Tumgik
#Haley Strategic
diablo1776 · 11 months
Text
Travis Haley
10 notes · View notes
headlesssamurai · 10 months
Photo
Tumblr media
2 notes · View notes
vague-humanoid · 11 months
Text
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/05/10/mlk-malcolm-x-playboy-alex-haley/
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Jonathan Eig was deep in the Duke University archives researching his new biography of Martin Luther King Jr. when he made an alarming discovery: King’s harshest and most famous criticism of Malcolm X, in which he accused his fellow civil rights leader of “fiery, demagogic oratory,” appears to have been fabricated.
“I think its historic reverberations are huge,” Eig told The Washington Post. “We’ve been teaching people for decades, for generations, that King had this harsh criticism of Malcolm X, and it’s just not true.���
The quote came from a January 1965 Playboy interview with author Alex Haley, a then-43-year-old Black journalist, and was the longest published interview King ever did. Because of the severity of King’s criticism, it has been repeated countless times, cast as a dividing line between King and Malcolm X. The new revelation “shows that King was much more open-minded about Malcolm than we’ve tended to portray him,” Eig said.
Haley’s legacy has been tarnished by accusations of plagiarism and historical inaccuracy in his most famous book, “Roots,” but this latest finding could open up more of his work to criticism, especially “The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley” — released nine months after Malcolm X’s assassination in 1965.
Malcolm X, a member of the Nation of Islam, had frequently attacked King and his commitment to nonviolence, going so far as to call King a “modern Uncle Tom.” But his criticism often had “strategic purposes,” Eig said.
In acting as “a foil” to King, his message had more value to the media. “King saw value in being a foil to Malcolm sometimes, too. But I think at their core they had a lot in common. They certainly shared a lot of the same goals,” Eig said.
Eig, who previously wrote acclaimed biographies of Muhammad Ali and Lou Gehrig, said he found the fabrication in the course of his standard book research for “King: A Life,” due out May 16. When a subject has given a long interview, he’ll look through the archives of the journalist who conducted it, hoping to find notes or tapes with previously unpublished anecdotes.
He did not find a recording of Haley’s interview with King in the Haley archives at Duke, but he did find what appears to be an unedited transcript of the full interview, likely typed by a secretary straight from a recording, Eig said. Eig provided The Post with a copy of the transcript.
On page 60 of the 84-pagedocument, Haley asks, “Dr. King, would you care to comment upon the articulate former Black Muslim, Malcolm X?”
King responds: “I have met Malcolm X, but circumstances didn’t enable me to talk with him for more than a minute. I totally disagree with many of his political and philosophical views, as I understand them. He is very articulate, as you say. I don’t want to seem to sound as if I feel so self-righteous, or absolutist, that I think I have the only truth, the only way. Maybe he does have some of the answer. But I know that I have so often felt that I wished that he would talk less of violence, because I don’t think that violence can solve our problem. And in his litany of expressing the despair of the Negro, without offering a positive, creative approach, I think that he falls into a rut sometimes.”
That is not how King’s response appeared in the published interview. While the top part is nearly identical with the transcript, it ended in Playboy like this: “And in his litany of articulating the despair of the Negro without offering any positive, creative alternative,I feel that Malcolm has done himself and our people a great disservice. Fiery, demagogic oratory in the black ghettos, urging Negroes to arm themselves and prepare to engage in violence, as he has done, can reap nothing but grief.”
Some of the phrases added to King’s answer appear to be taken significantly out of context, while others appear to be fabricated:
@meanmisscharles @russianspacegeckosexparty @ubernegro @that-biracial-geek-girl @redstarovermoundcity
Eig has shared this discovery with a number of King scholars, and the changes “jumped out” to them as “a real fraud,” Eig said. “They’re like, ‘Oh my God, I’ve been teaching that to my students for years,’ and now they have to rethink it,” Eig said.
5K notes · View notes
tiradoresprecision · 2 years
Text
Bolsa multiherramienta HSP
Una de las piezas más utilizadas del kit es la multiherramienta y Haley Strategic Partners está introduciendo una bolsa dedicada que se puede utilizar para otros artículos comparables como linternasy cargadores. Próximamente de HSP.
