Blog Betty (Thomas Friedman is a Great Man was an online novel): 10/20/24

Saturday, October 26, 2024

Kamala and Michelle in Michigan live now

Friday, October 25, 2024

Kamala Harris LIVE: Harris Holds Rally with Houston Native Beyoncé in Texas

Thursday, October 24, 2024

Trump and The Trots

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX & THOMAS FRIEDMAN IS A GREAT MAN & ANN'S MEGA DUB & THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS & THE COMMON ILLS -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

1990S PROFESSIONAL MODEL STACEY WILLIAMS CAME FORWARD TODAY TO ANNOUNCE CONVICTED FELON DONALD TRUMP ASSUALTED HER IN 1992. THESE REPORTERS -- MUST CREDIT BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX & THOMAS FRIEDMAN IS A GREAT MAN & ANN'S MEGA DUB & THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS & THE COMMON ILLS -- CORNERED TRUMP IN THE MEN'S ROOM AT MUNCH A LUNCH IN TEMPE ARIZONA.

THE FELON HAD ORDERED THE CHILI SOUP WITH EXTRA ONIONS AND EXTRA CHEESE DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONIONS GIVE HIM THE RUNS AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE KNOWS ONIONS GIVE HIM THE RUNS.

BRAVING THE WORST ODOR WE'D EVER SMELT IN OUR LIVES, WE INTERROGATED HIM WHILE HE SAT HIDDEN BEHIND A STALL DOOR MOANING, GROANING AND GRUNTING.

WHAT DID YOU DO TO STACY WILLIAMS?

"WHO!" HE HOLLERED.

WE EXPLAINED WHO WHILE HE CONTINUED GRUNTING BETWEEN THE SOUNDS OF SQUIRTY LIQUID HITTING THE TOILET.

"LEAVE ME ALONE! LEAVE ME ALONE! WHY DID I EAT THE ONIONS! THIS ISN'T A CRAP! IT'S A BIRTH! GET ME A MID-WIFE!"

AS HE STRUGGLED TO BREATHE THROUGHT PAIN, THE FELON TOLD US THAT HE DIDN'T REMEMBER HER OR MOST OF THE WOMEN HE ASSAULTED AND THAT IT DIDN'T MATTER ANYWAY.

WHY IS THAT? -- WE ASKED HIM.

"OW! OW! MY CHILI HOLE! STUFF IS STILL COMING OUT AND IT BURNS! IT BURNS! MOMMY! MOMMY! IT BURNS!" GET ME A DOCTOR! GO FIND THE SECRET SERVICE AND TELL THEM TO GET ME A DOCTOR!"

WHY DOESN'T IT MATTER -- WE PRESSED.

"GET ME A DOCTOR!"

ANSWER THE QUESTION -- WE DEMANDED.

"BECAUSE -- OW! -- BECAUSE I CAN'T ASSAULT ANY WOMAN ANYMORE! IT'S NOT JUST THAT MY BIG GUT MEANS I CAN'T SEE MY TINY DICK! OW! OW! IT'S ALSO BECAUSE -- OW! I CAN'T GET IT UP ANYMORE!"

WHAT?

"OW! I CAN'T GET A BONER! I'M 78 YEARS OLD! IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT SURPRISING! I'M AN ELDERLY FAT GUTTED MAN! OW! GET ME A DOCTOR! GET ME A DOCTOR!"

PROMISING TO GET RIGHT ON THAT, WE LAUGHED AS WE WALKED OUT OF THE BATHROOM AND LEFT AN OUT-OF-ORDER SIGN ON THE DOOR.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Naomi Klein.

She was on DEMOCRACY NOW! yesterday and I have no idea why.

I do not need her discussing US elections.

I think with her especially that she's crossing a line.

Years ago, during the days of AIR AMERICA RADIO, she appeared on Al Franken's show. And Al, as usual, didn't know what he was talking about. The issue turned to travel -- specifically entering the US. And had that ever been a problem for Canadian Naomi Klein?

Her answer would have had great importance if she'd answered it -- if she'd answered it honestly. But she didn't. She avoided the issue.

Now the Iraq War was raging and some US service members were self-checking out. Jeremy Hinzman, Darrell Anderson, Joshua Key, Ivan Brobeck and many more.

And they needed support.

And, in Canada where they went, Naomi did support them. She'd sign a petition. She donated to a group.

And for some people that might be enough.

Excuse me for not being satisfied.

Naomi's father left the US due to Vietnam. He was a War Resister. And if Naomi had shared that -- especially on Al Franken's neoliberal show -- it could have made a difference in the way some saw the War Resisters.

Naomi had Canadian citizenship, yes, but being born to parents from the US, she also had US citizenship. So, no, Al Franken, Naomi didn't have trouble entering the United States.

That's the answer and that is why. But she wouldn't say that. She just dodged the question.

This was early 2005 and it would have made a difference.

But she didn't want to tell the truth. So we did here.

And I have never cared for her championing US politicians when elections rolled around.

I'm all for War Resisters and have helped many over the years. But you leave the country, then you leave the country. I've forever noted here that the US should not allow Cuban exiles into the US if the whole point is for them to use our country as a base to attack Cuba.

You're Cuban and you want to live here? Great. Welcome. You're an American now. Let's all get along.

But that's not happening if you're here feeding your resentment against Cuba. And that's true, for me, for any exile. Don't come to this country in order to plot against your country of origin.

Now on Naomi, should she be a US citizen?

I don't believe in dual citizenship. I've made that clear here for two decades. But her mother and her father elected to leave the United States. Why are we now, as a country, saying she's a citizen of the United States? I'm not trying to be rude or mean.

She didn't grow up here. (Her father can't return unless he wants to go to prison.)

I think Naomi is often exceptional. But I also believe in Ellen Goodman. In fact, I believe in the former BOSTON GLOBE columnist even more. She's smarter than so many and has a lot more common sense. She'd started out on the chat and chews -- those public affairs programs where they bring you and you end up weighing on everything.

But no one can weigh in on everything.

And she grasped that and stopped doing the chat and chews as a result.

No one can speak in an informed manner on every topic. When Texas Governor Greg Asshole went after Latino citizens, I noted here that I really wanted to avoid the topic and that I wanted to do that because I knew nothing about it. But then I'm looking around and left media -- independent media -- is avoiding the topic completely. My plan had been to just highlight reports on the topic. I was not qualified to comment on it. But to get qualified -- because no one, not even Juan Gonzalez, was weighing in -- I had to ask Texas community members to do a conference call with me, I had to talk to a member of the US Congress from Texas that I personally knew, I had to speak to one of the women targeted -- her home raided -- and then I still wanted another conference with community members in Texas and bothered poor Sabina with non-stop questions even after that.

So Naomi Klein appears on DEMOCRACY NOW! and she was there to talk about Gaza. And she's informed on that.

But then Amy wanted her to weigh in on the US presidential election.

Why?

She's not an expert on that. She doesn't live in the US. There are Americans who would argue she shouldn't have citizenship (including those who would make the argument -- I did not -- that the minute her father refused US military service and left the country, he should not have been able to pass on citizenship -- Naomi was born long, long after Vietnam). She's not qualified to speak on US electoral politics. She has no knowledge base. She has nothing worth sharing -- her 'tears of joy' on election night piece for THE PROGRESSIVE back in 2008 was nothing but political porn at its worst as she watched from a distance people that she could not hear speaking and people that she had never met became people that she just knew what they were thinking -- just knew it, really, really, really knew it! That's political porn -- the sort that James Wolcott rightly took Peggy Noonan to task for years ago.

