DNC Manager Raises Concerns About Kamala Harris’s Electability and DNC Practices

 

In a candid and surprising revelation, Joyce DeCerce, Compliance Manager for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Kamala Harris' campaign, expressed doubt about Harris's prospects in the upcoming election. DeCerce, who identifies as he/him, shared his concerns in an interview, stating bluntly, “I don’t think Kamala Harris would win this year.” He elaborated on this sentiment by noting Harris’s perceived lack of accomplishments, saying, “She doesn’t have any accomplishments to speak of,” and pointing out her unexpected unpopularity among voters, adding, “She's weirdly unpopular."

DeCerce's role within the DNC, which he describes as an intersection of accounting and legal functions, appears to give him a unique perspective on the inner workings of the organization. He portrays the DNC’s interactions with donors as a calculated performance, aimed more at appeasing donors than at straightforward political engagement. “You just put on a performance for them, a little show, right?” DeCerce said, suggesting that the DNC often indulges in telling donors what they want to hear, rather than what is realistic. He further emphasized that the DNC's strategy often involves making empty promises to maintain donor support, stating, “They want their fantasy to be, you know, fed.”

The implications of these statements are significant, casting a critical light on the DNC's internal strategies and potentially affecting donor relations and public perception. When contacted for comment, Kristin Hetherington, the CFO of the DNC, reacted with visible frustration. She ended the call abruptly when asked about the DNC’s practice of telling donors "what they want to hear" and catering to their "fantasies."

The situation took a darker turn when the undercover journalist who recorded DeCerce received a threatening postcard at her home. The message, laced with racial undertones, appeared to be an attempt to intimidate her and prevent the story from coming to light. This development raises concerns about the extent to which powerful entities may go to silence critics or control narratives.

These revelations come at a critical juncture for the DNC, as they navigate the complexities of fundraising and public relations in a contentious political climate. The comments from DeCerce may spark further scrutiny of the DNC's internal dynamics and their approach to donor engagement, as well as discussions about Kamala Harris’s role and future in the party.

BREAKING: DNC Manager: ‘I Don’t Think Kamala Harris Would Win;' Admits to Making Empty Promises to Donors

“I don’t think Kamala Harris would win this year,” reveals Joyce DeCerce (@JoyceDecerce) (he/him), Compliance Manager for the Democratic National Committee (@DNC) and Kamala… pic.twitter.com/Q1X269PaDd

— O’Keefe Media Group (@OKeefeMedia) July 30, 2024

The Evolution of ROMs and Their Role in Video Game Preservation: A Closer Look

The recent DMCA takedown notice from the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) targeting the popular ROM sharing site VIMM’s Lair marks another chapter in the ongoing struggle between game developers and the video game preservation community. This latest action by Nintendo, a company with a long history of policing ROM sites, highlights a deeper issue surrounding the preservation of video game history and raises important questions about the role of ROMs in safeguarding our digital past.

ROMs, short for Read-Only Memory, are digital copies of video game cartridges or discs that allow games to be played on emulators, software designed to mimic the hardware of older gaming consoles. The concept of ROMs began in the early days of video gaming, with cartridges containing read-only memory chips to store game data. As technology advanced, enthusiasts started to extract these chips' data and create digital ROM files, which could be used for archival purposes or to play classic games on modern systems. This process of creating ROMs has been instrumental in the preservation of video games, offering a way to keep old titles accessible as original hardware becomes obsolete and physical media deteriorates.

Nintendo’s recent takedown notice against VIMM’s Lair is part of a broader effort by the company to control the distribution of its games and protect its intellectual property. Nintendo has a long history of targeting ROM-sharing sites, having previously shut down LoveROMs, ROM Universe, and other similar platforms. Nintendo argues that these sites are hotbeds of illegal activity, copyright infringement, and piracy, contending that they facilitate the unauthorised distribution of their games. However, this stance raises concerns about whether Nintendo's actions are truly about protecting their intellectual property or if they are erasing a significant part of gaming history. By taking down these ROM sites, Nintendo not only targets potential piracy but also limits access to games that are no longer available through official channels.