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
bowenoke · 4 hours
Text
Shane + Haley bc I'm mostly curious about whether other ppl who are into efficiency also are into my 2 favorite speedrunnable spouses. Krobus bc aro rights
23 notes · View notes
the-psudo · 2 months
Text
Trump's People
“The American people deserve to know that President Trump asked me to put him over my oath to the Constitution. … Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.” — Mike Pence, Trump's vice president
“Someone who engaged in that kind of bullying about a process that is fundamental to our system and to our self-government shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office.” — Bill Barr, Trump's 2nd attorney general
“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us.” — James Mattis, Trump's 1st secretary of defense
“I think he’s unfit for office. … He puts himself before country. His actions are all about him and not about the country. And then, of course, I believe he has integrity and character issues as well.” — Mark Esper, Trump's 2nd secretary of defense
“We don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We take an oath to the Constitution and we take an oath to the idea that is America – and we’re willing to die to protect it.” — retired Gen. Mark Milley, Trump's chairman of the joint chiefs
“(Trump’s) understanding of global events, his understanding of global history, his understanding of US history was really limited. It’s really hard to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t even understand the concept for why we’re talking about this.” — Rex Tillerson, Trump's secretary of state
“He used to be good on foreign policy and now he has started to walk it back and get weak in the knees when it comes to Ukraine. A terrible thing happened on January 6, and he called it a beautiful day.” — Nikki Haley, Trump's 1st ambassador to the United Nations
“Someone who I would argue now is just out for himself.” — Chris Christie, Trump's presidential transition vice-chairman
“We saw the absence of leadership, really anti-leadership, and what that can do to our country.” — HR McMaster, Trump's 2nd national security adviser
“I believe (foreign leaders) think he is a laughing fool.” — John Bolton, Trump's 3rd national security adviser
“A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law. There is nothing more that can be said. God help us.” — John Kelly, Trump's 2nd chief of staff
“I quit because I think he failed at being the president when we needed him to be that.” — Mick Mulvaney, Trump's acting chief of staff and US special envoy to Ireland, resigned after January 6th, 2021
“He is the domestic terrorist of the 21st century.” — Anthony Scaramucci, one of Trump's former communications directors
“I am terrified of him running in 2024.” — Stephanie Grisham, another former communications director
“When I saw what was happening on January 6 and didn’t see the president step in and do what he could have done to turn it back or slow it down or really address the situation, it was just obvious to me that I couldn’t continue.” — Betsy DeVos, Trump's secretary of education, resigned after January 6th, 2021
“At a particular point the events were such that it was impossible for me to continue, given my personal values and my philosophy." — Elaine Chao, Trump's secretary of Transportation, resigned after January 6th, 2021
“…the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices.” — Richard Spencer, Trump's 1st secretary of the Navy
“The President undermined American democracy baselessly for months. As a result, he’s culpable for this siege, and an utter disgrace.” — Tom Bossert, Trump's 1st homeland security adviser
“Donald’s an idiot.” — Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer and fixer
“Trump relentlessly puts forth claims that are not true.” — Ty Cobb, Trump's White House lawyer
“We can stand by the policies, but at this point we cannot stand by the man.” — Alyssa Farah Griffin, one of Trump's directors of strategic communications, now a CNN political commentator
“Donald Trump, who would attack civil rights icons and professional athletes, who would go after grieving black widows, who would say there were good people on both sides, who endorsed an accused child molester; Donald Trump, and his decisions and his behavior, was harming the country. I could no longer be a part of this madness.” — Omarosa Manigault Newman, a top aide in charge of Trump's outreach to African Americans
“I thought that he did do a lot of good during his four years. I think that his actions on January 6 and the lead-up to it, the way that he’s acted in the aftermath, and his continuation of pushing this lie that the election is stolen has made him wholly unfit to hold office every again.” — Sarah Matthews, one of Trump's deputy press secretaries, resigned after January 6th, 2021
“I think that Donald Trump is the most grave threat we will face to our democracy in our lifetime, and potentially in American history.” — Cassidy Hutchinson, Trump's final chief of staff’s aide
16 notes · View notes
warsofasoiaf · 4 months
Note
Somewhat related to anon's ask about Trump being convicted. Let's say Trump is convicted on at least one of the counts in the DC case before the RNC in July, do you think the GOP would put up someone like Nikki Haley seeing as she polls well against Biden (I actually think she'd beat him relatively comfortably)? According to a NYT poll, a five point advantage for Trump in a swing state turns into a ten point deficit if he is convicted, so I could see the GOP wanting to go with someone different.
No, I don't think so, for a couple reasons.
For one, Trump leads opinion polls of Republicans by an overwhelming majority. Putting up another candidate would likely engender backlash from a sizable amount of Republicans even if it made sense from a strategic perspective. No one likes having their guy lose out the nomination, just ask the Bernie Sanders supporters. The GOP would not just fear people staying home, but donations drying up from the people who believe that they were sidelined by the party elites.
For two, the populist wing of the movement largely doesn't believe in or trust public polling, particularly coming from a source like the NYT, which is seen as fake news. They'd think that it was false information meant to manipulate the RNC into dropping Trump for a weaker candidate.
Thanks for the question, Bruin.
SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King
21 notes · View notes
donaldjohntrump · 2 months
Text
Former President Donald Trump plans a "Get Out the Vote" rally at Coastal Carolina University in South Carolina, strategically timed before early voting. The move aims to solidify his lead and challenge GOP rival Nikki Haley.
12 notes · View notes
mariacallous · 6 months
Text
Foreign policy is likely to feature prominently at the Republican presidential primary debates. At the debate in August, a question on whether the candidates would support continued U.S. assistance to Ukraine produced a firestorm. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who had previously suggested that Russia’s war in Ukraine was not a “vital” national interest, appeared skeptical, calling on Europe to do more instead. Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy was more direct in opposing such aid, calling it “disastrous” for the United States to be “protecting against an invasion across somebody else’s border.” Former Vice President Mike Pence and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, on the other hand, expressed strong support for assisting Ukraine, effectively standing behind President Joe Biden’s efforts to counter Russian aggression while imploring the United States to do even more.
On the other side of the aisle, some Democrats have been wary of Biden’s policy on Ukraine, as evidenced by a letter (that was later retracted) sent to the president by progressive Democrats, calling for a diplomatic end to the conflict and potential sanctions relief for Russia.
In today’s polarized political atmosphere, such cross-cutting views may appear confounding. On most domestic policy issues, whether political leaders have an R or a D next to their name is often a pretty good guide to their take on any particular issue. But when it comes to foreign policy, the normal rules of politics do not apply. Instead, of much greater relevance is where a political leader falls on the foreign-policy ideology spectrum.