Naomi made some general statement before sharing her concern: Kamala had abandoned her base!!!

STFU. Not since your bad book -- now out in soft cover -- where you didn't understand the concepts of twinship even though it went to the heart of your book's argument -- have you looked so stupid.

Kamala abandoned the base!!!!

Just f**k the hell off.

That is not what happened.

I tore Kamala apart over the wording of an answer she gave on Gaza to the media and I got a call from a friend in the administration stating I was attacking the only one defending Gaza. I noted that in a roundtable and I backed off from attacking Kamala. I didn't write about it here. I believed my friend but I didn't make the case for it here -- this was long before the Biden-Trump debate. And I went back and forth on the topic. Talk about it here in a snapshot and maybe risk outing the friend? Didn't want to do that. Nor did it really matter. Kamala was going to advocate in private but it wasn't going to have any real impact because that's all she could do. She was not the president. Nor is she today.

But what ended up happening is that she became the nominee. I'm glad she did. I think she'd be a great president. And I'm willing to hold her feet to the fire the same way I've done every other politician -- and journalist -- in the two decades this site has been up. If she becomes president, I'll hit hard. I don't pull punches. I like Naomi Klein but I don't pull punches on her.

So the Abandon Biden movement already existed. And then he stepped aside. And without taking a breath, it became Abandon Harris. And it became more and more nonsense and bulls**t -- to the point that these Gaza Freaks are now harming Palestinians because Americans are recoiling from the Gaza Freaks. So they trashed her in public and they attacked her for this and that. Including the nonsense of a speaker they wanted at the DNC convention.

Naomi may not know all this happened, she doesn't live in the US. But it happened. And electoral politics not being an area of expertise for her (campaign politics was a field of emphasis for me both as an undergraduate and as a graduate student), she may not understand how political conventions work in the US. I have no idea how they work in Canada. I wouldn't pretend to.

But the reality is that a spot to speak at a convention is a big deal and everyone wants it. An unknown would-be-US-Senator from Illinois got to speak at the 2004 convention -- Barack Obama -- but a sitting US senator, Hillary Clinton, who was not just a former First Lady but someone who repeatedly raised a lot of money for the Democratic Party was initially denied. No female politician or female activist was going to be allowed to speak in prime time. For those too young to remember, this was back in the day when Simon Rosenberg was advocating for Democrats to abandon support for abortion rights and for LGBTQ+ rights. Those of us who did believe in reproductive rights had to demand Hillary get to speak. This was a months long process.

And Hillary was a nationally known Democrat. She had star power.

So you idiots who thought you were going to elevate some woman who held a local office? You're idiots. You could have had six months to attempt that -- you didn't, you had about two weeks -- and it wouldn't have worked. You would been better off getting behind an activist for Palestinian rights -- an activist with a name which means Bella Hadid, for example. Even then, in two to three weeks, you wouldn't have achieved anything most likely. But you would have had a better shot with someone like Bella.

And it wasn't just that your local politician was an unknown on the national stage so she wouldn't have helped get viewers tuned it, it's also the jostling that takes place among the politicians who all want to be on stage and speaking in prime time. They would never had let your local politician onstage for that reason. They wouldn't want Bella on as well but they would have surrendered to the notion because Bella is news and attracts an audience.

But instead of grasping that they were pursuing a losing strategy, they trashed Kamala.

That's all they ever did.

Kamala doesn't have months, you idiots and assholes on the left. She had to assemble a team and get a campaign going in an instant. And she did that.

And she doesn't have time to woo people who say they won't vote for her.

Equally true, for all the lies from Amy Goodman and others, Gaza Freaks are not the base of the Democratic Party. They're not the base of anybody's party. I suspected that in July but we've spoken to groups in every state now except Alaska and Hawaii. And Gaza Freaks are on their own. (Gaza Freaks are not supporters of Palestinians. Supporters of Palestinians would be doing anything to keep Trump out of the White House. Gaza Freaks are purity freaks with infantile yet sterile minds.)

A lot of Republicans do not want Trump. That was clear in the primaries. That's an audience Kamala could pick some voters from. How many? I have no idea.

But if I were managing her campaign, I would've told her to forget the Gaza Freaks. No matter what she did, it was not enough for them. Acknowledging the suffering in Gaza in her convention speech and the need for a cease-fire didn't make the Gaza Freaks stop attacking her.

In a normal campaign, you'd be wasting your time trying to court those crybabies. In a much more limited campaign? She doesn't have the time. She'd be wasting her time based on the reality that nothing she has said has been good enough for these Gaza Freaks.

You have cut yourselves out of the conversation. That is on you.

A campaign is about winning votes. When all you did was attack the candidate, there's no reason for the candidate to try to woo you. Donald Trump's not going before LGBTQ+ audiences, seeking their votes. (Melania will speak to them provided they pay her at least $200,000 -- for her, that's campaigning).

You screwed yourselves out of a seat at the table.

Naomi's yammering away like an idiot because, on this topic, she is one. She doesn't understand electoral politics, she doesn't understand US politics, she doesn't live in the US and she's looking down from a cloud at those of us working our asses off to try to save our democracy and protect our citizens. Guess what, Naomi, we can't exit the US for Canada because we don't have dual citizenship, we don't have your privilege.

I'm not here to let reproductive rights suffer again. Every woman in the US should have the same medical options in every state. That's healthcare. My healthcare is not a 'state's right.' That's bulls**t. Every same-sex couple should have the same rights and that includes full citizenship. That awful case built on lies found the Supreme Court creating two kinds of citizenship -- full citizenship and second class citizenship. If you're straight, you can shop where you want and expect to be treated fairly. If you're gay or lesbian, you can be refused service. I'm not here to let our public education -- the thing that binds us together as citizens (it certainly isn't home schooling) -- fall apart because Trump wants to destroy the Dept of Education. I'm not here to let some racist rewrite history by refusing to allow future generations know about slavery and what a scar it left on our country and how much damage it did to people living under it. I'm not here so that Sabina, in Dallas, TX, a US citizen, has to worry that the police are going to come up to her when she goes to the Mercado on Jefferson and demand proof of citizenship and, if she doesn't have it on her, be pulled off the street.

I'm not here to watch Donald Trump achieve his goal of dismantling our Constitution.

I don't have the luxury of sitting this election out or the stupidity of voting for a con artist like Jill Stein.

I also am fully aware that the Palestinians are screwed if Trump gets back in the White House. 100% screwed.

What Did TRUMP Say NOW?! | The Danielle Moodie Show

LIVE: Spike Lee, Samuel L. Jackson, Tyler Perry To...

'The work isn’t done': 'Dear America' documentary ...

Power of the podcast: Harris and Trump looking to ...

90's Divas - Matteo Lane & Nick Smith - I Never Li...

Kamala Calls Trump A Fascist

'Nowhere in the Constitution': Senator checks Trum...

Claire McCaskill: Trump has an enemies list, Harri...

James Carville on Kamala and Trump on Joe Rogan

IHIP News: Kamala's Answer to This Question RUINS ...

'Grave emergency': Why military officials are spea...

When They Show Me Who They Are I Believe Them And ...

IT'S GETTING WORSE! Horrifying Trump News Rattles ...

"Iraq snapshot"

"Trump and his little weasel"

"That failure Ron Doo-Doo DeSantis"

"Mincing Mike Johnson, Donald Trump and Colin Allred"

"Vegan Apple Crisp in the Kitchen"

"Green Beans Almondine with Garlic in the Kitchen"

"Maple-Roasted Delicata Squash in the Kitchen"

"Donald Trump hates US veterans but loves Hitler"

"Yeah, Liz called it right"

"Lindsey Graham, The Bukkake Cowboy"

"Open letter to Naomi Klein"

"Crooked Court and other crooks"

"Does treason come with that order of fries?"

