>it’s 2002
>the president and his allies are making a fallacious, dishonest case to the public and passing a war resolution through congress based on lies
>it’s 2026
>we went to war because the president felt it in his bonespurs
We are a nation of 349M, yet one man decided to launch our nation into a reckless, illegal war without congressional authorization or counsel or the support of the American people. He didn’t think he had any duty to sell it or serve the people’s interests. This is why despotic rule is so dangerous.
You never know when your vote is gonna be the “one vote.” Vote in primaries. Vote in special elections. Vote in November.
Boa analogia. Acho que muitas vezes o fato de escolher um lado leva a dificuldade identificando abusos quando vêm do “lado de bom” que foi escolhido. Pra quem toma o lado de Putin contra EUA (contra EUA eu entendo, pro-Putin não), qualquer agressão da Rússia pode ser justificada.
Video is here: bsky.app/profile/cont...
Isso mesmo. Depois de um ataque num lugar de culto, uma tentativa de matar pessoas enquanto estão rezando — é horrível ver respostas defendendo/justificando o ataque, em vez de condenação.
Another example would be the IDF itself, of course. Unshakable conviction in your own righteousness, utter certainty in the infallibility of your cause — even/especially when it’s a cause born of pain and suffering when you yourself were injured, wronged, or oppressed — are the ingredients of terror
The recent @contrapoints.bsky.social video, ostensibly about the Saw movies, was really about the human lust for cruelty and violence. Its thesis, as I understood it, was that zealous morality often functions as a rationalization of bloodlust, not a solution to it.
Case in point: this squirrel
Senator Tuberville on x writing a response to the @endwokeness account Original tweet from @EndWokeness - “less than 25 years apart” Image 1 - the twin towers as they are hit by a the planes on 9/11/2001 Image 2 - Mayor Mamdani sitting on a prayer rug while hosting an Iftar at city hall Quote tweet from Senator Tuberville - “the enemy is inside the gates.”
Let there be as much outrage from politicians in Washington when kids go hungry as there is when I break bread with New Yorkers.
Listen to what Abdul El-Sayed says here about how hard it is to end cycles of violence, how brave and strong we have to be to meet hatred with love.
Humans are capable of rising above these cycles. We have done it before and we will do it again.
That hope matters most in the darkest times.
Reflecting on the attack at Temple Israel.
It’s tricky to ask people to be less self-righteous. That ask is in itself kind of a moral prescription (“be less x”), so how can you convey it without sounding like a scold yourself?
Natalie, to me, pulls it off. With gentleness, curiosity, humor, subtlety.
Thanks for a good vid as always, Nat!
Good to know. I stand with Michigan. AIPAC @AIPAC• 17h Thank you @RepHaleyStevens for standing with Israel, our democratic
Slam dunk
I’m not okay with nazi bullshit and neither is Platner. I know that, which is good enough for me. Being judged forever by random posters on bluesky doesn’t really bother me.
Do you mean Katz, or Platner? Katz is Jewish, Platner isn’t.
I don’t really think it does. Katz was an advisor to Mamdani before he was an advisor to Platner. He supports Platner so much he went to work for him.
I understand you’re upset and o don’t really care. My goal of bringing the Mamdani/Platner overlap to bluesky’s attention is served by this.
Indeed I am, and I'm glad you pointed it out. The overlap between these two campaigns seems to me like something bluesky should be aware of with its conflicting consensuses that the Mamdani campaign was brilliant and inspiring (I agree), and that only idiots and/or nazis support Platner (I disagree)
He's both! He spends most of this interview talking about Mamdani, as you can see in the quoted post — whole interview, here, is worth a listen.
Whole interview was a nice listen. It's here if you're interested.
Read Katz talking about his candidate Mamdani here, and ask yourself whether you think this man is an idiot or a nazi. I think this man is pretty transparently not an idiot and not a nazi.
And he's a passionate supporter of Graham Platner. Whose supporters are mostly not idiots or nazis.
MILLER: I want to offer a tweet that I saw about Graham. They wrote this: “Graham accidentally got a nazi tattoo, accidentally took friendly photos with a guy in a nazi shirt, accidentally reposted Stew Peters, and accidentally sat for an interview with a guy who spread antisemitic conspiracy theories he’s a long time fan of. That’s a little concerning.” What would your reaction to that be? KATZ: Gavin Newsom did interviews with Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk. For whatever my criticisms are of Gavin Newsom, I don’t think Gavin Newsom is a secret far-right operative. On the interview outreach component, we’re talking about a combination of people where he does dozens of interviews a week. The goal is to reach every single person as much as possible. And that’s not to say that maybe there should be more selective processes of who interviews what. But a lot of the same people who are like “Kamala should have gone on Rogan!” also can’t believe Graham Platner sat down for this. It’s like, pick a lane. I’m fine with whatever your fucking lane is, but have some consistency on: do we have an obligation to go everywhere and talk to everyone and reach people who are leaving the party en masse, or do we not? And on the tattoo, Graham’s talked about it ad nauseam. The two most compelling things that I can share are: 1) shooting the launch video. I’m Jewish, I have a Star of David tattoo right here. I saw Graham Platner change shirts 8 times during the launch video, feet away from him. Good looking guy, and also, I don’t think he’d be doing that in front of his Jewish senior advisor if he was aware of the nazi tattoo. (2) You talk to anyone in the military and they’re like, “everyone’s got different skull and crossbones tattoos.” It’s like all the signs and the military stuff. ...
