All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Tendrin]

A shocking new poll finds that a convincing majority of Republicans believe a bizarre conspiracy theory that undergirds the QAnon movement and inspired an attack in Washington, DC.

Respondents to a The Economist/YouGov poll published this week were asked to rate the truth of several conspiracy theories, including the false claim that “Top Democrats are involved in elite child sex-trafficking rings.”

That claim inspired a gunman to attack a pizzeria in Washington, DC and is a central tenet of the QAnon following.

While most Americans don’t believe that statement to be true, among Republican respondents, 52 percent said it’s either “Definitely true” (20%) or “Probably true” (32%) that “Top Democrats are involved in elite child sex-trafficking rings.”

This is ... not ... good.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...7ee5766540b339

[Mister Mets]

I'll note that Mets didn't respond to this in responding to me, though he seems to have been saying it once was Trans Women > Trans Men but the carrot has flipped at an unspecified time. That this is just supposed to be accepted without question to the point of mentioning it's a well known feature is involved too.

I was pretty clear that there has been an increase in people raised as girls identifying as trans. I am agnostic on the question of whether they now outnumber people raised as boys who identify as trans.

Here are some earlier posts in which I responded on that question and/ or provided evidence about an increase in females identifying as trans...

There are two separate concepts.
"There is a significant increase in females identifying as trans, rather than males."
"Young females transition at a rate FAR more than young males."
I can show evidence for #1, which is a well-documented phenomenon. I haven't argued #2.
The increase in females identifying as trans is what I was looking at.
It used to be that there were significantly more out trans men than trans women; it's possible for there to still be more trans women transitioning, even if there is an increase in trans men. It'd be like there would still be a big scientific question if there was an increase in men developing breast cancer, even if women still more likely to develop it.

The fact of an increase is still widely known and not controversial. I wonder if one reason for disagreements on this topic is that I'm familiar with information many of you aren't aware of.

The study was mentioned in an article in the Week.

https://theweek.com/life/1006253/the...er-trans-teens

It is actually relevant that there is a significant increase in females identifying as trans, rather than males. It's a widely known feature, and explains the subtitle and emphasis of Abigail Shrier's book.



Terminology very quickly gets confusing here. I would use terms like boy, girl, man and woman to refer to gender, while male and female refer to sex. Your comment about there being "no mention of if boys are similarly increasing in numbers" is technically inappropriate, as you seem to be asking about people born male, whereas in this context boys would refer to anyone who sees themselves that way.

It is possible that the entire increase of young adults and minors identifying as trans is exclusively due to greater acceptance, that 99 out of 100 (this number may be a bit low if there are still closeted trans people out there) trans boys didn't have the right guidance and support in 2008.

In the above post I did mention trans boys, but this does not mean people who identify as agender (for example) are not trans.

There are some sudden recent changes. One major statistic is that in surveys by the American College Health Association, the number of students brought up as girls identifying as transgender soared from 1 in 2,000 in 2008 to 1 in 20. You're going to have different responses to those changes depending on your earlier understanding on politics and culture.

[Mister Mets]

The Republican Party never wanted Colin Powell to be President. They wanted him to run so they could claim not to be racist. But they didn't want him to actually win any more than they ever wanted Herman Cain or Dr. Ben Carson to win.

Most of them would have been happy with him winning because they preferred him to Clinton.

If he ran and lost the primary, it wouldn't help on allegations of racism.

They would have been happier with Herman Cain or Ben Carson in the White House because they were more conservative.

And, I must point out, the *only* reason we're on this subject is because of the claimed 'spike' in trans masculine identity which *doesn't frigging exist* and has been shown not to exist multiple times now, thus disproving the entire thesis of Abigal Shrier's book. Are we now onto 'there are too many transwomen'?

Even if someone has an exclusionary view and only considers trans men and trans women to be trans, which is not the understanding of GLAAD, there is a spike in trans masculine identity.