"Kamala's a real leader"

"Lindsey and Mike"

"Trump has forever soured me on McDonalds"

"Trump Hearts Hitler"

"Nasty ass Donald Trump"

"Trump keeps lying"

"The choice is clear"

"Kamala!!! Our next president!!!"

"Truths and polling"

"Stevie Wonder"

"Cher, Dionne Warwick, Diana Ross"

"Joni Mitchell"

"VENOM: THE LAST DANCE is almost out"

"Al Pacino, Jennifer Lopez, Spike Lee"

"Weekend box office"

"yeah, trump belong behind bars"

"disgusting elon musk"

"2 whiny brats"

"Who wants Tubby in the drive through window?"

"Who thought it was safe to let Trump handle food?"

"THIS JUST IN! TRUMP'S MCDONALD'S HIJINX!"

Wednesday, October 23, 2024

Open letter to Naomi Klein

Hey, White girl.

I'm the Democratic Party base. I'm a Black woman. Watching your garbage 'analysis' on DEMOCRACY NOW! (which has become a garbage show) and hearing you talk about how Muslims are the Democratic Party's base? Honey, you don't get to be the base based upon a few elections.

Black women turn out every election for the Democratic Party and that's why we are so pissed to see the way left media is treating Kamala Harris. From DEMOCRACY NOW on down, they all want to destroy Kamala or knock her.

And we get that, right? Black women, we get that?

We get that from society every day, don't we?

So it shouldn't be that surprising to us that Naomi Klein, Amy Goodman and so many others are trashing Kamala and insulting her. That's how they really treat us, let's be honest.

Want to make a story about police brutality the least covered? Kill a Black girl or a Black woman.

George Floyd? Society will take to the streets. And should. But find the same outcry when it's a Black woman.

White girl, Naomi, I see you.

I remember your garbage when Barack Obama was running for president and you went around talking about how important this was because he was a Black man. Then you wrote that insulting column where you tried to speak for Black voters. You didn't try to speak to Black voters, mind you. That would have required you recognizing us as people. So instead, being a White Jew who apparently knew no Black people, you just watched some Black people the night of the election, from across a busy street and then, in all your Whiteness, you wrote a column telling your peers what these Black people felt and thought.

Again, you never spoke to them. But why would you need to? You, Queen White woman, know everything.

Here's what I know, a Black woman's running for president and you have no praise and only offer attacks.

A Black woman's running for president and you're blaming her and using your racism and your sexism to attack her.

You're not a feminist, Naomi. You're a political woman. That's not the same as feminism.

You need to check your Whiteness and you need to stop insulting Black women. We're not playing with you, Snow Princess. I noticed when you listed your Canadian notion of the US's Democratic Party base, you didn't include Black women. Rather telling, dontcha think?

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Wednesday, October 23, 2024. No, we're not going to rewrite history and paper over it with lies.

We're going to start with the nonsense brigade. Naomi Klein's going to be our focus. I'll give you her Tweet but we need to wind up to her.

John Rick MacArthur -- goes by "Rick" -- is someone I've known for years. I doubt the young people in the left (under 30) have any idea who he is. But for awhile there, he was being pimped like crazy. And he did do some good work -- especially at the start of the Iraq War. And it was his magazine, that published Naomi Klein's "Baghdad Year Zero." A very important work about the Iraq War.

And people turned on Rick. Before they did, I lost respect for him and made that clear here.

I knew him for years. I knew his mother was French. On his father's side, they were a historically important American family.

And then one day Rick let's slip that he'd just voted. Oh. Who for? Wait. He voted in the French elections. And he voted in the US elections.

I do not approve of that, I do not support that. This is not a new position for me with regards to Elon Musk. You should not be allowed to vote in more than one nation's elections. It's just not fair and it's not really about democracy or one person one vote.

Rick can tell a funny story. He's a good person. But I walked away on that day -- and noted it here -- and then came his refusal to support unions much later -- the magazine staff wanted to unionize. That angered others -- the union issue -- and I understand that but I take the other issue seriously as well.

Naomi Klein.

She was on DEMOCRACY NOW! yesterday and I have no idea why.

I do not need her discussing US elections.

I think with her especially that she's crossing a line.

Her answer would have had great importance if she'd answered it -- if she'd answered it honestly. But she didn't. She avoided the issue.

Now the Iraq War was raging and some US service members were self-checking out. Jeremy Hinzman, Darrell Anderson, Joshua Key, Ivan Brobeck and many more.

And they needed support.

And, in Canada where they went, Naomi did support them. She'd sign a petition. She donated to a group.

And for some people that might be enough.

Excuse me for not being satisfied.

Naomi had Canadian citizenship, yes, but being born to parents from the US, she also had US citizenship. So, no, Al Franken, Naomi didn't have trouble entering the United States.

That's the answer and that is why. But she wouldn't say that. She just dodged the question.

This was early 2005 and it would have made a difference.

But she didn't want to tell the truth. So we did here.

And I have never cared for her championing US politicians when elections rolled around.

You're Cuban and you want to live here? Great. Welcome. You're an American now. Let's all get along.

But that's not happening if you're here feeding your resentment against Cuba. And that's true, for me, for any exile. Don't come to this country in order to plot against your country of origin.

Now on Naomi, should she be a US citizen?

She didn't grow up here. (Her father can't return unless he wants to go to prison.)

But no one can weigh in on everything.

And she grasped that and stopped doing the chat and chews as a result.

So Naomi Klein appears on DEMOCRACY NOW! and she was there to talk about Gaza. And she's informed on that.

But then Amy wanted her to weigh in on the US presidential election.

Why?

Naomi made some general statement before sharing her concern: Kamala had abandoned her base!!!

STFU. Not since your bad book -- now out in soft cover -- where you didn't understand the concepts of twinship even though it went to the heart of your book's argument -- have you looked so stupid.

Kamala abandoned the base!!!!

Just f**k the hell off.

That is not what happened.

And Hillary was a nationally known Democrat. She had star power.

But instead of grasping that they were pursuing a losing strategy, they trashed Kamala.

That's all they ever did.

Kamala doesn't have months, you idiots and assholes on the left. She had to assemble a team and get a campaign going in an instant. And she did that.

And she doesn't have time to woo people who say they won't vote for her.

A lot of Republicans do not want Trump. That was clear in the primaries. That's an audience Kamala could pick some voters from. How many? I have no idea.

You have cut yourselves out of the conversation. That is on you.

You screwed yourselves out of a seat at the table.

I'm not here to watch Donald Trump achieve his goal of dismantling our Constitution.

I don't have the luxury of sitting this election out or the stupidity of voting for a con artist like Jill Stein.

I also am fully aware that the Palestinians are screwed if Trump gets back in the White House. 100% screwed.

Let's note Michael Albert (ZNET) who isn't crazy about Kamala but grasps that there are serious issues at stake in this election:

Whatever anger, pain, fear, or strategic hope may cause you to lean toward a vote for Stein, West, or whoever else or to not vote at all in swing states, those choices will undeniably help Trump. Only Trump or Harris will win. Yes, Harris could act in ways to make it easier for Trump-haters to vote for her. And yes, she would be very, very far from a president that you or I would ideally want. But nonetheless, to defeat Harris is to help elect Trump. And to elect Trump would seriously and perhaps even irredeemably hurt every progressive program and prospect that anyone seeks, here and everywhere. When Trump says the real enemy is the enemy within, the “radical left lunatics” who may need to be dealt with by the national guard or the military, he is talking about us. Drill baby drill. Enrich the rich. Abort abortion. Crush all enemies. Get it over with, already. These are not manipulative slogans for him. They are a carefully planned program. Wake up to that on Nov 6th and declare strategic victory? Seriously?

