it most recently roared out of the Gaza conflict with flair--so I think Netanyahu is in on it, quite sick) and this new "twist" is a verbal sociopathy, and that Eli$e not only embraced it but, again, was its mouthpiece at the House hearings where the three female university presidents sat like apples at a shooting range, is some new strange fruit. It all appears very contrived and strategic. and if I were Jewish, I would hope to feel some deep distrust at the whole endeavor coming out of the GOP.
It's the modern version of the lawyer trap "when did you stop beating your wife?" It puts the other side on defense immediately. But what a sad game of offense. Quite offensive.
Eli$e....good one!
Democrats have been on defense for a decade if not more.
Corbin Trent/America's Undoing - I've been subscribing for a while - worthwhile reading.
https://www.americasundoing.com/p/my-papaws-democrats-dominated?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=57821&post_id=177954808&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=b9ign&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
agree
Bringing the name calling, picture labels and "cutesy" slogans underlines how little Stefanik has to offer and highlights her willingness to sell her soul to the devil for money. It became apparent long ago that she sees Trump as THE way to achieve her goals, despite his failure to keep promises to her. The Republican party will throw obscene amounts of money at this election while showing the American people that money trumps reason, food insecurity, health insurance premiums, education, the Arts and the rule of law. Trump wants her as Governor as she will be the ultimate Stepford wife who delivers the PARDON he desires so he does not have to pay Stormy Daniels, nor Jean Carroll nor the victims of his fraud, nor New York State....as ordered by the court. We need to see accountability and Stefanik will deliver more corruption on behalf of Donald Trump as she wipes the slate clean in exchange for the governorship. They will stop at nothing. We, the voters of New York, must uphold the rule of law while making sure that the victims receive what is rightfully theirs.
Bullseye.
Nails it!
Excellent point. How awful!
Very insightful.
Perfectly stated. Elise is as offensive as Trump.
Holy crap! I hadn't thought about that whole pardon business if Little Miss Priss were to ever become governor. I felt comfortable knowing the state Assembly and Senate hold veto-proof power over her. Hochul, Delgado or anyone else who opposes her (maybe the male version of StefaniQ, King Andrew Cuomo, would give it another try) might want to start drawing up campaign materials that emphasize the pardon angle. That would get the Dem voters to the polls next year.
I think a NYS governor’s pardon power involves state criminal cases only, and doesn’t extend to state civil lawsuit liabilities.
So a future governor could, presumably, pardon Trump for his 34 felony convictions for falsifying business records regarding concealed payments to Stormy Daniels. But not for the civil liabilities that could eventually result from the business‑fraud civil case relating to property values or the E. Jean Carroll civil suits.
I think Trump is still appealing the felony convictions, even though he was sentenced to an unconditional discharge. And I believe he’s appealing the civil lawsuit awards.
OH. And I have an electric vehicle. It's a joy to drive past every gas station. No maintenance to speak of, no oil change necessary, no emissions. There is a learning curve with low temps and bigger draw on the battery that affects mileage, but the power of the thing is a tech marvel.
As a Michigander now, the whiplash of the Trump administration on the auto industry is devastating. Automakers here were embracing the new technology and were off to the races with design and production. The oil industry will have nothing of it, and here we are, ceding the next generation of transportation to the luddites of oil and handing a huge gift to China.
Add to the auto workers quandary (and backstabbing) all the jobs lost and money wasted as Trumpty Dumpty cancels land-based and offshore wind turbine projects.
My husband and I both have electric cars too! They are far and away superior to gas cars. I would never go back to driving one, and most people who drive an electric car say the same thing!
Good Election Day morning, all! Thank you Ken for doing painstaking sleuth work on stefanik's new campaign. It is certainly troubling and pathetic to think of people like our ghost congress person wasting resources to spread hatred and lies in the pursuit of our state's destruction. And here I thought that living in New York would be a shield against the maga madness. Ken, I hope you share this information with Governor Hochul's team. Not everyone follows stefanik the way you do. When I share news like this one Facebook with friends in NY City and Long Island (where I moved from four years ago), they tell me they hadn't heard about it. Last year, it was the ERA. This coming year, we have to let New Yorkers all around the state know what kind of misfit stefanik is to be anywhere near a public servant post. She has to lose both, the gubernatorial race and her seat in Congress. Let's all get out and vote today. Go 💙!!!
*on Facebook.
By the way, I shared the North Country's NPR report about Proposition 1 (on today's ballot) this weekend. Got comments that it was news to them. I am supporting it, and so are my downstate friends.
It seems like a no-brainer to support it to me.