One of the central issues in this debate is whether Nintendo can be trusted to handle video game preservation on its own. The company’s current service, Nintendo Switch Online (NSO), offers a selection of classic games through its subscription model, but it is a mere fraction of the library available on previous services like the Virtual Console. The limited selection of games on NSO suggests that it is unlikely to ever match, let alone exceed, the breadth and depth of the Virtual Console’s offerings. As a result, many classic games remain inaccessible to modern audiences, and the risk of losing these games to time increases.

In contrast to these official efforts, ROMs serve as a crucial tool for the preservation of video game history. Enthusiasts and preservationists create and share ROMs to ensure that old games are not lost as physical media degrades or as consoles become obsolete. ROMs provide a way for new generations to experience classic games and for scholars to study the history and development of video games. By archiving these games, ROMs help preserve the cultural and historical significance of video gaming, offering a record of the past that might otherwise be lost.

The argument for ROMs as a form of preservation becomes even more compelling when considering that the commercial availability of classic games is often limited. While companies like Nintendo do offer some games through services like NSO, these offerings are limited and not always reflective of the full range of games from the past. ROMs, on the other hand, can serve as a more comprehensive and accessible archive of video game history.

The ongoing conflict between Nintendo and ROM sites like VIMM’s Lair underscores a broader debate about the role of game preservation in the video game industry. While Nintendo’s actions reflect a desire to control and protect their intellectual property, they also highlight a significant gap in the preservation of gaming history. ROMs offer a vital service in preserving the games of the past, providing access to titles that might otherwise be lost to time. As the industry continues to evolve, it is crucial to recognise the importance of ROMs in safeguarding video game heritage and to consider the limitations of official preservation efforts like the Nintendo Switch Online service. In the end, the preservation of video games relies on a balance between protecting intellectual property and ensuring that the cultural and historical significance of past games is not forgotten.

Mark Dice - Kamala Debuts Her Newest Personality 😂

Mark Dice is a prominent American media analyst, author, and commentator known for his insightful critique of the mainstream media and popular culture. With a career spanning over a decade, Dice has built a substantial following on social media platforms, where he shares thought-provoking videos and articles that challenge conventional narratives. He is the author of several books, including The True Story of Fake News and Hollywood Propaganda, which delve into the influence of media and entertainment on public perception. Mark Dice is admired for his fearless approach to controversial topics and his commitment to free speech, making him a distinctive voice in contemporary media discourse.

The Decline of Small Trucks in the American Market

In the 1970s and 1980s, small pickups like the Datsun 620, Ford Ranger, and Chevy S10 thrived in the American market, valued for their affordability, reliability, and versatility. These trucks were perfect for a range of uses from work to leisure, fitting into the American ideal of a rugged, dependable vehicle. However, as consumer preferences shifted in the 1990s, there was a growing demand for larger vehicles, such as SUVs and full-sized trucks, which offered more space, better towing capabilities, and advanced features that appealed to a broader audience.

The rise of larger vehicles was driven by a combination of factors, including increased interest in adventure-oriented vehicles and the perception of greater safety and comfort offered by SUVs and full-sized trucks. Additionally, the automotive industry faced economic pressures from rising fuel costs and stricter emissions regulations. Automakers found it more cost-effective to focus on the production of larger, more profitable vehicles rather than maintaining the small truck segment, which was becoming less viable and less profitable.

In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in small trucks, as evidenced by the reintroduction of models like the Ford Maverick and the Chevrolet Colorado. This resurgence reflects a nostalgic desire to revisit the practicality and charm of the past while adapting to modern needs. Although the small truck market has diminished, the legacy of vehicles like the Datsun 620, Ford Ranger, and Chevy S10 remains, influencing the current automotive landscape and demonstrating that there is still potential for this once-popular segment of the market.

The Story Behind Gilbert Gottfried's 1991 Primetime Emmy Awards Monologue and His "Blacklisting"

At the 43rd Primetime Emmy Awards in 1991, comedian Gilbert Gottfried delivered a monologue that would become infamous for its provocative content and the controversy it sparked. Known for his edgy and often controversial humour, Gottfried’s performance at the Emmys was a prime example of his willingness to push boundaries, but it also led to significant professional repercussions.