I wonder, do Stein and other third candidates not understand such a trivially simple observation? Are they so ignorant, so unable to reason, that that observation eludes them? I do not think so. But if not that, then do Stein and other candidates and their advocates instead think that getting people to vote for them and not for Harris in swing states is some kind of radical blow for a better future, thereby offsetting the fact that it undeniably helps Trump? Or perhaps they think the act of voting for Harris to stop Trump will inexorably cause such voters to become politically passive and it would be better to have Trump in full power violently working overtime to compel their passivity. I have not been able to personally chat with any of them to ask. I have also not been able to convey nearly as effectively or as widely as I would like the obvious truth that to oppose genocide, to be caring, to be radical, to be revolutionary, and to vote your conscience (where your conscience is cognizant), all entail voting to stop Trump. And I have not been able to ask Stein, West, or other third candidates how and why they disagree with those efforts. How come?

Stein has said, we are in “a very dire situation that will be continued under both Democrats and Republicans. So we say there is no lesser evil in this race.” So I suppose that is her answer. How comes it that she so outrageously denies reality. Is she blinded by the light of her 1 percent campaign? Is she blinded by the lure of the press coverage she gets when she says such things? I don’t know. But now we have another, and I think a more honest, albeit no less disturbing answer to why from an exemplary activist who is arguably Stein’s most savvy and accomplished supporter.

You may remember Kshama Sawant, Seattle’s socialist city council member from 2010 to 2024. I won’t review her history. It suffices to say she has been a singularly successful left candidate and has been on the progressive, radical, and revolutionary side of issue after issue. She has been courageous, brilliant, and committed. One need not have liked her every move or her every allegiance to feel that she has been exemplary in numerous ways.

But according to news reports Sawant recently went from Seattle to Michigan to campaign for and with Jill Stein at a Stein Rally in Dearborn. Sawant is highly knowledgeable. She is no one’s fool. She did not say vote for Stein to express your conscience. She did not say vote for Stein to show you are radical. She did not say vote for Stein to build the Green Party. No. Sawant said, “We need to be clear about what our goals are… We are not in a position to win the White House. But we do have a real opportunity to win something historic. We could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan. And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without Michigan.” And in case that didn’t express her intent clearly enough, she added we are “fighting to defeat Harris, not just symbolically but in reality.” Michigan “is ground zero to punish Kamala Harris and defeat her…. We need to break the two-party system, and we need to begin that by breaking this election for the Democrats in Michigan.” Back in June, Trump made his oddly similar feelings about Stein known. “I like her also, Jill Stein, I like her very much.,,, You know why? She takes 100% from them.” I guess Trump could now say the same about Sawant.

Okay, I admit that I can’t imagine that Sawant will read this essay, or that Stein will, but maybe some people will who are understandably feeling that if they vote for Harris in Michigan, or in any swing state, it would seem to say genocide is okay. The system is okay. The Democrats are my champions. Or it would deny their own personal past. Or it would seem to accept a supine future. And so, they understandably hesitate.

I have been trying to hear, empathize with, and take those types of fears and concerns to heart, not least because I share many of them. And I of course know that Arab Americans and Palestinian Americas have tragically lost family members. I likewise know that American progressives and radicals are rightly and righteously furious at American complicity. But Sawant is being honest. Can you hear her? Is her intent your intent too? If so, then I guess yes, you should vote for Stein and on election night if Harris wins and you are happy about it, or if Trump wins and you are despondent or worse about it, I guess then, perhaps you might want to reconsider the path you chose.

Naomi's taking a lot of flack for that segment. Some are appalled that she said vote for Kamala and some are appalled by this or by that. I'm appalled by her 'creativity' when it comes to what went down. Again, she wasn't here. So I'm not surprised she's wrong. But I am surprised she was stupid enough to talk about that she didn't witness and that she clearly did not study.

If she reads the comments left on her Tweet that we noted above, I would encourage her to click on the ones commenting that are balling her out for saying vote for Kamala. A lot of them are right-wingers pretending otherwise. There is the White guy from the UK pretending to be an American, a White guy who reTweets Epstein lies about Kamala as he works hard to pimp Trump but pretends to be Green in his comment, there's the outraged Muslim who, woops!, endorses Trump every day on his Twitter feed, there are a whole lot of fakes who want to come off differently in their Tweet slamming her than what they actually are.

If Kamala becomes president -- and I hope she does -- I'm not gong to be tossing kleenexes at her -- Marilyn Monroe tried to house train her dog and would bat the dog with a kleenex -- I'm going to be hitting hard and I'm not going to fret over my language or my approach. I do get that Naomi Klein means well so in this case, I will stress again, she's exceptional on many things.

I'm not making that claim about Michael Moore who I can't stand. Yeah, I saw him on MSNBC giving his Muslims in Michigan analysis.

It was lies and he knows it.

That's why he starts with 2020.

Reality: This is the group that overwhelmingly voted Republican until 9/11 results in Bully Boy Bush scapegoating and attacking them. With him long gone from the White House, they have been repeatedly edging to the Republican Party. In this decade, they're repeatedly embraced book banning and attacks on LGBTQ+ people. It's not the Disneyfied picture that Michael Moore paints.

There are progressive Muslims in Michigan. As with any religion, there are also fundamentalists.

Steve Neavling (MICHIGAN ADVANCE) reported last year:

Dawud Walid, director of the Michigan-chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a pro-Muslim group that has spoken out against LGBTQ+ books, says many Democrats have taken Muslims for granted and are dismissing their serious concerns about “hot-button social issues,” like LGBTQ+ books and transgender bathroom policies.

“We were painted as a homophobic community,” Walid teold the Metro Times. “If people who are progressive continue those kinds of talking points, then Muslims are going to feel alienated. And then there will be people on the right who will seize the moment and capitalize on it because politics in many regards is about capitalizing on the moment.”

[. . .]

Like any religious group, the Muslim community is not homogenous and doesn’t share a single, uniform viewpoint. Ani Zonneveld, president of Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV), a progressive human rights organization, says she has feared the day would come when conservative Muslims would “get in bed” with Republicans because of social issues.

“This is going to become what I call ‘an ugly monster,’” says Zonneveld, an outspoken advocate for gay, bisexual, and transgender Muslims. “Many Muslims have always been homophobic. That hasn’t changed. During the Trump days, the conservative Muslims have used the human rights language as its facade to camouflage their real values so they would be defended by the political left. And the political left bought into that facade.”

"She's told us that we're irrelevant" lies Naomi Klein. That's not how this unfolded. I'm not in the mood for stupidity, justifications or lies.

Yesterday afternoon, Brad Reed (RAW STORY) reported:

Former President Donald Trump abruptly canceled a planned media event Tuesday — again.

The Hill's Hanna Trudo reported that "Trump was scheduled to hold a virtual roundtable with RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard today, which has now been canceled."

The 78-year-old Trump has been backing out of multiple planned events amid reports that he's feeling "exhausted" by the demands of the 2024 presidential campaign.