Top Mamdani advisor Katz, same interview: “I’m Jewish, I have a Star of David tattoo right here. I saw Graham Platner change shirts 8 times during the launch video. Good looking guy, and also, I don’t think he’d be doing that in front of his Jewish senior advisor if he was aware of the nazi tattoo.”
Top Mamdani advisor Morris Katz, in the same interview: “Voters are resonating with Graham Platner in a way that is incredibly rare and unique. He has the ability to go directly at Susan Collins in a way that’s kind of the ideal matchup.”
![MILLER: The question of Israel was strangely central in the New York mayor’s race. My podcast contributed to that a little bit when I asked Zohran about “globalize the intifada.” I thought one of his best answers in the debate was when they asked about who’s going to visit Israel and everybody else was like, “I will” and Zohran was like “I’m just going to stay in New York, I’m not planning any trips.” You’re Jewish, how did you navigate that becoming so central to this race, where Zohran’s strong position on the Gaza war ends up making this New York mayor’s race partly about these other issues?
KATZ: The mayor, when asked about this stuff, was always honest and direct with where he is in his position, and has a long record of being outspoken on this issue. But we held zero press conferences being like “we, running for mayor of New York City, want to talk about what’s happening in Gaza.” He’d be asked about it, he’d comment, there are things he’d call out on social media that were clear. But it was really the Cuomo campaign, and some of the other mainstream media and others, that were obsessed with this issue. […] That debate moment to me was indicative of the campaign in its entirety. You have Andrew Cuomo and a handful of people screaming from the rooftops “well this guy is calling it a genocide.” And then you have the voters of New York being like, “well yeah, it seems like a genocide, and also why are you talking about it so much?”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:smd6tzooghc25bhh3foujqe6/bafkreiftx6bpus6axdlnaiq6ubrf43h5bymc2efz77fnjjjtld5w3rphii)
MILLER: The question of Israel was strangely central in the New York mayor’s race. My podcast contributed to that a little bit when I asked Zohran about “globalize the intifada.” I thought one of his best answers in the debate was when they asked about who’s going to visit Israel and everybody else was like, “I will” and Zohran was like “I’m just going to stay in New York, I’m not planning any trips.” You’re Jewish, how did you navigate that becoming so central to this race, where Zohran’s strong position on the Gaza war ends up making this New York mayor’s race partly about these other issues? KATZ: The mayor, when asked about this stuff, was always honest and direct with where he is in his position, and has a long record of being outspoken on this issue. But we held zero press conferences being like “we, running for mayor of New York City, want to talk about what’s happening in Gaza.” He’d be asked about it, he’d comment, there are things he’d call out on social media that were clear. But it was really the Cuomo campaign, and some of the other mainstream media and others, that were obsessed with this issue. […] That debate moment to me was indicative of the campaign in its entirety. You have Andrew Cuomo and a handful of people screaming from the rooftops “well this guy is calling it a genocide.” And then you have the voters of New York being like, “well yeah, it seems like a genocide, and also why are you talking about it so much?”
Top Mamdani advisor Morris Katz, on why Israel-Palestine was so heavily discussed in the NYC mayoral primary: “it was really the Cuomo campaign, and some of the other mainstream media and others, that were obsessed with this issue.”
Jasmine Crockett concedes to James Talarico this morning: “With the primary behind us, Democrats must rally around our nominee. I'm committed to doing my part and will continue working to elect Democrats up and down the ballot." #TxSen
I've seen enough: James Talarico (D) wins the #TXSEN Dem primary.
exactly. vote your conscience in the primary. vote for the least bad option in the general.
I'm a man in a monogamous relationship with another man. Neither one of us is controlling the other. We mutually commit to reserve one specific kind of affection for each other.
I know we're in the minority of gay men for choosing this. That's fine — it's something we both agree is worthwhile.
Phrasing it this way makes it sound like a one-way demand, which is an unfair description of monogamy imo. It's a mutual commitment to only have sex with each other.