It's really just a "housekeeping" chore since the land below the Mt. Van Hovenberg facility has already been cleared to make way for expansion. But I admit that heads should roll for doing such work without proper permission and permits.
You should read the absolute trash written about the proposition on one of the very few social media sites I use, Nextdoor. Political topics are supposed to be off limits. but the uneducated, willfully ignorant and purposefully obstinate are all over the platform, replete with their conspiracy theories and lies. They can't even bother to read even one article or watch one newscast that clearly explained the issue, they simply connect it to Hochul and state government -- therefore, it's a conspiracy against them.
You said it, the uneducated. I point my index finger at Reagan, who cut tbe federal education budget to give tax cuts to the wealthy and, at the same time, accelerated defense spending to fight the cold war. This time around seems worse. 🤬
An “all electric” Adirondack is commendable but unrealistic at this time. The infrastructure is a decade away. Unfortunately it’s the same on a national scope. And with big Tec gobbling up the grid for AI, it could be longer. That’s also why Hochul’s electric dream needs to be gradual and and realistic
There are challenges ahead. If there is willpower to conquer those challenges, the benefits are enormous. Or we could go back to burning coal.
"...DeGrasse has a long history as an attack dog for Stefanik." -Wait! What? The attack dog has- an attack dog?? Of course, she does- these kind of people mean MEAN [and Cruel] "business": it's the only kind of business they are capable of [they (seem to) live for it] / [Respectfully, I, for one, do not need to be advised to worry- and I am confident that: no one here is not]...
With apologies to attack dogs.
Yes, indeed, absolutely!
"Wait! What? The attack dog has- an attack dog?? " Brilliant!
"Rep. Elise Stefanik is absolutely running for governor and it is going to be a cruel, evil and abusive campaign that will leave the entire state disgusted."
There has been a lot written about both political parties over the decades — Republican and Democratic. And yes, our political parties are flawed. Our politics are flawed. Our public policies are flawed, along with our government.
But for the most part, I vote Democratic.
Why?
The Democratic Party, to me, has always had a heart. To care about peoples’ well-being. To care about the vulnerable. And to promote public policies to put these values into effect, however flawed.
The Republican Party never seemed to me to have a heart. And this is more true today than ever.
-entirely agree...
Republicans always seemed more ruthless, more of a bully.
and to be honest - and how every evil it is - have a plan.. project 2025
It’s ironic that someone who’s “written” a book about anti-Semitism on college will get so much support from Hitler-loving Republican Youth. I’m sure a vast majority of NYC voters are aware of this discrepancy.
Not sure the effort by Republicans to prevent Zohran Mamdani from taking office if he’s elected is a big plus either. She should really lean in to Trump’s endorsement. I’m sure that’s gonna help Cuomo.
Cuomo was asked about it on the Ebro In The Morning show in NYC today. Ebro: “Your boy was just on 60 Minutes, Cuomo, saying that you’re his guy! Cuomo: No. Ebro: Trump said you’re his candidate. Cuomo: (Hangs up). Co-host: I heard a click. Wow. OK. Oh well.”
With people like Stephen Miller at the helm, the cruelty is and will be the point of Republican policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlKDQ3fwI5w
'some more news' is one of the best vids out there
On electric vehicles my biggest question besides charging stations (and cost/difficulty of setting up home charging) is how the winter cold impacts the battery and range. My hybrid gets way less mileage in winter and I don’t buy the story that it’s just more ethanol in the gasoline.
All vehicles lose efficiency in colder weather.
Internal combustion engines have a “benefit” that they are ALWAYS less efficient than electric motors, generating large excess of heat which in the winter is easily used to heat the passenger cabin, defrost the windshield, etc, while electric vehicles need to use battery power to warm the cabin, defrost the windows, dehumidify the cabin, and to keep the battery warm ish.
So you will lose battery life quicker in the winter. You can help that a little by wearing warmer clothes in your car, try to prevent excess snow or moisture from entering the passenger cabin, turn off accessories that you don’t need.
It makes me laugh when people with gas or diesel vehicles who run them for 5 or 10 minutes to warm up then drive to Stewart’s and leave them running while they get their coffee scoff at the fact that electric vehicles lose range in the winter.
Most people drive maybe a dozen miles a day. Even if you drive 100 miles a day chances are you drive 50, have a chance to charge for a bit, then drive another 50 miles home. Generally not a problem for a full electric vehicle.
Getting older it's not tolerable to just say I'll put more clothes on. Thanks for your comment though.