That is troubling and does raise serious questions about his health. However, in fairness to Donald, ask yourself: "Would you really want to be at a roundtable with Junior and Trashy Garbage? Me neither. Reed reminds, "In addition to the planed RFK Jr-Gabbard event, Trump canceled interviews with CBS News' 60 Minutes, as well as with CNBC and NBC News." And there's also his refusal to do the second debate with Kamala.

Meanwhile, Kamala's everywhere. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin alone yesterday. Let's note this from her Brookfield, Wisconsin campaign event with former US House Rep Liz Cheney:

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good evening, everyone. Good evening.

MR. SYKES: And, Vice President, wel- — welcome back to Wisconsin.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It is good to be back. You — you know, I — so, Tony Evers.

MR. SYKES: (Laughs.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That’s funny about his playlist. Is it really that long? (Laughter.)

MR. SYKES: No.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Okay.

Every time I — I land in Wisconsin — almost every time, Tony Evers, the governor, will meet me on the tarmac. And because I did live in Wisconsin when I was five years old, every — (applause) — he will say, “Welcome home.” So, I do feel and have a connection to Wisconsin and feel a sense of connection.

MR. SYKES: Actually, we all have connections to Wisconsin, which — which makes this event, I think, so important, with 15 days to go.

So, let’s just dive right into all of this. There are actually undecided voters out there.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

MR. SYKES: And there are undecided voters here.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

MR. SYKES: People who have never voted for a Democrat. Moderates, conservatives who voted for people named Bush and Cheney and Ford and Reagan —

MS. CHENEY: Yay. (Claps.) (Laughter.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

MR. SYKES: And — and Bob Dole. Wow, that’s a — that’s throwback, isn’t it?

But I guess the question is: What is your pitch to them? Why should they do something they’ve never done before? Why should they cross over party lines and vote for you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I start from the belief, based on the lived experience, that the vast majority of us have more in common than what separates us.

I also know that you all are here spending time that you could be spending doing a number of other things, with all of the obligations you each have, and you are here because we, together, love our country. We love our country, and we believe in the foundational principles that are at stake in this election.

I believe that when we think about who we are as the American people, there is more we have in common than what separates us when we think about what is at stake in terms of our democracy, rule of law, the Constitution of the United States, national security, the standing of our country in the context of the world. All of that is at stake.

And I will share with you, Charlie, when I was in the Senate for — for those four years that I was there, my favorite committee was the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I’m going to tell you why. We would walk into that meeting in a SCIF, which is a — a secure room. We’d have to leave our cell phones outside. The press, with all due respect, were not allowed in. No cameras.

People would walk in, Democrats and Republicans, take off their suit jacket, roll up their sleeves, and we’d dispense with who was a Republican and who was a Democrat. We were all Americans. We were all in that room with one singular purpose: to concern ourselves as our highest priority with the security and well-being of the United States of America.

I think those things are at stake in this election. (Applause.)

MR. SYKES: Congresswoman Cheney, you know how hard this is, though. You know how hard it is to break away from tribal loyalty to do something you haven’t done before. So, I’d like you to address that as well.

Lindsey Graham was on television yesterday saying, “What do you ‘Never Trump’ Republicans — you know, what — what are you thinking of? How could you possibly do all of this?”

There are a lot of people who are listening to us who may be disillusioned with what’s happening with the Republican Party, but they w- — they don’t they — they — they’re afraid of paying the price, because there is a cost to all of that.

So, what do you say to those Americans?

MS. CHENEY: Well, don’t listen to Lindsey Graham. Number one. (Laughter and applause.) It’s good life advice, actually.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: (Laughs.)

MS. CHENEY: But what I say is that, at the — what undergirds everything that we are as a nation — everything that we are as a nation is the rule of law and it’s our Constitution.

And when you — when you look at what Donald Trump did after the last election, when you look at the cruelty that’s involved in someone who watches an attack on the United States Capitol, an attack conducted by people in his name, and refuses for over three hours to tell the mob to leave — I mean, I really — people just need to think about what that — that — that’s — that’s depravity. He watched the attack happen, and people kept asking him, “Please tell the people to leave.” And law enforcement officers were being brutally beaten and the Capitol was being assaulted, and he would not tell people to leave for over three hours.

That cruelty is the same cruelty that we see when he lies about the federal government’s disaster response, when he puts people’s lives at risk because he won’t tell the truth. He’s a man who’s unfit to be the president of this good and honorable and great nation.

And so, I’ve spent a lot of time working — before I was elected to Congress — in countries around the world that — that weren’t free or where people were trying to achieve their freedom, and I know how fragile — how fragile this — this can be, how fragile democracy can be.

And so, in — in this election, we have a choice. We have the choice of somebody, in Vice President Harris, who you know is going to uphold the rule of law. You know that she’s going to lead this country with a sincere heart. You know that she is going to always be thinking about what is best for this nation. We might not agree on every issue, but — but she is somebody that you can trust and someone that our children can look up to. And I think it’s so important for us to cast the vote for Vice President Harris this time around. (Applause.)

MR. SYKES: You know, Vice — Vice President, I w- — I was thinking about one of your social media posts recently where you go through all the things that Donald Trump has bailed out of: that he won’t debate you, that he won’t — that he won’t do interviews, that he’s refusing to release certain information. And — and you asked an interesting question: What is he hiding?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

MR. SYKES: So, what, in fact, is he hiding?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I — I wonder what is he hiding. I also wonder what his staff is trying to hide by — by preventing or suggesting he not debate me again, not do these interviews. It is the norm, as you know, that presidential nominees will do a “60 Minutes” interview. He has refused to do that. He is pulling out of interviews left, right, and center.

And I think that we — what we see about him in public, whether it be his rallies or, as you said, the — the — would it — would it be called a — just a solo dance? I — I don’t — I — (laughter).

MR. SYKES: I don’t know that is has a — I don’t even know if it has a name to it.

MS. CHENEY: “Dance” is really generous.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: What — (laughs). Yes.

MR. SYKES: Yeah, the word “dance” would be generous.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: What — what that was.

I — I think it does lead us and it should lead us to observe that he is increasingly unstable.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. Listen to the people who know him best, the people who worked with him in the White House, in the Oval Office, in the Situation Room: his former chief of staff; two former secretaries of Defense, his secretaries of Defense; his former national security advisor; and, of course, his former vice president. And they have each talked about the — the chief of staff — that Donald Trump has contempt for the Constitution of the United States.

Not only has that been said by a former chief of staff of the former president, but we know he has openly talked about his intention to terminate the Constitution of the United States.

I have taken that oath six times: as district attorney twice — elected and reelected; as attorney general of the largest state, in California, twice; as a United States senator; and actually now as vice president. And the congresswoman and I have talked about that. That is an oath one must take seriously. It is a duty to defend and honor and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

He has said he would terminate it. Anyone who wants to be president of the United States should never again be able to stand behind the seal of the president of the United States, having said they would terminate the Constitution of the United States. (Applause.)

And, again, most recently, the report is that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a decorated general, said of Donald Trump that he is “fascist to the core.” These are the people who know him best, people who worked with him.

And so, yes, we can talk about that moment on stage of the music and all that, but I think it’s very important that we acknowledge, and I have said publicly, Donald Trump is an unserious man, and the consequences of him ever being president of the United States again are brutally serious — brutally serious.

I — to — to the congresswoman’s point, I have now, as vice president of the United States, met over 150 world leaders — presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, and kings — many of them, multiple times; we are on a first-name basis — most of them allies in connection with NATO, and — and I’ve met with them in connection with our standing, rightly, with Ukraine. The world is watching this election, and our allies are worried, because the reality is that when we, as the United States of America, walk in these rooms around the world, we walk in chin up, shoulders back, with the earned and self-appointed authority to talk about the importance of democracy and rule of law.