During the broadcast, Gottfried, who was a guest on the show rather than the official host, was given the opportunity to make a few jokes and share his comedic observations. His monologue included a series of risqué and unfiltered jibes that targeted the world of television and the celebrities present at the ceremony. Among his remarks, Gottfried made a tasteless joke about the late actor John Candy, who had passed away earlier that year, and another concerning a recent event, the Gulf War, which was a highly sensitive topic at the time.

One of the most memorable and controversial moments came when Gottfried made a crude joke about Saddam Hussein and the Gulf War. This comment was seen as offensive and in poor taste given the ongoing conflict and the loss of life associated with it. The backlash from his comments was swift, and many in the entertainment industry viewed Gottfried’s remarks as crossing the line of acceptable humour.

As a result of the controversy, Gottfried faced significant professional backlash. He was effectively “blacklisted” by the industry—a term used to describe the practice of excluding someone from job opportunities due to their actions or statements. Although he continued to work in comedy, including stand-up gigs and voice acting roles, his career in the limelight suffered a setback as a direct result of his 1991 Emmy monologue.

Despite the fallout, Gottfried remained a notable figure in comedy, known for his distinctive voice and irreverent humour. He eventually made a return to the entertainment industry, but the incident at the 1991 Emmys remained a significant and cautionary tale about the risks of pushing boundaries in comedy, especially in high-profile and sensitive contexts. Gottfried’s experience at the Emmys illustrated the delicate balance comedians must navigate between pushing the envelope and managing their careers.

The Undertaker vs. Mankind – Hell in a Cell Match: King of the Ring 1998

The Hell in a Cell match between The Undertaker and Mankind at the King of the Ring 1998 is one of the most iconic and brutal bouts in WWE history. The feud between The Undertaker and Mankind, also known as Mick Foley, was driven by a fierce rivalry that had developed over the preceding months. Their conflict was fueled by intense personal animosity and a series of violent confrontations.

In the months leading up to the match, Mankind had been challenging The Undertaker, creating chaos and targeting him with brutal attacks. The feud intensified through a series of dramatic and violent encounters, including a memorable moment when Mankind threw The Undertaker off the top of the Hell in a Cell structure during their match at the King of the Ring. This moment is often cited as one of the most shocking and memorable in professional wrestling history.

During the match, which took place on June 28, 1998, at the King of the Ring pay-per-view event, The Undertaker and Mankind faced off inside the Hell in a Cell structure, a formidable steel cage designed to enclose the combatants and prevent interference. The match became infamous for its extreme and brutal nature. The Undertaker threw Mankind from the top of the cell through the announce table below, a fall that resulted in a severe injury for Foley but was celebrated as a testament to the wrestlers' toughness. The Undertaker then threw Mankind through the roof of the cell and continued the match, culminating in The Undertaker winning after a series of violent maneuvers. This match not only defined their feud but also left an indelible mark on wrestling history for its brutality and the resilience displayed by both wrestlers.

Man chooses medical assistance in dying (MAID) because he cant afford to live

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) in Canada, introduced through Bill C-14 in June 2016, provides a legal framework for individuals suffering from severe and irremediable medical conditions to end their lives with medical support. To be eligible for MAID, a person must have a grievous condition causing unbearable suffering, make a voluntary and informed request, and have that request verified by two independent medical professionals. The individual’s natural death must be "reasonably foreseeable," though not necessarily imminent, a definition that has been refined through subsequent legal challenges.

The implementation of MAID has sparked considerable controversy in Canada. Supporters argue that it offers a humane and compassionate choice for those experiencing intolerable pain and suffering, emphasizing the importance of personal autonomy and the right to end one’s life on their own terms. They believe that MAID provides a necessary option for people facing severe medical conditions and that strict safeguards are in place to prevent misuse.

Opponents of MAID raise concerns about the potential for abuse and the moral implications of assisted death. They worry that vulnerable individuals might be coerced into choosing MAID due to inadequate palliative care options or societal pressures. Critics also fear that expanding eligibility criteria could lead to a slippery slope, where the scope of MAID could be broadened beyond those who are terminally ill. Additionally, there is an ongoing debate about whether resources would be better spent improving palliative care services rather than offering MAID as an option for end-of-life decisions.