While looking up sources on this question, I found another one that clarifies that it is not limited to trans men: health.com

What does transmasculine mean? If you identify as transmasculine (transmasc for short), you were assigned female at birth and your gender identity and/or expression is masculine—but not necessarily male.

“This term includes non-binary people, gender fluid people, genderqueer people—anyone assigned female at birth whose gender falls in the more masculine range,” Jo Eckler, PsyD, licensed clinical psychologist based in Texas and author of I Can't Fix You—Because You're Not Broken, tells Health. Trans men, gender nonconforming individuals (GNC), and non-binary people may also identify as transmasculine.

It’s important to note the distinction between a trans man and transmasculine. “The term transgender is often used as an umbrella term that encompasses anyone who does not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth,” Eckler says. “So trans men and transmasculine people are both transgender.”

A 2016 UCLA survey had a similar definition.

If the interviewer is asked for a definition of transgender, they respond: Some people describe themselves as transgender when they experience a different gender identity from their sex at birth. For example, a person born into a male body, but who feels female or lives as a woman would be transgender. Some transgender people change their physical appearance so that it matches their internal gender identity. Some transgender people take hormones and some have surgery. A transgender person may be of any sexual orientation – straight, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

But here are a bunch of studies showing an increase in the number of people who identify as trans.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5227946/

A different study concluded "Consistent with many reports, we are seeing an increasing number of gender dysphoric individuals seeking hormonal therapy. The age at initiation has been dropping over the past 25 years, and we have seen a steady increase in the number of FTM such that the incidence now equals that of MTF."

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/trgh.2019.0070

[Dalak]

Thank you for finally linking it. The change to the nature of the question and the inclusion of gender non-conformance explains much. This was pointed out last time.

Here's the actual breakdown.

7C) Which term do you use to describe your gender identity?
Trans/Gender
Cis Men Cis Women Non-conforming Total
Freq. Pct. Freq. Pct. Freq. Pct. Freq. Pct.
1 Woman or female 56.5
2 Man or male 39.4
3 Trans woman 0.2
4 Trans man 0.3
5 Genderqueer 0.5
6 My identity is not listed 0.5
7 Agender 0.3
8 Genderfluid 0.5
9 Non-binary 1.9
10 Intersex 0.0
Valid responses = 12

In other words, once again, the statistics do not bear out the breathless fear of conservatives who want us to protect white womanhood. That's what this is really about, after all.

There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding here.

When you say, "3.7% of the 4.2%," I don't know what you're referring to.

The phrase "students brought up as girls" is used to describe people who were assigned female at birth.

Only .5% of the 4.2% not identifying as a specific gender have any sort of biology tied to their answers, and the quote assumes they are all female aka girls identifying as transgender. Thus the interpretation is a lie.

I'm unaware of any indication that the prostitutes Vitter engaged were victims of trafficking or sexual slavery. If this were the case, it's no longer a situation involving consenting adults.

I do want to note you brought up the phrase "sexual deviance." I'm trying to use it in a neutral and non-judgmental way to discuss sexual practices that are not shared by a majority of the population. What is the percentage of the population that has to act a particular way for it to no longer be considered deviance?

As this is a distraction from the point that being Gay isn't abnormal and treating them with respect shouldn't be objected to, I'm going to stop responding.

You have not accurately summarized the parties, although that will likely be another tangent.

My main objection to Democrats when it comes to morality is that it's so self-serving. They tried to push out Governor Northam, until they realized that it might lead to a Republican taking over. They made limited efforts to push out Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax when multiple women accused him of rape and sexual harassment. They make claims about the need to have independent redistricting commissions, but the overwhelming majority of Virginia state legislators changed their policy preferences when they briefly gained unified control. And this hypocrisy is just in one state.

All of this matters if you think that Democrats are suddenly going to flip and subvert Democracy and enforce some sort of alternate sexuality on our kids or other nonsense aka ridiculous exaggeration. However if I've made a statement that's too far from the truth in what you replied to here please point it out and we can discuss it, because so far you have brought up very little to disprove the blatant and horrible actions of GoP members defended by other GoP members & the Conservative press.

You have asked me who I preferred. I guess I got a bit confused since I've answered who I voted for several posts ago. As a recap, it's been sometimes Democrats, sometimes Republicans, and I don't always remember because the races tend not to be close.

I do think Rick Scott and Elizabeth Warren are roughly similar as Senators in positions of power.

I very explicitly did not, and if you think so I'd like to see the quote. I've been pretty adamant about the goalpost being who you support and vote for.

The difference between 1 in 20 and 1 in 25 is not that relevant, especially when considering that we're looking at an increasee from much lower numbers (1 in 2,000) several years ago.

And I don't believe that it's as big a jump as you are portraying as you are only repeating misinformation and defending it despite it being clearly wrong. The difference in questioning and the changes in public opinion in the last 20 years can explain much of any increase in self-reporting.

There seems to be a subtext that people who are genderfluid or non-binary or agender do not count as trans. I'm going with the definition used by the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD and the American Psychological Association.

They don't all count as biologically female, especially the trans women included in the figure which is quoting them all as female and rounding up from 4%. You are using every attempt to defend this quote that's so obviously wrong that it's becoming worrying.

What private organizations do is a different question as they rely on private donations. However it stands to reason that deeply religious left-wing politicians will be influenced by their faith in decisions involving spending.

The limiting factor does suggest some flexibility for religious individuals in ways they don't have now. For example, it would allow teachers to hold voluntary prayer services in schools.

They already do on many campuses, and you were asking how if it was different if a left wing religious elected official wanted to increase spending to feed the poor so I provided an example that was simple and didn't infringe on anyone's rights. You so far have been unable to provide one about the right wing religious individual against Evolution and Abortion.

I can agree with this, but I'm still concerned about the fact-checker. If Congress were to pass these policies in the next few years, and Trump wins again with bigger Republican majorities in congress than ever, it can be abused in ways you would not appreciate.

For example, a corrupt factchecker could try to force Democrats to admit uncomfortable things, while replacing embarrassing and careless Republicans with more disciplined alternatives.

If this corrupt factchecker is being false when there is a requirement to show the evidence while fact checking then it will come out sooner than later and thus they are proved wrong, punished for it, and discredited along with all their claims. This is not as abusable as you are going on about. I don't see how a factchecker can force anyone to answer questions as their job is to ensure that what IS said is true - Making them answer questions is a reporter's job. I also don't see how any factchecker can replace republican officeholders.

I was pretty clear that there has been an increase in people raised as girls identifying as trans. I am agnostic on the question of whether they now outnumber people raised as boys who identify as trans.

Here are some earlier posts in which I responded on that question and/ or provided evidence about an increase in females identifying as trans...

In the above post I did mention trans boys, but this does not mean people who identify as agender (for example) are not trans.

The quotes you provided include:

-The biased TheWeek article including the quoted misinformation you are tying yourself in knots defending.
-You saying that the increase in trans women compared to trans men (based on the above article) is a widely known feature without evidence
-References to the study which is quoted above and doesn't show what it was said to in TheWeek or by you.

[Tendrin]

No spike is not the same as no increase at *all*. *there is no spike*. Not a sudden one, not one specifically afflicting girls, which again, is the thesis of Shrier's book. The entire book hangs on the idea of all this being a social contagion that is happening because of social pressures.

A reminder, Glaad already weighed in on this:

—Claims increased transgender identity among teens is an expression of undiagnosed mental health disturbance: “If we’re just reverting to normal now that there’s greater societal acceptance—right, say we’re just reverting to a normal base rate of transgender women—where are all the women in their 40s and 60s coming out as trans? They should be coming out. Now’s their time. Now’s their moment. We should see tons of women in their 40s and 60s and so on coming out as transgender. We’re not seeing that. We’re seeing the same population that gets involved in cutting, demonic possession, witchcraft, anorexia, bulimia, and convinces themselves there’s a problem.” In her column in the Wall Street Journal, discussing her book on the “transgender craze,” Shrier writes: “I think mature adults should have the freedom to undergo medical transition. But teenagers are another matter. Social contagions exist, and teen girls are particularly susceptible to them. The book takes a hard look at whether the sudden spike in transgender identification among teen girls is yet another social contagion to befall girls who, in another era, might have fallen prey to anorexia or bulimia.” Population data shows increased numbers of LGBT people in the youngest generation studied (Gen Z) and increasing in all categories in the acronym above all previous generations, and not just in transgender identity. There is no research showing that more trans boys come out than trans girls, despite Shrier’s claim of a “sudden spike in transgender identification among teen girls [identifying as boys].” In fact, the data showed the number of young LGBTQ people identifying as lesbian doubled compared to the previous generation, whereas the number of young LGBTQ people identifying as trans went up only by a few points, again disproving the false theory that teen girls are falling prey to a “spike” in gender transition. Gallup researchers: “The pronounced generational differences raise questions about whether higher LGBT identification in younger than older Americans reflects a true shift in sexual orientation, or if it merely reflects a greater willingness of younger people to identify as LGBT. To the extent it reflects older Americans not wanting to acknowledge an LGBT orientation, the Gallup estimates may underestimate the actual population prevalence of it.”

[Tendrin]

Speaking of social contagions, though, let's talk about the susceptibility of conservatives to misinformation.

In sum, American conservatives in the early 21st century are uniquely likely to hold political misperceptions. This is due, in large part, to characteristics of the messages circulating in the political information environment. Widely shared accurate political news disproportionately advances liberal interests, while viral falsehoods most often promote conservative interests. Together, these characteristics contribute to stark ideological differences in citizens’ ability to distinguish between truths and falsehoods about high-profile topics. This pattern may be exacerbated by the fact that liberals tend to experience bigger improvements in sensitivity than conservatives as the proportion of partisan news increases.
Widespread political misperceptions pose a notable threat to democracy, which is dependent on citizens’ ability to make informed decisions. The evidence presented here suggest that it may be possible to enhance conservatives’ ability to distinguish between political truths and falsehoods by altering the political information environment. If widely shared political news contained fewer falsehoods promoting conservative causes or more conservative-favorable accurate information, then misperceptions among conservatives would likely decline.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1234

[WestPhillyPunisher]

CNN Exclusive: New text messages reveal Fox's Hannity advising Trump White House and seeking direction

Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Fox's Sean Hannity exchanged more than 80 text messages between Election Day 2020 and Joe Biden's January 2021 inauguration, communications that show Hannity's evolution from staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump's election lies to being "fed up" with the "lunatics" hurting Trump's cause in the days before January 6.

CNN obtained Meadows' 2,319 text messages, which he selectively provided in December to the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. While the logs show Meadows communicating with multiple Fox personalities, as well as a number of journalists from other organizations, Hannity stands out with 82 messages. The texts, including dozens of newly disclosed messages, offer a real-time window into how Hannity, a close friend of Trump, was reacting to the election and its aftermath.

[JackDaw]

No spike is not the same as no increase at *all*. *there is no spike*. Not a sudden one, not one specifically afflicting girls, which again, is the thesis of Shrier's book. The entire book hangs on the idea of all this being a social contagion that is happening because of social pressures.

A reminder, Glaad already weighed in on this:

Realistically all the social pressures go “t’other way”. (i.e. people who at some level think they want to change their gender being afraid to do so because of social pressure.)

It’s beyond obvious I’d have thought that almost no one is going to put themselves through all the aggro on a whim.

And if numbers do go up a bit, we ought to welcome it, as a likely consequence of our society being more welcoming and tolerant, and more accepting of different life styles.