And being a role model — this is a room of role models — we know, as a role model, people watch what you do to see if it matches up to what you say.

One of my very real fears, Charlie, to be candid, is I hope that we, as the American people, fully understand how important America is to the world. I hope we really, really understand that — (applause) — because this is about what will happen to and — and with us as Americans, but it will impact people around the world.

MR. SYKES: Let me follow up on that, Congresswoman, because I was on a podcast recently with — with another pundit who was saying that she was afraid that America was sleepwalking into authoritarianism, that American voters were not sufficiently alarmed. And as the vice president just said, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just said that Donald Trump was the most dangerous threat facing the country.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

MR. SYKES: Do Americans — in this last 15 days, do they understand that? And what has to happen in the next two weeks for them to really understand the danger?

MS. CHENEY: Yeah, I — I think that they — I think they do. And, you know, one of the things I — I remind people is that although not every Republican who is casting a vote for Vice President Harris will say publicly that they are — there’s clearly, you know, a threat associated with that in some instances — but — but millions will. And — and they will do that for a whole range of reasons, but — but what you mentioned is so important.

I mean, when I think about — you know, I — the first time I ever voted was for Ronald Reagan. I’ve known presidents well. Obviously, particularly, I know a vice president well — (laughter) — in addition to Vice President Harris. And — and I watch how our presidents have operated. And even when there have been presidents that we have potentially disagreed with on issues, they’ve respected the Constitution.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

MS. CHENEY: I mean, think about the 2000 election and how close that was and what Vice President Gore did in — in his concession speech and in ensuring that we had the peaceful transfer of power.

And so, I — I would just urge people — again, you don’t have to — to take my word for it, but — but look at what the people closest to Donald Trump are saying about him. Look at the testimony of the leaders of his Justice department, the leaders of his campaign, the most senior officials in his White House. Look at their testimony in front of the Select Committee. You know, they’re the ones that — that told us everything that we know about his plan to overturn the last election, about what he did watching the attack from his dining room.

We’ve never faced a threat like this before, and I — I think it’s so important for people to realize this republic only survives if we protect it, and that means putting partisan politics aside and standing up for the Constitution and for what’s right and loving our country more. (Applause.)

MR. SYKES: Do — do you — do you think we’ll be hearing more from some of those folks in the next 15 days — the generals, the chiefs of staff, the people who really understand exactly how unfit Donald Trump is?

MS. CHENEY: I do. I also think that — you know, that they have been very clear so far.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

MS. CHENEY: I mean, you’ve had — you’ve had hundreds of national security officials who served in Republican administrations endorse the vice president —

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Publicly, yeah.

MS. CHENEY: Yeah. And all of the things that — that — you know, the fact that these people aren’t endorsing — the fact that Vice President Pence, who was the most loyal person there was to Donald Trump — he won’t endorse him because he knows Donald Trump asked him to violate his oath of office.

Now, that should also give you a lot of pause about J.D. Vance. J.D. Vance is there because he will do what Donald Trump wants, and that makes him a particular danger to the republic as well.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: And — and I’ll add to that point: Understand also what happened in the last few months when the Supreme Court essentially told the former president he will be immune from anything he does in office. So, whereas, before, there was at least some threat of consequence and accountability, that no longer exists.

And to the congresswoman’s point, imagine Donald Trump — based on everything we know about him and everything we see now and before — imagine him with no guardrails, because all of those folks who worked with him before, they’re not — those who held him back, who attempted to ensure that he would follow the law are no longer there. And — and we have the Supreme Court decision, so the stakes are very high.

MR. SYKES: Okay. Let’s go to the audience for some questions. We — we have some undecided voters who have some questions for you, Madam Vice President.

Let’s go to Lisa Brockman from Madison. Lisa is a small-business owner.

Q Hi.

MR. SYKES: Good evening.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Hi.

Q Thanks for taking my question. I have a question on reproductive freedom.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

Q And I am — come from a conservative, Christian, pro-life family, and I was a Republican until Donald Trump’s presidency. (Laughs.) Like most Americans, I believe in a woman’s right to choose. And with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, my 21-year-old daughter now has fewer rights than her mother or her grandmothers.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

Q I no longer recognize the Republican Party. They have introduced bills for everything from restricting birth control to bringing homicide charges for abortion. It is such an extreme, radical agenda by any standards, and it seems less about the unborn and more about controlling women.

So, my question is: What are your thoughts on this extremism, and how can we restore those fundamental human rights that have been taken away from the American women?

MR. SYKES: Thank you.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: So, to your point, when Donald Trump was president, he hand-selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would undo the protections of Roe, and they did as he intended. And now there are at least 20 states in our country that have criminalized health care providers, to your point.

I mean, in Texas, the — the law provides for prison for life for a doctor, nurse, health care provider for doing what they believe is health care and in the best interest of their patient.

Punishing women. I was actually just this week, just a few days ago, in the state of Georgia with the mother of a young woman who died because of Georgia’s abortion ban, and she had to go to another state. And it’s a long and very tragic story that did not have to be.

And here’s how I think about this issue. One does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree that the government — these folks in a state capitol, much less Donald Trump — should not be making this decision for her. If she chooses, she will talk with her priest, her pastor, her rabbi, her imam, but not the government.

And — and I also have found, though, since the two years that the Dobbs decision came down, that this happened, I have had conversations with a number of people who were opposed to abortion and remain opposed to it but did not intend for the harm that we are seeing to happen. And I think as this has — this decision came down and we are seeing the harm, there are more and more people who are agreeing that this should not be the government making this decision for women and their families.

And the way that we will address this is, eventually, Congress needs to pass a law restoring those protections, and we need to agree that, in our society, you know, we should not have laws that are treating people in a way that is causing such harm.

I’ll give you another example of the harm that is going on. I started my career as a prosecutor. I have prosecuted everything from low-level offenses to homicides. But one of the reasons I became a prosecutor is because, when I was in high school, I learned that my best friend was being molested by her stepfather. And so, I said to her, “You have to come live with us.” I called my mother. My mother said, “Of course,” and she did. And I made a decision early in my life that I wanted to do the work that was about protecting vulnerable people.

There are some of these bans that include no exception for rape or incest. I have specialized in those kinds of cases. And the — the notion that we would tell a survivor of a crime that is a violation to their body that they have no right to make a decision about what happens to their body next — I mean, I think that’s just unconscionable. I think it’s immoral.

And so, this is one of the issues that is at play. And when this issue has been on the ballot, since the Dobbs decision came down, in so-called red states and so-called blue states, the American people have voted for freedom. (Applause.)

MR. SYKES: Congresswoman Cheney, I’d like to get your thoughts on this as well.

MS. CHENEY: Yeah. You know, I am — I’m pro-life, and I have been very troubled, deeply troubled by what I have watched happen in so many states since Dobbs. And I have been troubled by the extent to which you have women who, as the vice president said, in some cases, have died, who can’t get medical treatment that they need because providers are worried about criminal liability.

You know, we’re facing a situation today where I think that it’s an untenable one. And I think that as we deal with issues like this one, having a president who understands how important compassion is, who understands that these shouldn’t be political issues, that we ought to be able to have these discussions and say: You know what? Even if you are pro-life, as I am, I do not believe, for example, that the state of Texas ought to have the right, as they’re currently suing to do, to get access to women’s medical records.

I mean, there are some very fundamental and fundamentally dangerous things that have happened. And — and so, I think that it’s crucially important for us to find ways to have the federal government play a role and protect women from some of the worst harms that we’re seeing.

