Vox had a sobering series of graphics on the 2,180 mass shootings since the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre of 20 elementary school children and six adults, an act so horrendous that it seemed that it should spark serious actions to curb such atrocities. And yet, nothing happened. One of them was a telling graph plotting for a number of countries the number of guns per 100 people versus the number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. The US is an extreme outlier for both.
[Read more…]

It looks like the way that the UK political system is set up, the new prime minister Boris Johnson can force through a no-deal Brexit on October 31 even if there are massive defections from his Conservative party that lead to it losing a vote of no-confidence.

No 10 has not ruled out scheduling an election in the immediate days after leaving the EU on 31 October if Boris Johnson is forced into one by the loss of a confidence motion, according to party sources.

Speculation about the timing of an autumn election is rife as Downing Street tries to figure out how to deal with the fallout if Tory rebels join with opposition parties to vote down the government.

Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s most senior aide and “assistant to the prime minister”, has told ministers and officials that the government is prepared to call an election to be held after 31 October and leave anyway if it loses a confidence vote.
…

Labour could hold a confidence motion in Johnson’s government as early as the first week of September to test whether he commands the support of the House of Commons.

There would be a subsequent 14 days in which MPs could try to form an alternative government but a general election would be triggered if they could not manage to do so.

Opponents of a no-deal Brexit would want an election to happen before 31 October in order to prevent a crash-out, but the Fixed-term Parliaments Act gives discretion to the incumbent prime minister to name a suitable polling day.

Since Johnson and his key advisor Dominic Cummings seem determined to leave the EU, it looks like a done deal with very few options available to those who think a no deal Brexit would be a disaster.

When deciding which candidates to support, one looks to see positive endorsements, i.e., support and contributions from people and organizations whom one respects. But negative endorsements (i.e, if they are supported by people and organizations one detests) can also be useful

And on the latter score, we see Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Pete Buttigieg get big donations form Wall Street executives and Harris also gets from the pharmaceutical industry executives even after she claims she rejects them.

I am not surprised about Biden and Harris because they are the Democratic party establishment candidates and so cater to the big business interests but the news about Buttigieg is disappointing.

Once again, we see the New York Times falling over itself to paint Trump in as good a light as possible, like it did earlier when it refused to use the term ‘racist’ to describe his nakedly racist tweets. It is part of its long-standing policy of deference to the powerful and wealthy.

Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions. https://t.co/ynjgtT66yI

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) August 6, 2019

[Read more…]

Robert Mackey connects the dots that form a deadly triangle.

Indeed, the steady drumbeat of invasion rhetoric from the network and the president over the past two years suggests that they are locked in a feedback loop, working together to generate an ever-intensifying level of paranoia and frenzy in their shared fan base.

Brandon Friedman looked at the El Paso shooter’s manifesto and draws straight lines between his words and Fox News and Trump.

Using the El Paso terrorist's manifesto, I connected the dots for folks still having trouble doing that.

This is just the first page. pic.twitter.com/mQcW3doGNF

— Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) August 4, 2019

The husband of devoted Trump aide and supporter Kellyanne Conway knows exactly how this latest mass murder atrocity will play out when it comes to Trump’s response.

1. Trump will go on TV and give a speech. On paper, the speech may say some of the right things. It will look somewhat presidential. There’s an off chance it might even be good (grading on a curve).
2. But the problem will be that it was given by Trump, who’s incapable of sincere empathy. So it’ll be hard to believe that he believes the words he said. And his speech won’t address his own hateful, racist rhetoric.
3. So he’ll be roundly criticized for that. And he’ll also be criticized on policy grounds, because whatever he says on that score will not suffice for many people.
4. He’ll see and hear all this criticism on TV, and he’ll stew. And stew. He’ll grow angry and resentful that he was forced to give the speech in the first place.
5. Finally, perhaps within 24 or 48 hours, the narcissistic pressure will break the dam, and his anger and frustration will gush forward.
6. He’ll tweet, otherwise say, or do something that’ll completely undo whatever positive benefit came from the speech.
7. We’ve seen this movie before how many times?

Conway is right. Trump obviously does not care at all about the victims of his inciting rhetoric. He will only care about how people are so ungrateful for not fawning over his obviously phony gestures of sympathy.