[worstblogever]

It was on this date in 2015 that “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” had a profile of Joan Farr Heffington, a former candidate for Governor of Kansas who somehow, don’t ask me how, actually tried running to the right of Sam Brownback. Heffington insisted that as governor, any law that she signed would have had to had a constitutional or biblical justification for her to sign it and advocated for schools to teach students Creationism in class. That’s not even the crazy part. You see, Heffington is a big conspiracy theory fan, spreading tales of Agenda 21 leading to global domination, covert government operatives infiltrating Kansas hospitals to conduct biological and chemical warfare experiments on unwitting patients, unwilling citizens being implanted with mind control microchips (which she considers to be an apocalyptic possibility, interpreting this microchipping as “the Mark of the Beast”), the H1N1 Flu Virus being spread via pen injection into a 22 year old man who learned to much about a secret program to sneak prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay Prison, and that the CIA was running Kansas based on French laws from the 1950s that let them use citizens as guinea pigs. Ironically, she is the chief executive of an advocacy group she named the Association of Honest Attorneys, and she listed God as a board member of it, alongside herself. When a stiff opposition to gay marriage, support for Personhood legislation, and hanging out with a pastor who’s convinced President Obama is a secret Muslim are the LEAST crazy things in someone’s CGSOPOTD profile, you know they’re nuts. In any event, Heffington hasn’t run for office since 2012.

On this date in 2020, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” profiled Bobby Jeffries, a sentient pile of hair who was a 2020 challenger to Congressman Scott Perry, seeking election in Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. Jeffries referred to virtually any Democratic policy as “socialism”, and had the nasty habit of getting on Twitter to occasionally promote the Qanon conspiracy theory. Where his white nationalist ties became slightly less of a matter of folks wondering why he kept posting the Qanon conspiracy theory’s slogan, and overtly scary, was when the Southern Poverty Law Center reported in December of 2019 that Jeffries was going to hosting an “America First” themed Christmas Party, and at that event, one of his six scheduled speakers that would take the podium would be Enrique Tarrio, the chairman of the Proud Boys. Yes, the same anti-Semitic and white nationalist hate group that was at Charlottesville, that started riots in other cities around the country, and would eventually attempt a violent coup attempt at the Capitol on Jan. 6th, 2021. Mercifully, Jeffries dropped out of that race on January 13th, 2020… but THEN announced a run for U.S. Senate to replace Sen. Pat Toomey in 2022, even though Jeffries has a previous association with people currently facing sedition charges. He again, dropped out of that race, likely intimidated by the looming shadow of Dr. Oz, the snake-oil salesman of the 21st century.

On this date in 2021, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” profiled Nichole Williams, a 2020 candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in Tennessee’s 1st Congressional District, looking to fill the shoes of Republican Congressman Phil Roe, who was retiring. In September of 2019, she made quote a name for herself by sharing a post of herself at a Civil War re-enactment proudly wearing a Sons of the Confederacy jacket that also featured a “Ride with Forrest” patch, referencing specifically the Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest who would go on to found the motherf***ing Ku Klux Klan. Predictably, though, as Republicans will do, Williams insisted that the very racist thing she did wasn’t racist at all, saying, ”Ride with Forrest isn't racist. It is recognizing that he was the master of the saddle during the civil war.” This only was the tip of the iceberg, as throughout her candidacy, Nichole Williams also was promoting the Qanon conspiracy,repeatedly using hashtags for it in the majority of her posts, claiming “We are the news now” and calling herself “the anti-AOC”. Nichole Williams finished eighth out of a possible sixteen candidates who were vying for the seat to represent Tennessee’s 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. It wasn’t because of the Qanon or Neo-Confederate business that hurt her credibility with the Tennessee GOP… it was that she hadn’t voted Republican reliably enough for their tastes, because she hadn’t voted in a few prior elections. That’s it. That’s all they took issue with. Not the actual racism or conspiracy-mongering, because that’s what gets you ahead in today’s GQP.

[worstblogever]

It was on this date in 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, that “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” presented profiles of the former U.S. House Representative from Pennsylvania's 11th Congressional District, Lou Barletta, who while he was still mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania, Barletta made a name for himself back in 2006 by passing a city ordinance to curb illegal immigration, the draconian "Illegal Immigration Relief Act". He immediately defended charges of the law being racist by saying, "This isn't racial, because 'illegal' and 'legal' don't have a race.” Of course, it's hard to believe that when you consider Barletta was proudly touting the measure’s "success" by the most interesting measurables... bankrupting Mexican restaurants, adding, "I see illegal immigrants picking up and leaving -- some Mexican restaurants say business is off 75 percent. The message is out there." Well, racist or not (it's racist), within less than a year, the courts overturned the law as unconstitutional, to Barletta's chagrin. He did not, however, cease to demonize undocumented workers to advance his political career, and rode anti-immigrant fever into Congress in a mining town that was ironically built by Italian and Irish immigrants into a hub a century ago. He has cemented an alliance with the Federation of American Immigration Reform, whose idea of reform is actually "kick 'em all out" and has earned itself the attention of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who classify FAIR as a hate group. In April of 2014, FAIR was hosting their "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" event in Washington, D.C., where they invite conservative radio hosts to the capitol to interview members of Congress, and push for extreme actions to be taken against undocumented workers. Lou Barletta was more than happy to give interviews to the most radical and xenophobic of loons. Perhaps the most disturbing quotes included his discussion with the rabidly anti-Islamic activist, Frank Gaffney, where he called Barack Obama a "dictator", his chat with Lars Larson to say that "Sanctuary Cities are making us a Third World Country" and his chat with former chief of staff to Allen West, Joyce Kauffman, where Barletta compared undocumented workers to the terrorists who hijacked planes on 9/11. Pretty disgusting examples, right? Well, Barletta doesn't have much self-awareness for cause and effect, as he has also managed to whine about how the GOP cannot win over Latino voters. He really has no idea why they can't get behind a Republican Party that demonizes Latinos as much as they do, and probably doesn't help them make any more headway like when he refers to them as "not skilled" or "not having high school diplomas", and their eagerness to just take government handouts. Which, he assumes would make them Democrats, so why push for immigration reform, when they're just going to join the opposing party, right? Lou Barletta is against any and all actions involving immigrants short of a boot to their ass that he began actively talking about impeaching President Obama for his executive orders on immigration in June of 2014, insisting that House Republicans had the votes to successfully do so (they didn’t, not that it was an impeachable offense, anyway).

Outside of being a xenophobic bigot, what else is there to know about Lou Barletta? In his last debate against Paul Kanjorski, back in 2010, Barletta denied climate change science. He has twice already voted to defund Planned Parenthood, as well as having been a consistent vote on anti-choice measures, has repeatedly voted to try and repeal the Affordable Care Act, has voted against raising the Debt Ceiling limit, and voted for the 2013 Government Shutdown. Barletta was also one of the first Republicans to endorse Donald Trump for president and was a part of his transition team. (no word on whether or not he had secret conversations with Russian envoys before or after the election… yet.) After the 2010 elections, the Pennsylvania GOP re-districted the Congressional map and booted large swaths of Democrats out of Pennsylvania's 11th, making its Cook Partisan Voting Index shift a whole 10 percentage points more conservative than it previously was, and is such a mangled mess that it features an elementary school on the map that's cut in half. It's part of the GOP's gerrymandering shenanigans in the Keystone State that show Democrats won 44% the votes in the state in the 2014 elections, buts still somehow only get 27% of the state's seats in the U.S. House.

But lo and behold, judges have overturned the Congressional gerrymander created by Pennsylvania Republicans as unconstitutional, and was what was helping Barletta coast to easy rides back to Washington, For whatever stupid reason, in a Blue Wave election year, Lou Barletta is challenging popular U.S. Senator Bob Casey for his seat representing Pennsylvania. Republicans barely won back Sen. Pat Toomey’s seat in 2016, only squeaking him back to a second term by 1% of the vote… and Barletta? He… is not popular in Pennsylvania. What, with being a screaming racist and all. His track record of bigotry still has ugly quotes and interviews dropping into the public eye like proverbial skeletons falling out of a closet, like the fact that he gave an anti-immigrant interview back in 2006 to a fringe publication that promotes Holocaust denial and headlined a rally where a political activist and musician who has questioned the Holocaust and promoted conspiracies about the September 11, 2001 attacks also spoke and performed.

Now, this isn’t to say Congressman Barletta is hiding what a xenophobic prick he is… he’s still embracing it. In February of 2018, he sent out a mailer that said the United States is “at war” with illegal immigrants, calling them "violent criminal aliens" and "radical terrorists". Which, quite predictably was also around the same time he earned the endorsement of Donald Trump (On Twitter, because of course).

Polls in the Lou Barletta vs. Bob Casey race showed him trailing Sen. Casey by well into double digits.Odds were looking bad for the xenophobic mouth-breather, and then things got even worse after CNN reported on how he gave an interview to a Holocaust denying, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory outlet known as the American Free Press back in 2006. Barletta ended up losing by 13 points, and used the free time to return to his hobby of polishing his veneers to prepare for a run for Governor of Pennsylvania in 2022.

Just… these ***holes will not go away.

[CaptainEurope]

So you're going to lose the war for the sake of one unwinnable battle. Right.

They are already going after Marriage Equality.

Not defending trans athletes will not do a thing to win that war. It's just accepting GOP cruelty.

[CaptainEurope]

Ah, tennis star Boris Becker has double faulted, and was sentenced to spend the next 2.5 years in what I presume to be a tennis jail. His offense was some tax thing, but I shall pretend he was caught trying to control the weather.

Bankruptcy fraud is not "a tax thing". The tax thing was years ago for him.

[Tendrin]

Roger Stone would like retired General Michael Flynn to run for president in 2024 if former President Donald Trump chooses not to run again.

Flynn, who briefly served as Trump's national security adviser in early 2017, was pardoned by Trump in December after the former military officer twice pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his conversations with Russia's ambassador. Stone, who was convicted on charges of lying to Congress, was also pardoned by Trump in December.

Both Flynn and Stone have since been key allies of the former president, promoting his baseless conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was "rigged" or "stolen" by the Democrats and President Joe Biden.

I think all of WBE's internal organs just seized up in dread of this coming to pass and the profile he'll have to write.

https://www.newsweek.com/roger-stone...doesnt-1589802

[Mister Mets]

It is legitimately impressive that Nancy Pelosi visited Ukraine.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-uk...3b3c3e09f7d43f

ZAPORIZHZHIA, Ukraine (AP) — The United Nations labored Sunday to get civilians out of the bombed-out ruins of the Ukrainian city of Mariupol, while U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi revealed she visited Ukraine’s president to show unflinching American support for the country’s defense against Russian aggression.

Russia’s high-stakes offensive in coastal southern Ukraine and the country’s eastern industrial heartland has Ukrainian forces fighting village by village and more civilians fleeing airstrikes and artillery shelling as war draws near their doorsteps.

As many as 100,000 people are believed to still be in blockaded Mariupol, including up to 1,000 civilians who were hunkered down with an estimated 2,000 Ukrainian fighters beneath a sprawling Soviet-era steel plant that is the only part of the city not occupied by the Russians.

Pelosi, a California Democrat who is second in line to succeed the president, is the most senior American lawmaker to travel to Ukraine since Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24. Her Saturday visit came just days after Russia launched rockets at the capital during a visit by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres.

[CaptainEurope]

Yes, Europe is very impressed seeing a U.S. congressional delegation led by Speaker Pelosi visit Zelenskyy. My chancellor still has not gone, and our president was told he cannot come because he was one of the architects of Germany's dependence on Russian gas.