But — but, again, I just think that if you look at the difference in — in the way that Donald Trump is handling this issue — you know, Donald Trump, at one point, called for criminal penalties for women. Now, you know, he — he’s been now trying to — to, you know, sort of be all over the place on this issue, although he expresses great pride for what’s happened.

And — and I think the — the bottom line on this, as on so many other issues, is, you know, you just can’t count on him. You cannot trust him. We’ve seen the man that he is. We’ve seen the cruelty. And America deserves much better. (Applause.)

MR. SYKES: Thank you. Thank you, Lisa.

So, we — we have another question. Carolyn Mitchell from Wauwatosa has a question for the vice president as well.

Q Hi. I have concerns about the strength and the health of the Medicare and the Social Security system. There have been a lot of suggestions for improving or protecting it, some of them raising the age for full acceptance of Social Security. There’s also the idea that we would end the cap on — on the Social Security tax. There is also the suggestion that we raise the tax rate on both Medicare and Social Security. And, of course, the last one is to reduce the benefits.

So, my question for you is: How can we protect the health of both Social Security and Medicare without reducing the benefits?

MR. SYKES: Thank you.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: So, first of all, thank you for your question. Actually, just today, I believe it was — within the last 24 hours or so — an independent review of Donald Trump’s policy on Social Security has indicated that, under his policy, Social Security would become insolvent in six years.

And what I and you and, I think, most of us know is that we have many, many seniors in our country where their Social Security check is their only form of income. It’s everything and the only thing they have to live on, to pay rent, groceries, all of that. And so, we must protect Social Security.

     If you look at Donald Trump’s Project 2025, the — the plan that they have if he is elected — or reelected president, it — it would attack Social Security. It would attack Medicare.

     And back to the point about just what is in the interest of dignity. The president of the United States should have as one of their highest concerns the dignity of the American people and, in particular, those who have lived a productive life, who deserve to be able to retire and go into their senior years with the dignity of not worrying about whether they’re going to have a roof over their head or be able to eat.

     So, my plan includes what we need to do to strengthen the solvency of Social Security. It includes what we’re going to need to do and work with Congress to make sure we’re putting more into it. And it cannot be about cutting benefits, because right now, those benefits are barely adequate as it is.

     What we must also do is continue to strengthen Medicare around what we’ve been working on, which is to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription medication costs for our seniors.

     So, in the last four years, we have now capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month for seniors. This is a huge issue for so many who have otherwise either taken a bus trip to Canada to try and get their prescription medication — you’re smiling; you know what I’m talking about — or — not that you have; I’m not suggesting that. (Laughter.) I’m not suggesting that. And we’ve also capped the cost of — of prescription medication at $2,000 a year for our seniors, understanding, again, that this is a related issue, which is what is causing our seniors to be on the verge of bankruptcy and — and homelessness, by the way.

     The other work that we have to do is to deal with home health care and how Medicare is covering that.

     So, part of my plan is — right now, the only way that there will be coverage for home health care is, generally speaking, Medicaid, which means that the family or the individual would have to spend down all of their savings to be able to be eligible for Medicaid. And, frankly, I think it’s just — that’s — that’s wrong, and it’s — it’s just wrong.

     You know, I took care of my mother when she was sick, and the work that needs to happen to support our seniors to be able to stay in their home, to be able to live a life with dignity should include that we will pay attention to the fact that not everybody can afford that help, not everyone has a family member who can do it.

And so, my plan includes having Medicare cover home health care work for seniors — (applause) — so that you can stay in your home, for example, and have someone who can prepare a meal and help you put on a sweater. But the — the core point being dignity and understanding that we should not have a society that allows or requires our seniors to — to go into poverty in order to qualify for the care that they may need that, I think, we — most would agree — should provide. (Applause.)

     Thank you.

     MR. SYKES: And we have another question from the audience, from Dan — Dan Voboril, who is a retired school teacher, taught at MPS, and now lives in Waukesha. Again, a genuinely undecided voter, I understand.

     Q    Thank you. Good evening.

     MS. CHENEY: Come on, Dan. (Laughter.)

     Q    What did you say?

     I was told I was going to be an alternate, so I was a little worried about getting my question. But —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT: Take your time. Take your time.

     Q    This is a question that — I actually retired from MPS, but I currently teach, and I teach at a private Catholic school. I’m a Catholic, but I’ve also been pro-life, pro-choice depending. But I have five daughters, and I think it’s my duty to continue — with the children I teach as well — to see that we need to respect women, and I’ve really come to the conclusion that this toxicity that exists is just rather embarrassing. And as a lifelong Republican, who I thought your father would be a great president —

     MS. CHENEY: Thank you.

     Q    — not to say George wasn’t, but — (laughter) — but I’ve come to this realization, and it’s — it’s been very difficult. So, I’m just — my big question was, for the future of my children and also students that I encounter and try to show that we have to have some kind of civility like we did back in the — the ‘80s, when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, of course, could talk about things and solve problems, and now it’s trying to get one better than the other.

     And so, I’m just wondering, in your position now, how to convince people like me, who some of my siblings might be questioning what I’m doing here, but — (laughter) — I — I think, like you said, we have to be courageous, and that’s what I’m trying to be. And so, what do you think we can do in the last 15 days — or you can, Madam Vice President — what you can do to try to get some of these people to cross over? I know you already said that some of them probably won’t say who they’re voting for, but — or something I could take with me to say, “This sounds very good,” or, “We got to at least listen to this.”

     MR. SYKES: To reduce the toxicity? Is that —

     Q    Yes.

     MR. SYKES: Okay.

     MS. CHENEY: Yeah, I — I think that — that, you know, you’ve really put your finger on something that’s so important, and you see it as a teacher. You know, any of us who are around young children — I see it as a mom. My kids aren’t so young anymore, but — but, you know, the — when they look at how elected officials and, in particular, how Donald Trump is conducting himself now, that’s — that’s not — that’s not a lesson that anybody would look up to.

     And — and I think about it often from the perspective of the men and women who’ve worn the uniform of our country and who have sacrificed so much for our freedom, all of us have an obligation to be worthy of that sacrifice.

And in this — (applause) — you know, in this moment, there — there are millions of good and honorable people who Donald Trump has just fundamentally betrayed. And — and I think it’s so important for — for people to think about this from the perspective of, you know, the decision to give somebody the power of the presidency means that you’re handing someone the most awesome and significant power of any office anywhere in the world, and — and you have to choose people who have character, choose people of good faith.

     You know, the — the framers knew this. The framers knew that — that it was so important that, you know, we take an oath but that also, fundamentally, you had to have people of character. And Donald Trump has proven he’s not one of those people by his actions.

     So, you know, what I — what I say to people is, look, for us to get back to a time where we are actually having policy debates and discussions and disagreements, we have to protect what undergirds all of this, and — and what undergirds all of it is the Constitution. And we have to be willing to say, as a nation, “We’re better than partisanship.”

     We know — and I say this as someone who spent a lot of years engaged in partisan battles and — and there are important debates we have to have. But if — if we allow someone again — if we give him the power again to, you know, do all of the things he tells us he’s going to do — he says he’ll terminate the Constitution; he says he’ll deploy the military against the “enemy within” — that — that is a risk that we just simply can’t take as a nation. And — and I think that, you know, this vote, this election cycle, this time around has to be about so much more than partisanship.