Tumblr media
The schools of thought that make up this spectrum, reflecting fundamentally different views about the U.S. role in the world, are highly influential but not very well understood.
In seeking to differentiate between foreign-policy positions, the media often resorts to cliches, such as “hawks versus doves,” or buzzwords, such as “isolationist” and “neoconservative.” However, these terms tend to be oversimplified or exaggerated and convey little useful information. International relations theories are not all that helpful either. “Realism” is routinely conflated with an academic concept that predicts how nations can be expected to behave, rather than how they should. And other theories, such as “idealism” and “constructivism,” offer limited utility in understanding real-world decision-making.
Yet there are critical differences in how policymakers view the world and are seeking to influence the direction of U.S. foreign policy. There is a clear dichotomy, for instance, between those who believe that U.S. influence is mostly positive and that the United States should play an active role in global affairs and those who believe that U.S. hubris more often leads to bad outcomes and want to scale back the country’s overseas commitments.
There is a significant divide between those who believe that the United States should prioritize efforts to advance democratic values and norms and those who believe in defending more narrow strategic interests. And there are disparate views on whether the United States should stand firm against adversaries, such as Russia and China, or should seek to find common ground.
I have delineated six distinct foreign-policy camps that represent the dominant strains of thinking on the U.S. role in the world. These camps can be placed along a spectrum of international engagement. Four of them fall on the more assertive side of this spectrum, constituting “internationalists,” who believe that the United States should exercise its influence and be actively engaged in global affairs. And two of the camps are “non-internationalists,” who believe that the United States should scale back its global commitments and adopt a less forward-leaning foreign policy.
Tumblr media
1. Unilateral Internationalists
Tumblr media
Defining worldview: Unilateral internationalists believe U.S. primacy and freedom of action are paramount and prioritize unilateral U.S. action, unconstrained by alliances or international agreements, to advance strategic interests. While President George W. Bush came close, especially during his first term, no U.S. president has directly embraced this school.
Key attributes:
View China and Russia as the greatest challenges to U.S. primacy in the international system and seek to exert maximum pressure to counter U.S. adversaries and project American power
Prioritize U.S. national interests, even if at the expense of allies, and favor strategic interests over democratic values or a “rules-based order”—but support U.S. alliances while skeptical of allies’ willingness to act
Are distrustful of the United Nations and international agreements and favor U.S. withdrawal from international institutions where necessary to avoid restraints on U.S. power and sovereignty
Support using military force to advance U.S. interests
Prominent voices: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton
Recent U.S. presidents: None
Republican candidates: None
Tumblr media
s the second most assertive of six camps.
2. Democratic Internationalists
Tumblr media
Defining worldview: Democratic internationalists believe that defending democracy is essential to maintaining U.S. and global security and prioritize working with like-minded allies to advance shared values and a rules-based democratic order. This school has been predominant among elected U.S. leaders—across both political parties—since President Harry Truman declared it was the policy of the United States to help “free and independent nations to maintain their freedom.”
Key attributes:
View strategic competition between democracy and autocracy as the major fault line in the international system and support proactive measures to defend against revisionist autocracies, namely China and Russia
Are strong proponents of democratic alliances and solidarity and are eager to maintain the United States’ role as the “leader of the free world”
Support robust efforts to advance democratic values and human rights and to hold autocratic regimes to account for war crimes and violent oppression
Are willing to consider use of force if necessary to defend democracy and the rules-based order
Prominent voices: Madeleine Albright, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Chris Coons, G. John Ikenberry, Hal Brands
Recent U.S. presidents: Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Joe Biden
Republican candidates: Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence
Tumblr media
ost assertive of six camps.
3. Realist Internationalists
Tumblr media
Defining worldview: Realist internationalists believe that U.S. power should be utilized to defend more narrow strategic interests and prioritize pragmatic engagement with all nations to help preserve global and regional stability. Former National Security Advisors Brent Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger were quintessential practitioners of this school, which was also embraced by the presidents they served.
Key attributes:
View great-power rivalry as inevitable in the global system and support U.S. alliances and active efforts to deter rival powers and maintain global order
Are willing to engage adversaries and work with all nations, regardless of regime type, to advance strategic objectives
Are prepared to make mutual accommodations with rivals, or seek to divide them, to achieve a stable balance of power
Are inclined to “accept the world as it is” and are wary of U.S. intervention and democracy promotion efforts
Support a strong U.S. defense posture and are willing to use force when required to defend vital national interests
Prominent voices: Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, Robert Gates, Richard Haass, Stephen Krasner, Charles Kupchan
Recent U.S. presidents: Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush
Republican candidates: Ron DeSantis
Tumblr media
4. Multilateral Internationalists
Tumblr media
Defining worldview: Multilateral internationalists believe that peaceful coexistence with other nations should be a key objective and prioritize working through the U.N. and other multilateral institutions to solve global challenges and uphold international norms. President Barack Obama’s foreign policy was steeped in this school, now represented by former Secretary of State John Kerry, who is currently serving as the United States’ chief climate negotiator.
Key attributes:
Are wary of great-power rivalry and strategic competition and are eager to “extend a hand” and find areas of common ground with adversaries
Support active U.S. engagement to advance global norms, good governance, and human rights
Seek to cooperate with all nations to address transnational challenges, with a particular priority on climate change
Prefer to engage through inclusive institutions but support working with U.S. alliances to foster a rules-based order
Are disinclined to use military force and will consider it only when authorized by the U.N. Security Council
Prominent voices: John Kerry, Bruce Jones
Recent U.S. presidents: Barack Obama
Republican candidates: None
Non-Internationalists
Tumblr media
1. Retractors
Tumblr media
Defining worldview: Retractors believe that the world is taking advantage of the United States and support a more transactional foreign policy that seeks to retract the United States from global commitments and maximize pecuniary benefits. President Donald Trump’s foreign policy epitomizes this school. But its adherents date back to Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan in the late 1990s and the America First movement of the 1930s that sought to keep the United States out of World War II.
Key attributes:
Are deeply cynical about values and norms and seek and are prone to conspiracy theories and suspect the role of the “deep state” in manipulating U.S. policy
Are critical of alliances and disdainful of U.S. allies, particularly in Europe, and believe efforts to cooperate through international institutions are naive and self-defeating
Seek to “make deals” with autocratic regimes and are dismissive of democratic values and international norms
Emphasize economic protectionism and closed borders to prevent others from “ripping America off”
Believe the United States is militarily overcommitted but support occasional limited military actions to “act tough” and demonstrate U.S. prowess
Prominent voices: Michael Anton
Recent U.S. presidents: Donald Trump
Republican candidates: Donald Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy
Tumblr media
2. Restrainers
Tumblr media
Defining worldview: Restrainers believe that the United States is overstretched and overcommitted and support a more restrained foreign policy that significantly reduces the country’s global footprint. While still largely on the margins, this school has gained some prominence in recent years, as reflected by the emergence of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and its adherents.
Key attributes: 
Are distrustful of U.S. power and influence in the international system and believe that the United States has no standing to promote democratic values or a rules-based order, given its own flawed democracy, hypocrisy, and imperialism
Believe the United States has picked unnecessary fights with adversaries and that its overseas military posture, alliances, and sanctions policies are often overly provocative
Are wary of “inflating” threats posed by China and Russia and favor diplomatic efforts to cooperate with adversaries and reach a mutual accommodation and view a nationalistic foreign policy as arrogant and distasteful
Seek to reduce the U.S. military presence overseas and to scale back commitments to NATO and other alliances and vigorously oppose the use of force
Prominent voices: Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, Andrew Bacevich, Stephen M. Walt, Stephen Wertheim
Recent U.S. presidents: None
Republican candidates: None
Several key points follow from this analysis. First, admittedly, the edges of these camps are fuzzy, and policymakers may often find themselves straddling one or more of these camps, especially on specific issues. Nevertheless, these six schools are sufficiently discrete and represent the primary worldviews that are influencing the contemporary debate on how the United States should conduct its foreign policy.
Second, many of these schools tend to cross partisan lines. Democratic internationalism, for example, has been enthusiastically embraced by political leaders on both sides of the aisle and has strong bipartisan constituencies, as reflected in pro-democracy institutions such as the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute. Realism has also had a long tradition in U.S. foreign policy, resonating with national security practitioners across both parties. Similarly, the restraint school draws support among both progressives on the left and libertarians looking for Washington to scale back its global commitments. On the other hand, unilateral internationalism has found a home mainly among conservatives, while multilateral internationalism draws support mostly from liberals. In recent years, retraction has become the policy of choice among pro-Trump Republicans.
Third, determining where recent U.S. presidents fall on this spectrum is not axiomatic. While they may be inclined toward a particular camp as they enter office, most presidents are not purists, and as they govern, many find themselves running up against practical and political realities that make it difficult to maintain a consistent and predictable foreign-policy governing philosophy.
Barack Obama, for example, seemed drawn toward realist internationalism, pursuing a “reset” in relations with Russia and later declining to commit U.S. force to hold Syrian President Bashar al-Assad accountable for his use of chemical weapons. But given the priority Obama placed on engaging adversaries such as Cuba and Iran and working through the United Nations, the main thrust of his foreign policy appeared more consistent with multilateral internationalism.
George W. Bush also straddled various camps. In launching the global war on terrorism, Bush seemed determined to assert U.S. primacy and appeared to be leaning toward unilateral internationalism. But with his emphasis on democracy promotion in Iraq and Afghanistan, his signature Freedom Agenda, and his call for “ending tyranny in our world” in his second inaugural address, Bush’s overall worldview appeared to be more grounded in democratic internationalism.
Where Biden falls is still up for debate. Currently, the Biden national security team is split between realists, who pressed for Biden to withdraw from Afghanistan and reengage with Saudi Crown Prince Muhammed bin Sultan, and democratic internationalists, who championed the president’s initiative to organize a Summit for Democracy. However, given Biden’s steadfast commitment to work with NATO to defend a democratic Ukraine and his conviction that the world is facing a “global struggle between democracy and autocracy,” the broad arc of the Biden administration’s foreign policy so far seems to be more consistent with democratic internationalism—though a more definitive judgment will have to wait until his presidency concludes.
So where does this leave the current slate of Republican candidates? Pence and Haley, as well as former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, all of whom have called for standing up against Russian aggression and have denounced China’s human rights violations, are squarely in the democratic internationalist camp. Donald Trump, of course, has his own lane. DeSantis and Ramaswamy, on the other hand, appear caught between realism and Trumpian retraction, as they battle for support among the Republican rank and file who are skeptical of U.S. global engagement. DeSantis favors a pivot away from Ukraine and toward China—a very realist way to think about trade-offs. Ramaswamy, who has called for a strategy to split Russia and China, also sounds like a realist at times, but his stance on extricating the United States from any involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war, potentially ceding Taiwan to China, and putting the “interests of America first” seems to suggest he is veering toward retraction.
While voters may not consider foreign policy to be central to their vote for the next president, how U.S. leaders choose to engage in the world is critical to the security and prosperity of the American people. By gaining a clearer understanding of the most influential foreign-policy schools of thought, voters—and indeed the candidates themselves—will be in a better position to make informed choices.
33 notes · View notes
inkandguns · 9 months
Text
Tumblr media
Travel setup (the AK doesn’t fit inside any of my bags)
-Ray Ban Wayfarers
-LTT Beretta Px4 Storm 9mm compact carry
-JM custom Kydex OWB holster and mag carrier
-Haley Strategic micro rig (surefire E2D, leatherman wave, IFAK, Benchmade push dagger, and mechanix gloves)
-Protech Rockeye Auto
-Casio G-5600E
-custom AR-15 built by Guardian Arms on Aero Precision receivers with Nikon LPVO
28 notes · View notes
diablo1776 · 1 year
Text
youtube
Travis Haley/Haley Strategic
2 notes · View notes
Note
Do you have any tv show recommendations? (Bonus point if they’re queer)
In any genre, across all time? Any guidelines as to what you like, anon? That would help my brain dig up associations that might be helpful to you.
Shows I still remember I've watched, which is honestly proving quite difficult being put on the spot:
The Wire - One of the most depressing (from beginning to end, relentlessly) shows I've ever watched, but it has such clear-eyed theses at its core about American institutional failure. Its narrative approach is patient and deliberate. Iconic line from iconic character Omar: "If you come at the king, you best not miss." Queer characters: Kima, Omar.
Halt and Catch Fire - A rare case in which I intentionally watched the seasons out of order, starting with S2 and watching S1 last, which worked for me because Joe... The women of the show hooked me in all their messiness and glory. There's a lot of heartache in this show but you feel it only because you become so invested in the characters and their histories. Donna and Cameron... Queer characters: Joe and Haley. (Neither Donna nor Cameron is canonically queer despite a real estate agent thinking they were married.)
Nikita - I came to this version very late and was shocked overall it was a CW production. One of the best things of this show, I would say, is the rules governing its narrative, the fact that everyone truly is on equal strategic grounds and how funny that is when you let protagonists and antagonists have access to the same tools and loop holes and exploits. It's a fun show where nothing says "I love you" like shooting each other in a non-vital area of the body. Queer characters: none.
Leverage - Fun procedural show about people who do crime to do good by foiling bigger assholes who screw over the little people. Many story lines are inspired by real life scenarios, sometimes even watered down because the things people do in real life sound unbelievable. Each episode is basically like three capers rolled together and often features great narrative examples of failing up or doing something too well that you complicate matters further. Lots of competence porn here. Queer characters: Technically none but there is an OT3 that is acknowledged by the powers that be and how you interpret that is up to you.
The Good Place - Do you like learning philosophy through comedy? You might not realize you are! Queer characters: ... is Eleanor Thropp queer?
Haunting of Hill House - Imo the best of Mike Flanagan's adaptations. The real horror along the way is familial trauma. Queer characters: Theo.
Pushing Daisies - I miss your whimsical world so much, Pushing Daisies. A quirky, vibrant show about dead people that's quite life-affirming. Queer characters: None?
I May Destroy You - I was thinking about Fleabag, which is great, but it also leads my brain to I May Destroy You, which is a devastating show about sexual assault. It's a tough watch but one that hasn't left me.
Battlestar Galactica - I'm going to be honest that I have forgotten large chunks of this show but also quite a bit still sticks with me. Ya win some, ya lose some.
Borgen - Yes, there she is, my statsminister Birgitte Nyborg. Look, she's not perfect, she's done some questionable things, but just look at her. Queer characters: it's not significant.
The Fall - One of the most frustrating shows I've ever watched but not because of the show itself but because I feel like the audience validated the criticism the show was making. Literally the show is like: This good-looking white guy is a scumbag but he gets away with it because he's good looking. The same thing with Happy Valley, which is also a great show, but I can't stomach the fawning over its scumbag rapist. Queer characters: I just remembered the cop assistant is gay.
Perfect Season 1:
Orphan Black - Simply a great S1 and a master class by Tatiana Maslany. Queer characters: Cosima and Delphine, Felix.
Killing Eve - Phoebe Waller Bridge, why did you abandon the writers' room? Queer characters: Villanelle and Eve (she's getting there in S1).
Gentleman Jack - S2 wasn't ever gonna reach the high at which S1 ended, lbr. Queer characters: Anne and Ann.
For All Mankind - Maybe not the first two episodes, but the rest is compelling. I rewatched the season finale and that's good tension. Other seasons have their highs but also terrible lows (the other night I remembered Karen and Danny were a thing and desperately wanted to forget again). Queer characters: Ellen and Pam.
Big Little Lies
Sharp Objects - Every once in a while I remember this show and then I feel haunted. To be honest it might have been better if I had never watched the show, so I'm not sure I recommend it because really, truly haunted by the show.
Dare Me - The epitome of toxic teenagers, but what it did really well was slap you in the face with its queerness. I spent 80% of the season wondering if I was reading incorrectly into what might have been legitimate deliberate subtext or what might have been my slash goggles, but when it turned out to have been intentional subtext it was quite satisfying.
I guess I'll never know the rest of the story because the show got canceled:
Peripheral - This is the freshest blow to my brain. I would have enjoyed seeing Chloe Moretz Grace and T'Nia Miller duke it out more.
Teenage Bounty Hunters - What a loss. I thought this show was fresh and funny and with a perspective in a setting not often used and I'm still so sad to think that we won't get to see more of the Wesley sisters and how the mess between baby gays Sterling and April would develop. Damn you, Netflix. (Ditto: Everything Sucks! and I Am Not Okay with This, which both also featured baby gays.) TBH is maybe the canceled queer show I'm most upset about.
Black Spot (Zone Blanche) - Truly.... what the heck was going on in those woods, I want to know.
There's a reason why my media tag is "film taste calibration": It's not about whether something is good or not but about conveying what my preferences are so that you can determine where your tastes might overlap with mine so that you can gauge what might appeal to you as well in that overlap space.
10 notes · View notes
1americanconservative · 7 months
Text
7 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
Hit by an Indictment
* * * *
Chris Christie is moving in the polls while Pence, Haley and Hutchinson remain stuck in the political equivalent of a vegetative state. DeSantis remains in second position, but his trajectory has been a plummet that would track Felix Baumgartner’s descent line.
Felix Baumgartner jumped to Earth from a helium balloon from the stratosphere in 2012 and landed in New Mexico, as part of the Red Bull Stratos project.
Senator Tim Scott will be the chief beneficiary of further attrition by DeSantis. He is primed to move up into a competitive space. It will put him in direct competition with DeSantis in the early fall period of the campaign, which will preface the long turn towards the early primary states — and the grueling competition that will follow.
Timing is an under-appreciated force in a presidential campaign. The candidate and the moment have to align for there to be a possibility of capturing the White House.  Chris Christie would have been the GOP nominee in 2012 had he gone for it, but he hesitated. He was an also-ran in 2016, and has been written off by the familiar pundits who are almost always wrong about everything. Christie has moved first in the primary race, filling the truth-telling, anti-Trump space. How he got there will be a constant drag on his campaign, and is a fundamental design flaw of his own creation. Yet, Christie’s burdens are significantly less than his competitors of which he is, by far, the most talented in every category that matters in the endurance race that is a presidential campaign.
Donald Trump has become a ratings kiss of death as evidenced by the low ratings associated with the events produced for him by networks like CNN. Trump isn’t the star he once was. He has faded away into the leading actor in an ensemble of weakness, cowardice, perfidy and Chris Christie. There is no drama in the race whatsoever beyond the looming confrontation between Chris Christie and Donald Trump in the coming debates. Should Chris Christie have done what he is about to do many years ago? Yes, he should have. The important thing is that he is doing it now, and it is not too late. Other candidates who have long trembled in front of Trump are making their first tepid criticisms of the man who was untouchable just weeks ago.
Trump will be a man running in cement over the months ahead. His indictments and investigations will glue him to the ground. The wheels of justice grind slowly, as they say. His bill has come due. Trump is deflating in real time.
Christie was too early in 2012 and too late in 2016.  It is a mistake to write him off for the GOP nomination. He has an experienced team of pragmatic advisors who are smart, sane and strategic. None of them are under any illusions about Christie’s substantial deficits. However, none are blinded to his substantial attributes that are missed by the punditocracy.
There is another dynamic that is building within the 2024 campaign. The American people aren’t keen on a Biden-Trump rematch.
Think about the toddler game where a board contains cutouts in different shapes that match differently shaped blocks. The political system is currently offering a square hole to a country looking for a round one. What will happen as that block is banged over and over again into the wood board? It will start to crack.
Already there are some fissures showing. The nascent Biden campaign will enter the summer facing an opponent who is polling between 15 and 20%. The strategy of pretending he doesn’t exist will crack in early autumn as Robert Kennedy Jr. climbs in the polls towards 30% and early victories in Iowa and New Hampshire. The insistence that these states won’t count in the Democratic primaries by party officials in Washington, DC, is delusional. Losses by an incumbent president under any circumstances would be catastrophic politically. Keep an eye on the filing deadlines in the fall. The chances that the race is settled go down every day. Gavin Newsom is playing his role in the great game near perfectly. His sparring with Sean Hannity showed he is ready for prime time. He represents youth, renewal, and a Democratic Party that can confidently communicate about the dangers of an extremist movement the country is facing.
The political race will lock in place between July 4th and Labor Day. After that, it will move quickly and promises to be as volatile as any race has been in recent memory. Anything can happen. Buckle up!
[Off to the races]
STEVE SCHMIDT
7 notes · View notes
doctorstethoscope · 2 years
Text
Yes, Mr. President || Subcommittees
Tumblr media
art by @multiverse-mxdness
this is a fun one besties
story summary: Scandal! AU– your mentor, David Rossi, has recruited you to make Senator Aaron Hotchner the next President of the United States. Once described as a political nun, the Senator helps you see that maybe you can mix business and pleasure.
Read previous chapters of this fic here!
contains: discussion of adultery and sex, swearing
wordcount: 2k
“I just don’t get it. Why can’t we do the same thing we always do? We find a friendly reporter to write some fluff pieces on Jack and the First Family, Aaron and I hold hands and kiss and make up on Oprah. We can’t just act happy and deny it?” Haley asks as the three of you strategize around the table.
“That would have worked,” you say, trying to phrase it gently. 
“Would have?” She asks. 
“Before you got the bright idea to go on national television and tell the world I cheated on you,” Aaron scoffs, and you glare at him.
“You did cheat on me,” Haley points out.
“That’s not the point,” Aaron sighs.
“It’s exactly the point,” she argues. 
“Not if you want to smile at Oprah, it isn’t!” 
“I wouldn’t need to smile at Oprah if you didn’t run around and fuck her like some cheap prostitute every chance you got!” She yells.
“Haley, I know the situation is difficult, I do, and I’m sorry. But we have a job to do here, and I’m trying to focus, and every newspaper and magazine in the country is about to call me a whore, so could we just not do it in this room?”
Haley bites her lip, but she backs down. 
“Now, Haley’s already told the world you had an affair with someone, and my name was leaked to the press,” you say, looking at Aaron. “I’m the public face to Haley’s claims, but there’s no proof yet. It’s just a story, a narrative— we have to find a way to change it or—”
“Or reclaim it,” Aaron suggests. “We tell the truth. Sometimes the only way out is through. Why don’t we just own it? Yes, I cheated on my wife and I had an affair.”
You look over to Haley, who’s distraught. Aaron calls out your name when you don’t respond to him immediately. “I’m thinking,” you tell him. “You and Haley read a statement in the press room, or maybe the rose garden. Full media, no questions. You hold hands, Haley wears something soft, feminine— we leak some pictures of the two of you playing with Jack, together. It’s perfect, it’s Kennedy, especially if you can get Jack to shoot his soccer ball into the net,” you start explaining, and Aaron lets out a soft chuckle. “The next day you do one sit down, a full tell-all. Twelve hours before that, I put out a statement of regret, apologizing publicly to Haley. I talk about putting the whole thing behind me, about praying, whatever it takes,” you trail off. “If we can avoid any sort of congressional inquiry into whether or not I was given special favors or security clearance I wasn’t entitled to, we can put the whole thing to bed before the primary. It works— the truth works,” you conclude. 
“Ironic,” Aaron says with a sardonic chuff and the ghost of a smile. 
“I’m sorry–” Haley interrupts, not sounding the least bit sorry “But the truth does not work. It does not work for me. They’re going to want details– the reporters, the public. They’re going to want dates and times and locations. What did I know and when did I know it? I’m not going to hold your hand in the rose garden while you tell the White House press corps that you had an affair with another woman for years!” She objects. “I’m not going to sit for a tell all while you explain how the Secret Service would drive you to her apartment in the dark of night. I’m not going to listen to you tell them that when you were shot, you cried out her name as the Secret Service shoved you into a car!” She cries. “It’s not a moment of indiscretion. It’s not some drunk fling. It’s—”
“It’s me being in love with another woman,” Aaron says, and somehow he weaves that devastating sentence with a sympathy that nearly makes your breath catch. 
Haley doesn’t say anything for a moment, but the hurt on her face speaks loudly enough. “I am so tired, Aaron.”
You take a beat to collect yourself before speaking up again. “How many times, Haley?” 
“What?” She asks.
“How many times did we sleep together? What would be acceptable to you? Let’s all get on the same page.”
She sighs, looking at the ground and then back up at you. “Two,” she says. 
“Okay,” you agree. “Aaron and I slept together twice. The first time was—” 
“After I was elected,” Aaron chimes in. “You didn’t get the job or your clearance because we were sleeping together. I want that to be abundantly clear,” he explains. 
“The night of the Inauguration. We were supposed to go to six Inaugural balls, but we only went to four— Aaron said he was exhausted, and quite frankly, so was I. It had been a long day. So we came back to the White House, and I went right to bed. But Aaron… Aaron was just wired, so he went down to the oval, just to take it all in. Anyways, a few members of the press noted our absence. It wasn’t a big deal at the time, but I’m sure they’ll go over all of this again with a fine toothed comb, now. If we’re doing the truth, we might as well cover our asses, too. We can just say that the two of you ran into each other, emotions were running high, and you had meaningless sex, just once,” Haley theorizes. “And it didn’t happen again until after you got shot. Your judgment was impaired.” 
No one says anything for a few moments, but the silence becomes too loud for you to bear. “Okay,” you agree. “Twice. After the inauguration, and then after Aaron recovered from his gunshot wounds. He was… feeling his mortality, facing death.” 
“I’m not lying about us anymore,” Aaron protests.
“It’s still the truth,” you remind him. “It’s just not the whole truth. Are we agreed?” You ask, looking between them. 
Aaron shakes his head rhetorically. “Yeah,” he agrees with a resigned sigh. 
“Agreed,” Haley says, rising from her seat and leaving without another word.
You turn to follow her, but Aaron reaches out, wraps a hand around your upper arm to stop you. 
“I’m fine,” you say, trying to shake him off.
“Angel,” he says. “I’m sorry. I know that wasn’t easy for you.”
“I’m fine,” you insist, certain that if you say it enough you’ll even start to believe it. 
“Well maybe you are, but I’m not,” he says. “Tell me the truth. How are you?”
“I’m fine, Aaron, god damn you!” You explode. 
“Your name is a headline. You’re not fine,” he insists.
“You know what I am? I’m somebody’s big pay day, that’s all. I tell my clients all the time, it’s not personal. The reporters are just doing their jobs– it has nothing to do with me. It’s the story. I’m fine,” you insist, even as your voice shakes. 
Aaron remains unconvinced. He ducks down, wraps his arms around you and crushes you into his chest. It lights a fire in you, makes you angry— why could he just let you be? But that wasn’t the man he was, and it wasn’t the woman you wanted to be for him. The version of you who lives in Vermont— she doesn’t put up walls so high that no one can scale them. That version of you lets him in— so you do. Your chest wrenches, and he squeezes you tighter, and you tuck into his neck and you cry. 
“I know, angel. I know. Shhh. We’re going to figure it out,” he strokes your hair and he kisses your temple and you believe him. You don’t know why, and you don’t know how, but you believe him.
+++++
Derek Morgan despises politics to his core. He’s distrustful of the legislators he so often represents. He seeks to root out corruption every day, even as others may say he works for an institution that protects it. His father was a police officer. He believes in the rule of law, and in all men are created equal. He hated the power-seeking elitism that politics breeds. Which is why he never thought he would call David Rossi. But he does.
“Who are you and how did you get this number?” Rossi says as the line connects. 
“Derek Morgan,” he answers. 
“I can’t know you, not right now,” Rossi says, recognizing the name immediately.
“But you know this town. And you know that if the President was having an affair for someone who worked for him— someone who has done favors for him since leaving the White House, and someone he does favors for— that there will be subcommittees on subcommittees, and special hearings and congressional inquiries that drag on for years. And you know that it doesn’t matter if nothing unethical even happened to begin with, because by the time all of that is over he’ll be lucky if they aren’t already ten years down the line at the ribbon cutting for his Presidential Library. It can’t be her— for all our sakes, it can’t be her,” Derek explains. JJ and Emily are sitting in the conference room with him on the edge of their seats— you wouldn’t like this, had specifically not condoned it, but what were they to do? They couldn’t watch you go down without trying something.
“As I said, I don’t know you—”
“David–” Derek starts, but he continues. 
“I don’t know you, but I do know that a CD-ROM with some files is going to show up to your office in about—” he checks his watch. “Thirty minutes. Do with it whatever you think is necessary. There will be a list of White House sources that will corroborate the info if asked by a reporter. Be fast– the President’s attempting to schedule a press conference tomorrow morning. Don’t call me again. Or, rather, don’t call me, because I don’t know you, and we never spoke.” Rossi says, hanging up before Derek can respond.
Sure enough, a courier drops by with the disk within the hour. “I feel horrible about this,” JJ hesitates as Derek moves to put the disk into his computer. 
“We’re doing the right thing,” he assures her. 
“She says what the right thing is, and she told us not to do this!” JJ laments.
“Her judgment is clouded. She’s scared,” Emily points out. “We need to be united on this.”
JJ nods. “I get it. I get it. I’m in,” she says, knocking the disk out of Derek’s hand and shoving it into the computer before her better angels can convince her otherwise.
The disc is a gold mine. Video of a drunk campaign staffer confessing the ways and means with which they’d seduce President Hotchner, clearly not unearthed before she was offered a job with the administration. With no definitive proof yet uncovered that you were the President’s mistress, the press was just as happy to run with this rumor. Worst of all, the drive included emails from the staffer to her friends back home– calling the President “super fun, super hot, and super fuckable, too.” She was victim to her own schoolgirl crush.
You were shocked when you turned on the news that morning. As much as you hated to admit it, the shock did eventually give way to a flood of relief— when you rushed to your window and looked out into the street, the press were all gone. You watched the coverage some more, and realized that this story was expertly woven– there was only one person you knew who could sell a complete fabrication that well. You called Derek. 
“What on Earth did you do?!”
tagging: @arsonhotchner @shyhotch @dadbodhotch11 @call-me-mrsreid @angelfxllcm @the-modernmary @gspenc @mintphoenix @rousethemouse @skyler666 @ashhotchner @infinite-tides
93 notes · View notes
jollythunderstorms · 1 year
Text
So while I was watching episode 2 I noticed that, besides the book with the clue, there were other books in the shelf as seen here:
Tumblr media
Being curious, I took a closer look to see if there was something significant on it (this was supposed to be the society's room after all)
(From L to R)
The first book is Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier, a novel where a young woman is haunted by the memory of her husband's late first wife, to whom she's frequently negatively compared to, so it deals with themes of jealousy, escaping memory, the past, etc.
Second is Plutarch's Lives, a series of biographies of famous Roman and Greek men illustrating their common moral virtues/failings juxtapositioned with one another
Third is Essays and New Atlantis by Sir Francis Bacon, the former delves into a variety of different topics while the latter is depicts an utopian (*cough* happy *cough*) land in the mythical Bensalem
Fourth is the book clue itself, My Island Paradiso by a J. Haley which, unlike the others, doesn't seem to be an actual book! Google doesn't show anything when you search for it BUT the supposed author shares their name with Jay Haley, one of the founding figures of brief and family therapy and of the strategic model of psychotherapy
Next is Harvard Classics Vol. 37: Locke, Berkeley, Hume, the three major English philosophers in Empiricism (of which Bacon is also considered the father of, mentioned above) which emphasizes all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the world aka "knowledge is based on experience"
Sixth is Lewis Cass by Andrew C. McLaughlin, an US biography on the aforementioned 18th century man who was a leading spokesman for "popular sovereignty" aka the belief that each citizen has sovereignty over themselves (tho mainly to determine if they get to keep slaves 'cause US)
Seventh is Kidnapped by R. L. Stevenson, an historical fiction novel based around the Appin murder so it centers heavily on the concept of justice
I can't for the life of me make out what the eight one is
And the last one is How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler, which gives guidelines for critically reading books of any genre
12 notes · View notes