My EV has heated seats and a heated steering wheel, both with three levels of output. I typically can be comfortable in the cold with just the steering wheel heated at the first lowest level, what a luxury. And once these are heated, I often turn them off as I'm close to my destination as the heat remains. The conservation is a fun challenge, but my comfort is not compromised.
There is no necessity in being uncomfortable, but there is a cost in mileage. If you aren’t driving long distances the difference in range is probably not a problem, and your comfort is less expensive to the environment in an electric vehicle. The cost is likely pennies a day.
I have looked at this page.
While it is not an *officially* sanctioned media outlet of her campaign, it's not off base with its messaging as this is based off of her own Elise Stefanik social media . Whoever runs that puts down disgusting propoganda similar to this.
Bear in mind Karoline Leavitt used to run her social media during Congressional campaigns.
I'd like to think she won't get anywhere - but my fear is a Delgado/Hochul split which could help Stefanik.
There are a lot of variables here which might give Stefanik a chance.
Gads, please...NO.
I also tire of the grotesque memes, irresponsible bandying about of hyperbolic accusations, and tired invocation of Hitlerian references. I think John Fetterman (D-PA) was correct when he observed that all the talk of Nazis and Fascists and Hitler was divisive and unhealthy and should stop.
But when it goes on long enough, when "fascist" and "end of democracy" and "dictator" are terms thrown around every day by high-ranking politicians and mainstream reporters who should know better, then ugly and ignorant invective begins to seem normal to too many people.
We are a divided nation, but that isn't new: people value different things, and there's always been a tension between what we call, perhaps a bit too casually and imprecisely, the "left" and the "right." I remember a time, a few decades ago, when there was more political violence, more assassinations, and greater social unrest than there is today. We survived that, and we can survive this moment as well.
I'd suggest we all agree to speak a little more responsibly. No, we aren't facing the "end of democracy." No, we are not a "fascist" nation. No, none of our national leaders are "literally Hitler," nor Hitler in any meaningful figurative sense. We don't live in a totalitarian state, nor a dictatorship, nor do we have a king. There are, so far as I know, no prominent communists in either party, and very few who embrace socialism by that name.
We should spend less time in sweeping and inaccurate condemnation, and more time talking about specific issues with as much mutual respect as we can muster, trying to reach, if not agreement, then at least understanding.
We may not be totalitarian yet, but we are absolutely authoritarian now under Trump’s rule:
Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law. Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic and may be based upon the rule of a party, the military, or the concentration of power in a single person. States that have a blurred boundary between democracy and authoritarianism have sometimes been characterized as "hybrid democracies", "hybrid regimes" or "competitive authoritarian" states. Wikipedia
Hi Tonya. Thank you for a very civil reply. This is the kind of measured speech that I think is necessary if we’re ever going to understand each other.
I don’t agree with you that this administration is particularly authoritarian. Nor do I agree with every aspect of the definition of authoritarian that you offered.
Ours is a government of checks and balances achieved by having the three branches of government in tension with each other. The fact that the courts strike down some executive actions and that the president complies with the courts suggests that those checks are functioning.
Even the current government shut down is a demonstration of that. Republicans would like the continuing resolution to be passed, but they need a supermajority to achieve that. The Democrats, even though they are not a majority in either house, are able to maintain the shutdown despite the president and Republicans wishing that government be reopened. That’s further demonstration that our system of checks and balances is working.
The courts ordered that partial SNAP payments be made, and so that will undoubtedly happen.
You and I disagree about the degree to which our nation is currently an authoritarian regime. We would probably understand each other better if we went point by point through our arguments for and against that proposition.
In any case, again, I appreciate that your response was cordial and thoughtful.
You may not agree with every aspect of that definition of authoritarian government, but the current administration checks all the boxes in it. Which ones do you find objectionable? We have a reduction in democracy because they have made it harder to vote in many places, and want to make it even harder. Separation of powers? We have a supine, spineless Republican Congress who have pretty much abdicated any meaningful oversight of the executive branch, and a Supreme court who basically told him he has a get out of jail free card. They maybe don’t rule in his favor on some cases, but for the most part “his” judges, as Trump calls them, are toeing the line as well. Which brings me to civil liberties. The Supreme Court said it was OK to round up people because of the way they look, and American citizens have been targeted and abused with their stamp of approval. Due process, free speech, and the rule of law have also all been trampled under this administration.
I don’t think there’s an authoritarian switch that gets turned on and off, or even a bright dividing line. It’s more of a continuum, going from a free society to one where freedom is an illusion. We are somewhere along that continuum now and heading in the wrong direction.
Tanya, thanks for the comment.
You asked with which aspects of your definition of "authoritarianism" I disagreed. I went back and re-read your comment, and realized that I must have misremembered it when writing my reply. (What I get for trying to respond from my phone, I guess.) In fact, I think you gave a pretty good description of authoritarianism. So let me acknowledge my error: I *do* agree with your definition of authoritarianism.
I don't agree that this administration fits the definition. Let me respond to your most recent comment in detail.
Tanya: "We have a reduction in democracy because they have made it harder to vote in many places, and want to make it even harder."
I don't think this is a "reduction in democracy." Rather, I think reasonable efforts to make elections more secure *strengthens* our democracy. It seems to me to be common sense that voters should have to present ID; that mail-in/absentee balloting should be significantly limited; and that voting should be restricted to a fairly narrow window around election day. I think the arguments commonly made for all of these are good ones. In contrast, I think the claim that any of these significantly reduce legitimate voting tend to be unrealistic and, often, patronizing to minorities.
Tanya: "Separation of powers? We have a supine, spineless Republican Congress who have pretty much abdicated any meaningful oversight of the executive branch, and a Supreme court who basically told him he has a get out of jail free card."
You're right that Congress is highly partisan, tending to vote along party lines. That's true under Democratic administrations as well as Republican administrations. Obama's ACA passed with zero House Republicans supporting it; Trump's Big Beautiful Bill passed with zero House Democrats supporting it. You're also right that Congress is spineless, and, again, that applies to both parties. (Democratic lawmakers are on record as saying that they'd like to end the current shutdown, but they're afraid that the more radical elements of their base will primary them if they do.) Such fecklessness isn't Trump-specific: it's how our gutless Congress operates.
Meanwhile, the government remains shut down despite the President wishing to reopen it precisely because the separation of powers still functions.
Tanya: "[The Supreme Court judges] maybe don’t rule in his favor on some cases, but for the most part “his” judges, as Trump calls them, are toeing the line as well."
As with the discussion of democracy, above, this is one of those cases where you and I may have different perspectives and so interpret the same events differently. I think the Supreme Court has tended to rule in favor of Trump because it's tending to take sound Constitutional positions, and doing so because we have originalist judges who have what I believe is a sensible understanding of Constitutional jurisprudence. The fact that Trump calls them "his" judges is irrelevant: I could as easily call them "my" judges, since they're defending "my" Constitution. And yes, as you point out, they don't support Trump in every instance.
Tanya: "The Supreme Court said it was OK to round up people because of the way they look..."
What the Supreme Court did was issue a temporary stay of a lower court ruling. The Supreme Court took the position that ICE could include ethnicity as one factor when establishing probable cause. To quote Justice Kavanaugh: "To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors."
I will admit that I'm uncomfortable with any consideration of race by any government agency. That's why I oppose DEI, race-based admissions programs, etc. If ICE is going to include ethnicity as a component of its probable cause analysis, I'd like it to be closely monitored.
There's a difference between people being "rounded up" and people being questioned. There's also a difference between people who are in the company of a bunch of illegal alien workers being detained along with them -- something that tends to happen in law enforcement -- and random individuals on the street being detained. In the first instance, a reasonable argument can be made for ethnicity being a consideration given the presence of other factors; in the second case, that's a difficult position to defend, given the absence of other factors, and the Supreme Court wisely didn't defend it (per Kavanaugh's comment).
Tanya: "Due process, free speech, and the rule of law have also all been trampled under this administration."
I broadly disagree. I think all three have been strengthened, on balance. Significant reductions in the regulatory state improve access to due process and the rule of law (as opposed to arbitrary regulatory authority). Putting universities on notice that they can not engage in viewpoint discrimination is a huge boon for free speech. Ending and exposing the entirely sinister collusion between the previous administration and tech and media companies that led to censorship of reporting on COVID and various political issues is also a major gain for free speech, and something that wouldn't have happened without this administration's efforts.
Tanya: "I don’t think there’s an authoritarian switch that gets turned on and off, or even a bright dividing line. It’s more of a continuum.... We are somewhere along that continuum now and heading in the wrong direction."
I agree that it's a continuum. I think that, overall, we're going in the *right* direction.
Again, thanks for the civil discussion.
Hank
I thought about debating all your points, but I don’t think I would change your mind. Your debating my points didn’t change mine, after all. I see flaws in your approach to things, not in your logic. Mainly it seems to me that you believe the current administration is operating in good faith, which to me seems like naivety. When someone’s words don’t match their actions it sets off my alarm bells, and they have been ringing loudly about Trump since 2015. I grew up in NYC while he was making a name for himself, and he was never known for being anything but a stupendously selfish, self aggrandizing, cheating, adulation chasing, spoiled, entitled richie rich. He hasn’t changed, but now he’s got half the country believing he cares about them and their lives, and about America, even though his every action points to where his true loyalties lie.
Just in the interest of education, because democracy lives or dies with voting, here are some facts about the limitations on voting you say seem like common sense to you. I hope you read this with an open mind and the realization that some people have great struggles and obstacles to overcome, but in this nation their vote is as precious and valuable as yours or mine. I see as suspect any attempt to fix a “problem” that many investigations and court cases have concluded simple does not exist, Republican lies about it notwithstanding.
https://www.lwv.org/blog/common-voting-restrictions-are-more-harmful-you-might-think
Hi Tanya,
Again, thanks for responding.
>> "I thought about debating all your points, but I don’t think I would change your mind. Your debating my points didn’t change mine, after all."
I guess I don't see this as a debate -- at least, that's not my intention. Because you're right: people rarely change their minds, at least not immediately, based on a conversation. And that's probably good. You and I have reasons for believing what we believe, reasons rooted in our values, and it would be a little sad if those reasons were so poorly considered that we were willing to cast them aside easily.
I respond as I do because, too often, people hear only one side of the issues. Our media, entertainment, schools, and universities tend to favor one side, and I want people to know that there are reasonable people who don't agree with the dominant narrative on many issues.
So I'm not really interested in debate. I just want ALL of the viewpoints shared by tens of millions of Americans to get some exposure.
>> "Mainly it seems to me that you believe the current administration is operating in good faith..."
Tanya, I try to be careful NOT to ascribe motives to public figures. (I don't always succeed, of course.) We don't know what motivates others, whatever they say, and so I focus on the things that are done, rather than what I might imagine is the motivation.
I like a lot -- not all, but a lot -- of the things that are being done. I don't like many of the things that are being said and, as I said, I won't speculate about the motives. But I like a lot of the actions and results, and so I comment on those.
>> "Just in the interest of education..."
I've read the League of Women Voters commentary. I've read a lot on the topic from a variety of sources and perspectives. Like most Americans, I find the arguments in favor of requiring voter ID, tightened absentee-voting requirements, and an end to so-called ballot harvesting to be more compelling. I generally find the opposing arguments, such as those offered by the LWV, to be a mix of facile and patronizing. It seems obvious that democracy requires not only access to polls but careful checks on fraud, lest a vote become meaningless. In our effort to remove every inconvenience, we've sacrificed the basic checks needed to prevent fraud. We should accept some inconvenience to guarantee that every vote actually matters, and isn't canceled out by a fraudulent vote.
Hank
The idea of a MAGA shill like Elise in Albany is horrifying. No agenda except to deinigrate the opposition, no ideas to bring us forward and a denial of climate change, we are through the looking glass.
I wonder what Stefanik has to say about the antisemitism and the normalization of hate speech on the right, the most recent example of which are Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes?
Absolutely nothing, I’m sure.
She's waiting for Trumpty Dumpty to tell her what to say. Besides, she's constantly feeding her face at all those dinners she shares with Fuentes, Carlson, et. al. and too busy to comment.
STEFANIK/SICKNICK
Not like at all, but where to start. Jesus, Mary and Joseph....Stefanik is the personification of evil. Carrie Woerner is an impressive public servant. She serves her constituency, researches all aspects of an issue and steps up. Stefanik, on the other hand, is showing her true colors more forcefully than ever: racist, inhumane, power hungry, mean and one angry woman.
Isn't it fascinating how the angriest, most resentful people in the nation today are those who grew up in privileged households? To read the ferocity with which these people operate when issues like the safety net they cannot wait to get rid of is mentioned. It's as if they envy the poor who need SNAP, need ACA (remember, Romney started it in MA and Obama just picked up on it), increased taxes on the poor - there is a bracket starting at $1, if memory serve, while the voracious billionaire appetite for the promised $350,000 per billionaire individual each year (in perpetuity?). The crie de coeur to have so little demanded of you when you are part of the richest cohort on the face of the earth...much brainwashing went into that mindset and here we are 44 years after Reagan broke the unions which created the 20th century decades' growth of the middle class.
There was a tiktok or some kind of little video short where a guy went off on this topic
Listing how the magAholes have basically gotten everything they want (as in being able to be racist and their own racist platform = twitter) and yet all they do is whine and asking the question: "why are you so pissed off? what more do you want?"
RE: newspaper debt: Are non-profit newspapers feasible? Sounds like a direction I would want to go, now that advertising is less a factor (except online).
The non-profit question is still not a proven business model.
Exactly. And more's the pity.