And I will just end this by saying: And I also know because I have spent time with Vice President Harris, because I have come to understand what she believes about how she will govern, that she will be a president for all Americans, that she’s committed to listening and committed to having viewpoints, some of which, you know, come from different ends of the political spectrum.

     And — and if you think about how you conduct, you know, your life outside of politics, how we all conduct our everyday lives, those are the kinds of people that you trust. Those are the kinds of people you can work with. Like, if you wouldn’t — if you wouldn’t hire somebody to babysit your kids, like, you shouldn’t make that guy the president of the United States. (Laughter and applause.) I mean, that’s, like, pretty basic.

     MR. SYKES: So — so —

     MS. CHENEY: Thank you. Thank you.

     MR. SYKES: Madam Vice President, that — this question goes to the heart of our discussion tonight, because it’s almost — it is not about politics. It’s not about left versus right. We’re talking about the culture and the impact, the coarsening of the culture, the way in which we have been taught to fear and hate one another, and how our —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

     MR. SYKES: — debates have just devolved into sort of trolling one another. How do we get back from that?

     THE VICE PRESIDENT: So, I think that Dan raised — and, Charlie, your point is — is really also hitting on we have to tap into and — and rejoice, frankly, in the spirit of who we are as Americans. And we are an ambitious people. We have aspirations. We have dreams. We are optimistic by nature. And we, I think, value certain qualities in our leaders.

     To your point as — being a teacher, all of — those of us who are parents or parent in any form, the — the notion over the last several years coming from Trump and those who follow him, meaning people like who he’s running with — not his voters, but just others — the notion that the measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down is just wrongheaded.

     I think most of us would agree that the — that the real measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you lift up. I think most of us would agree — (applause) — and most of us would agree that it is — when we talk about character, it is the sign of strong character to have empathy, to have some level of concern and care about the well-being of other people and then to do something about that.

     And I think there’s so much about this election that calls into question whether we are on a track with a Donald Trump as president to actually teach and to — and to show our children our definition of a leader, and is that it.

     One of the issues that I think has resulted in the kind of toxicity that you have been describing is that he tends to encourage us as Americans to point our fingers at each other. That’s not in our best interest. The vast majority of us have so much more in common than what separates us.

     We are stronger as a nation when we are working toward a common goal, at least on the most basic, fundamental priorities.

     And I think in this election, you can look at, for example, how he presents in his — in his events to know that he really does not have a plan for America that is about investing in our future, investing in our children, investing in — in our economies and new industries, investing in our relationships around the world. It’s all about himself and his personal grievances. And do we want a president of the United States who spends full time plotting revenge while they sit in the Oval Office or a president who is actually focused on the American people?

     I would also say, as a — as a point that I think the congresswoman exemplifies in so many ways, the strength of our democracy requires a strong two-party system. It really does. (Applause.) It requires that we have healthy debate — that we have healthy debate based on — you know, based in logic and fact and that we — we debate it out — have good, vigorous debates — have a good fight over policy. That’s good for democracy. But not to point our fingers and call each other names over trivial, petty grievances.

     So, I think all of that is at stake in this election, and — and tapping into the commonalities that we have around some of these fundamental principles, I think, is going to be key.

     MR. SYKES: Well, that’s why the stakes are so high, right? Because the presidency is a role model, but America is a role model to the rest of the world.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

     MR. SYKES: So, in the very short amount of time we have left, Congresswoman Cheney, just talk a little bit more about the — the stakes for the world. We haven’t talked about the stakes for the future of Ukraine, NATO, of all the other democracies who are looking to us.

     MS. CHENEY: They’re so, so high, Charlie. And, you know, America’s safety and security depends upon America leading, and it depends upon allies.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

MS. CHENEY: And when you have someone who is erratic and chaotic and unstable, that puts all of us at risk.

     I — I tell people often — you know, I spend a lot of time working on national security issues. And when people that I know in the — in the Republican Party tell me they might be considering voting for Trump from a national security perspective, I ask them: Go look at his national security policies. Please, go look at them, because what he’s proposing in terms of withdrawing from NATO; welcoming Vladimir Putin to attack our NATO Allies; praising — he — he praises Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea, and President Xi of China and Putin of Russia. And if you listen to him, he doesn’t just praise those people generally. He praises them for their cruelty —

     THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yep.

     MS. CHENEY: — for their tyranny.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yep.

     MS. CHENEY: That’s not who we are as a nation. It’s not who we are.

And the world needs us to be better. And our own security and our own freedom requires that we have a president who understands America has to lead and that our strength comes both from our greatness and also from our goodness. And that’s Vice President Harris. (Applause.)

MR. SYKES: And you have the last word.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: And — and just to — thank you. Thank you.

MR. SYKES: You get the last word.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: But — but just as a point of emphasis on this important point: Understand that this is an individual, Donald Trump, who is easily manipulated by flattery, and we’ve seen that. We’ve — don’t forget he — he dared to even consider vi- — inviting the Taliban to Camp David. Remember all this. The love letters with Kim Jong Un.

     Let’s remember what we just most recently — what was reported. During the height of COVID, Americans were dying by the hundreds a day. Nobody could get their hands on COVID tests. You remember what that was. During that time, he secretly sent COVID tests to Vladimir Putin for his personal use.

     On the issue of Ukraine, he says, “Oh, well, I’d solve that in a day.” Well, I don’t think we as Americans think that the president of the United States should solve an issue like that through surrender, and understand that’s what would happen. (Applause.) Understand that’s what would happen. Vladimir Putin would be sitting in Kyiv if Donald Trump were president.

     And understand what that means as — so much that our allies understand, and that’s why they’re concerned about this election. If — if Putin were to get away with invading the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine because America, the leader in bringing the allies together in standing for fundamental international rules and norms, like sovereignty and territorial integrity — if Vladimir Putin got away with that, you think he wouldn’t march next right into Poland and the rest of Europe? Because Donald Trump wants to please somebody that he considers to be a strongman, who he admires?

     So, on this and so many issues, the stakes are extremely high.

     But I — I would say this as — as a final point for now. This is not as much an issue of what we are against as what we are for. And I’ll end my point where I started: We love our country, and our country is worth fighting for. (Applause.) And that’s how I think of this.

     We — our — our democracy will only be as strong as our willingness to fight for it. And you all are taking your time out of your lives to be here because we, I think, agree on that among the most fundamental principles at stake.

     And I thank you for the time you’ve taken, and I hope to earn your vote, by the way. (Laughs.) (Applause.)

     Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

     MR. SYKES: And we have 15 days to make a decision.

Thank you all for coming here to (inaudible). Thank you, Congresswoman Liz Cheney. Vice President Kamala Harris, thank you so much. (Applause.)

And you had Eminem and Barack Obama in Detroit yesterday.

On Barack, Marcia noted this last night:

Let's enjoy a good laugh.

Barack can nail it when he's on fire and he was on fire when he detonated that one. He's right and he did it with humor.

Marcia also steered us to a letter to the editors of The Los Angeles Times:

To the editor: The letter you printed regarding the large number of negative articles about former President Trump and very few negative articles about Vice President Kamala Harris is dead on. You should be printing comparable articles about her.

I suggest that you provide coverage for her federal trial over her conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, and her efforts to steal the presidency; her New York civil trial for defamation and sexual abuse; her other New York trial for fraud; her federal Florida trial for allegedly stealing documents and refusing to return them; and her Georgia election interference trial.

You should also have coverage for every time that she has talked about using the U.S. military against the American people, every desire she has ever uttered about wanting to be a dictator, and every tariff she has ever championed that would act like a tax on the American people.

Emery Galambos, Los Angeles

The following sites updated: