#...until a dem is in the white house

[sweetfirebird]

A court just ruled that Trump's tariffs were illegal. (Because imposing tariffs is a congressional power unless there is an emergency. A real one. Not a Stephen Miller-imaginary emergency.) So Trump is gonna lose it on Truth Social or Twitter and he is going to direct more MAGA to hate and go after judges for ... *checks notes* following the Constitution of this country. Like they are supposed to.

This trade court btw has three judges on it and two of these judges are considered conservative and were appointed by Republican presidents.

And the suit itself came from American businesses and there are several other similar suits lined up behind it. One of those is sponsored by the Koch brothers-- who are also conservatives. Like not remotely liberal. So so conservative, those guys.

Nonetheless, Trump (and Miller, who is not an attorney) are going to start in with their "activist" judges shit again and indirectly encourage hate for the judges merely doing their jobs.

Also tomorrow or Friday, Trump is gonna do something stupid/outlandish/insanely cruel to try to distract from this slap in the face. Because he follows the same patterns every time. It’s why the rest of the world is mocking him now for always doing the same things.

And for anyone who wants to argue that tariffs can good, these were not and are not planned out. Tariffs should be a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. And anyway, they are still a congressional power. Go read the Constitution, it's free to read online!

And thirdly, there is no emergency. There is not invasion of gang members and even if there had been, didn't Noem and Rubio and Trump say the borders were 99% closed? Sounds like the invasion would be over then.

[mariacallous]

The attempt to humiliate Volodymyr Zelens'kyi in the Oval Office a week ago was an American strategic collapse. It heralded a new constellation of disorderly powers, obsessed with resources, seizing what they can. Inside that new disaster is something old and familiar that we might prefer not to see: antisemitism. The encounter in the White House was antisemitic.

I am historian of the Holocaust. I was trained by a survivor. Jerzy Jedlicki was nine years old when the Germans invaded, and fourteen when he emerged from hiding in Warsaw, and a prominent Polish historian by the time we met. He talked to me about antisemitism for decades, from the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union until his death in 2018. The way that I reacted to the scene in the Oval Office, and how I have pondered and considered it since, have to do with my research, but also with him.

Jerzy survived the Holocaust because his mother Wanda, a literary translator, refused to go with her children to the Warsaw ghetto. Thanks to her courage and ingenuity, and to others who helped her, he and his brother survived. Jerzy's father was murdered, like more than three million other Jews in Poland. The family history emerged bit by bit, as we became friends, as some of his own colleagues wrote memoirs of childhood survival, as my own interests turned towards the war. During my research, I found a recollection, by his mother, of their time in hiding in Warsaw. It turned out that he had helped her to write it.

In post-communist Poland, in the 1990s and 2000s, Jerzy was an activist against antisemitism and xenophobia, and I attended at his urging some of the meetings of the association he helped direct. The entire time, I think, he was trying to train my eye.

Some forms of what he defined as antisemitism had to do with his memories of occupation. Jews had to show deference. Germans mocked the ways Jews dressed. That was before they were sent to the ghetto and murdered. Jews were scapegoated, made responsible for what the Germans wished to do anyway.

Some characteristics of antisemitism as he described it were more abstract. Jewish achievement was portrayed as illegitimate. Jews only gained success, antisemites say, by lying and propaganda. If a Jew was prominent, that only proved the existence of a Jewish conspiracy, and thereby the illegitimacy of the institution where the success was achieved. A prominent Jew was always, went the antisemitic assumption, motivated by money.

Some of what Jerzy said had to do with his experience after the war. Non-Jews will deny the courage and suffering of Jews. They will claim all heroism and martyrdom as their own. He kept a photo of his mother in a locket. It was important to him that she had been courageous. There was a legend in communist Poland, which still survives, which suppressed Jewish courage and claimed all resistance for non-Jewish Poles. And there was after the war a Soviet antisemitism, with a broader and longer heritage, that claimed that Jews had somehow all remained at the rear while others fought and died. The facts were no defense.

The elements that emerged in conversation with Jerzy over the years -- the mockery of Jewish appearances, the need for Jewish submissiveness, the claims about dishonesty, greed, cowardice, and corrupt conspiracies -- figure in the scholarly literature on the subject. And the scholarship is very important, as are the testimonies, and is the teaching in schools. But all of this should help us to see antisemitism in real life. Some cases are so overwhelming in scale that we find them difficult to confront and name. As Orwell noted, it can be hard to see what is right in front of your face.

Much has been said about the evils of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Its antisemitic element, however, has been underestimated. Russia's major war aim was fascist regime change, the overturning of a democratically-elected president in favor of some sort of collaborator. The premise is absurd: that Ukrainians do not really exist as a nation, and in fact would prefer a Russian. But it was also antisemitic: that it is unnatural that a Jew could hold an important office. Volodymyr Zelens'kyi, the Ukrainian president, is of Jewish origin. Members of his family fought in the Red Army against the Germans. Others were murdered in the Holocaust. Although his Jewishness is not very relevant in Ukrainian politics, it is highly salient to Russian (and other) antisemites.

Ukraine, says Putin, does not really exist. But another theme of the propaganda is that Zelens'kyi is not actually the president of Ukraine. These two bizarre ideas work together: Ukraine is artificial and can exist thanks to the Jewish international conspiracy. The fact that a Jew leads the country confirms — for Russian fascists — both the unreality of Ukraine and the reality of a conspiracy. This Russian regime perspective is implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) antisemitic. Russian propaganda treats Zelens'kyi as obsessed with money and as subhuman. Zelens'kyi was elected on a peace platform in 2019, but Putin did not want to talk to him, in part because he did not think that Zelens'kyi showed him enough deference. The Russian regime that ordered the invasion is itself obviously fascist, on any definition of fascism you care to choose.

Last Friday I happened to start watching the discussion at the White House between Zelens'kyi, Donald Trump, JD Vance and Brian Glenn towards the end, when Vance was already yelling at the Ukrainian president: "you're wrong!" I took in the tone and the body language, and my first, reflexive reactions was: these are non-Jews trying to intimidate a Jew. Three against one. A roomful against one. An antisemitic scene.

And the more I listened to the words, the more that reaction was confirmed. I won't speak for how Zelens'kyi regards himself. Ukrainian, of course. Beyond that I don't know. These things are complex, and personal.

But not for the antisemite.

It was all there, in the Oval Office, in the shouting and in the interruptions, in the noises and in the silences. A courageous man seen as Jewish had to be brought down. When he said things that were simply true he was shouted down and called a propagandist. There was no acknowledgement of Zelens'kyi's bravery in remaining in Kyiv. The Americans portrayed themselves as the real heroes because they provided some of the weapons. The suffering of Ukrainians went unmentioned. An attempt to refer to it was cruelly and falsely reduced to a "propaganda tours" led by Zelens'kyi. The Americans portrayed themselves as the real victims of the because they paid for some of the weapons. It was all, bizarrely, about money. There is this odd Trumpian notion, unique to Ukraine, that aid should be paid back as if it were a loan, with Trump himself just making up the amount owed. Zelens'kyi was portrayed as someone who was taking our cash, giving is nothing in return, ripping us off. He was also mocked for not knowing how to dress for the space, as not belonging. And his deference was demanded: "Have you said thank you once?" "Offer some words of appreciation." And then was thrown out of the White House. And told to resign his office as president of Ukraine.

As always with antisemitism, facts are no defense. Zelens'kyi consistently thanks Americans, as can be easily verified. He is the elected president of a country that is a democratic republic under a constitution. Zelens'kyi won the last election with 73% and his approval rating is now 68%; if there were another election, he would win. By the terms of the constitution, the next election will be held when the war is over and martial law can be lifted. It is the general opinion in Ukraine, shared by Zelens'kyi's opponents in parliament, that elections cannot be held while Russia is invading, holding swathes of Ukrainian territory, and coercing Ukrainian citizens. Zelens'kyi has been personally courageous. He stayed in Kyiv when everyone expected him to flee. He visits the front on a regular basis. Ukrainian suffering, sadly, is all too real, from the torture chambers through the executions through the kidnapped children and destroyed cities. It is quite true that the anti-tank weapons Trump authorized during his first term were very important during the first few weeks of the war. But it was the astonishing fact of successful Ukrainian resistance that led to the delivery of further weapons. The arms allocations to Ukraine were aid, and aid is not a lone. They are an essentially invisible portion of the U.S. budget, a penny on the dollar. Most of that penny on the dollar remains in the U.S., restarting assembly lines that had gone cold. Much of what the U.S. has given Ukraine were obsolescent weapons that would have been otherwise been thrown away. As everyone in the room in fact knew, what Zelens'kyi was wearing was meant as an expression of solidarity with a people at war. It was not so unlike what Churchill wore in the White House in 1942.

To conclude that the scene in the White House was antisemitic, one does not need to know anything further. It's all right there: the demand for deference, the obsession with money, the claims of corruption and dishonesty, the encirclement, the loud voices, the bizarre grievances, the underlying sense that a Jewish person does not fit and must be expelled. The context was evocative enough, and nothing more is really needed: those historical markers of antisemitism; Zelens'kyi's Jewish origins; the particular way he was treated by non-Jews.

If we consider for a moment the men who tried to humiliate him, however, the picture only sharpens and clarifies. The man who asked him about his clothes, Brian Glenn, is a conspiracy-theorizing far-right journalist. It is not clear why he was in the Oval Office; but he does seem to know Marjorie Taylor-Greene, she of the Jewish space lasers and the determined defense of Russian propaganda. The man who demanded deference and spoke of "propaganda tours," JD Vance, had just returned from Germany, where he made a point of publicly supporting the German far right. Vance presents Zelens'kyi as a corrupt liar, with no evidence beyond what was brought to him by an internet which has, apparently, found his vulnerabilities. The man who insisted that the Americans (and indeed he himself personally) were the real heroes, Donald Trump, told Jews last fall they would be held responsible if he lost the election -- among many other things. And the man behind them all, Elon Musk, supports the extreme right in several countries, adapts his social media platform to support fascists, and is notorious around the world for his Hitlergrüß. Musk's idea that Zelens'kyi is a grifter could hardly be more antisemitic.

And what have the Americans done since last Friday? They have scapegoated Zelens'kyi. They have doubled down on lies that, sadly, only make sense in an antisemitic worldview. They have blamed him, over and over again, for the things that they wanted to do anyway. It is somehow his fault, rather than their choice, that they are denying weapons to Ukraine and supporting Russia; that they are denying Ukraine necessary intelligence and thereby making it easier for Russia to kill Ukrainians in missile and drone strikes. The scapegoating is antisemitic in form, relying on preposterous notions that American strategic choices can and should be shaped by an ally's dress and demeanor. And it is antisemitic in content, shifting all responsibility from oneself to the Jewish person who must take the blame for everything. The Americans continue to encircle Zelens'kyi, on media, denying his legitimacy as president, calling for his resignation. Musk piles on, calling Zelens'kyi names, and demanding that he be replaced and removed from his country.

Underlying this all is an assumption that can only really be understood as both antisemitic and anti-Ukrainian: that if Zelens'kyi were to resign, the war would somehow end, because he, and not Putin and the Russians, is somehow its instigator. And that is profoundly and weirdly wrong: Zelens'kyi is not some master conspirator who is somehow getting Ukrainians to do something that they would not otherwise do. Ukrainians are actors in all this. Ukrainians have been attacked and who are defending themselves. Their president is, in his own words, just one grain of sand in the hourglass. If Zelens'kyi were assassinated, an outcome that the American abuse has made more likely, Ukraine would continue to fight.

The American antisemitism now merges with the Russian antisemitism and reinforces it. The idea that Zelens'kyi is not a real president, and that his government is therefore not a real government, has been a very specific Russian antisemitic trope from the beginning. And the Russian approval for the American behavior in the White House since Friday could hardly have been more explicit. A spokesman for Putin expressed his pleasure that policies were aligning. A spokeswoman for the Russian foreign minister compared Ukrainians to pedophiles and thieves. The foreign minister himself said that Zelens'kyi was "hardly human." A former Russian president called Zelens'kyi a swine and cheered on Trump. Russian television has celebrated Trump as a Russian ally all week. During this chorus of Russian praise, the White House halted military aid and limited intelligence assistance to Ukraine. And so the United States is now aiding the fascist invasion, and legitimating the attempt at fascist regime change.

It is harder in the 2020s to call things by name than it was, perhaps, in the last century. Actual fascists now call other people "fascists" to make the word meaningless, and so they themselves cannot be seen for what they are. This is the normal Russian practice, now picked up by American fascists. Antisemites likewise can call other people "antisemites." When Russians say that they had to invaded Ukraine because of someone else’s antisemitism rather than their own, they are just trying to make the term meaningless. When Americans claim that antisemitism means that universities must be harassed, they are doing much the same thing. The fact that someone wants to ban protests does not mean that they oppose antisemitism. History would suggest rather the contrary. A concerted effort is being made to train us to think that antisemitism is something besides traditionally hostile ways that non-Jews regard and treat Jews. The result of these semantic abuses is a trivialization of antisemitism — a concept we all need to be able to take seriously, a phenomenon we all need to recognize.

In addition to abusing the word, antisemites can react with manufactured outrage when called out. They can try to hide behind Israel, or by pointing to Jews in their vicinity. So when confronted by actions that appear antisemitic, you have to consider what you see for yourself. The moral and political implications are of the greatest significance. I had a strong personal reaction to that scene in the Oval Office, and I checked it for a week with friends and colleagues, who confessed that they had had the same reaction. I reconsidered what I had learned as a historian. I looked at the scholarly definitions. Everything, sadly, lines up.

The negative reactions to the Oval Office scene can of course take other forms. The antisemitic element of the confrontation, though important, was not the only dynamic. Ukrainians and Europeans, understandably, took the attempt to humiliate Zelens’kyi as a prompt to begin discussions of a security order that accounts for an unreliable United States. Moral assessments along other lines also came in, including from former dissidents in eastern Europe. On Monday, thirty onetime Polish anti-communist oppositionists signed a letter to Donald Trump. They expressed their repugnance at how Zelens'kyi had been treated in the White House. They pointed out that no monetary currency can be equivalent to that of blood shed for freedom. They compared the atmosphere in the Oval Office during that confrontation on Friday to that of a communist interrogation or communist trial, in which the person who had taken the risk to do right was told that they held no cards, that might makes right.

My dissertation advisor, Jerzy Jedlicki, had been a dissident. Polish communists placed him in an internment camp. Perhaps Jerzy, were he still with us, would have signed that letter. As someone who has studied and written about communist terror, I can see the dissident perspective; and given their own personal experiences with interrogations and communist terror, it is one that must be taken seriously. What they failed to mention, though, is that communist interrogation techniques in the 1970s and 1980s were antisemitic: people of Jewish origin were presented as alien to the nation, and were subjected to special abuse. Multiple interrogators would encircle the dissident, and talk among themselves about his supposedly Jewish betrayals and failures. Encirclement, bullying, belittling.

And so I can't escape that first reflexive response to that scene in the Oval Office: here is a person of Jewish origin being treated in a very particular and familiar way by non-Jews. I get the dissidents’ comparison to an interrogation or trial, and can imagine the cell or the courtroom. But what struck me was the circle of bullying gentiles -- as in Europe in the 1930s, and in other places and times, at the particular moment when the mob felt that power was shifting.

But is it? In writing about antisemitism here I am obviously making a moral point. I am asking us, Americans, to think seriously about what we are doing, about Russia's criminal war against Ukraine, in which we are now becoming complicit. That Russia's war is antisemitic is one of its many evils; taking Russia’s side in that war is wrong for many reasons, including that one. At a time when antisemitism is a growing problem around the world, I would like for us to be able to see the obvious examples, especially when we Americans are so closely involved in them. There is a certain mobbish mindlessness in the growing circle of American voices calling for Zelens'kyi to leave office, and I think it has a name and a history. I would like for us to recall that history and remember that the name can apply to us.

In writing about antisemitism I am also making a political claim. The antisemite really believes that the Jew must defer, that the Jew cannot fight, that a state led by a Jew must duly crumble. This was one of Putin's mistakes, two years ago. And now, I suspect, it is also Trump's, and Musk's. America does have the power, of course, to hurt Ukraine. Just as Russia does. The combination of American and Russian policy is killing Ukrainians right now. The costs of the emerging Russian-American axis will be terrible for Ukraine. But Ukraine will not immediately collapse, nor will the Ukrainian population turn against Zelens'kyi. What he will personally do I couldn't say and won't try to predict: and that, of course, is my point.

In the world of the antisemite, all is known in advance: the Jew is just a deceiver, concerned only with money, subject to exclusion, intimidated by force. As soon as he is humiliated and eliminated, everything else will fall into its proper place. Consider the smirks in the Oval Office last Friday: the antisemite thinks that he has understood everything. But in the actual world in which we actually live, Jews are humans, perilous and beautiful like the rest of us. The United States has never elected a Jewish president, and perhaps never will. But Ukraine has; and that president represents his people, facing challenges that those who mock him will never understand. Those Americans have chosen to add their own to the evil he must confront. But that does not mean that they will control what happens next.

In 1936, before the war, Wanda, Jerzy’s mother, translated a book entitled Oil Rules the World. We seem to be heedlessly returning to an era where resources demand violence. American foreign policy now seems to be all about mineral wealth: in Greenland, in Canada, and in Ukraine — where the pressure on Zelens’kyi is connected to an American desire to control Ukrainian minerals. This is worrying for a number of reasons.

In the antisemitic imagination, everything is for the taking. I used to talk with Jerzy Jedlicki about Mein Kampf, whether and how it should be censored, who read it in the twenty-first century. Our world, as Hitler described it in Mein Kampf, is just thin crust of land, to be defined by the fertility of the topsoil and the bounty of the minerals beneath. Only the Jews, he thought, stand in the way of its conquest by the strongest. Behind all of the calumnies about the lying and the stealing and the conspiracies was Hitler's true fear: the Jews, he thought, were the only source of human values, the reason why we might think that there is something in the world aside from power and the greed of the powerful, something beyond an endless war for topsoil and minerals. To extinguish virtue the Jew must be mocked, and then marginalized, and then murdered. And that, of course, worked as politics in Nazi Germany; not because the premise was true, but because Germans went along, killing their own virtue along the way. Never again means attending to the smaller aggressions that imply the greater ones to come.

The war that Hitler began, the Second World War, was about eliminating Jews and stealing resources. He was aiming above all for the fertile soil of Ukraine and the mineral wealth of the Caucasus: for what he called Lebensraum, living space. To get to Ukraine, Germans had to cross Poland, where they created ghettos, like the one in Warsaw where Wanda did not go; and then the death factories, like Treblinka, where the Jews of Warsaw were murdered. Jerzy escaped gassing at Treblinka; decades later on he tried to helped me to see, and to think. He was trying to help me to have the eye of a historian in the present, and perhaps he succeeded, a bit. About one thing I am certain. Our eyes have to be open to what we do not wish to see.

[aheartofdawn]

Trump: *shits himself on live TV*

Fox News: Of course Trump shat himself on TV, and do you want to why? Jo Biden's woke DEI policies that let trans people in the bathroom, that's why!

MAGA: the deep state replaced him with a robot to make him look bad. it's the only answer

The White House: Fake news! It's absolutely fake news! You're the all horrible Fake News Media, and should be ashamed of yourselves!

Trump: of course I shit my myself. Everybody's doing it- all the celebrities; Jesus, Lincoln- Lincoln would flush the toilet four, five times and his logs wouldn't go down- you know there were sharks back then- and he said, until a great, great man- a great present- me- he had tears in his eyes- Trump comes and fixes our toilets- all the toilets- the dems, they hate your toilets, you know- so l shit myself, and I'll do it again.

Every day we come one step closer to this happening.

[clearancecreedwatersurvival]

‘Oh but nothing will ever change until we manage to get a third party to win’ sure man and how well did that work out in fucking 2000 when the third party vote splintered support away from the ENVIRONMENTALIST who managed to win the dem nomination and instead managed to elect the American Idiot himself GWB?????

Jill Stein and her husband have millions invested in oil and gas, the greens are a fucking sham that actual environmental activists and climate scientists warn people against, what are y’all TALKING about. Please be serious.

There has been ONE (1) progressive candidate in the past two decades who had an actual shot at the White House and wasn’t in the pocket of oil barons and that’s because he ran an entirely crowd funded campaign and he ran as a Dem, even though he spent most of his early career working as an independent, because like it or not the Dems function as the coalition party in the U.S.

And he came so close to winning the nomination TWICE that the Dems caved enough to pass the majority of the legislation in the proposed green new deal anyway under the Biden admin, finally kickstarting the serious transition to renewables that could have happened in 2000 if Al Gore had won.

Come the fuck on.

If you want to see some actual progress and not sit back and let the fucking biosphere burn, then please stop bootlicking for the utterly useless Green Party and instead spend the next four years donating to bail and legal funds for climate protestors and showing up to stand with indigenous water and land defenders and supporting the campaigns of progressive candidates and climate policy thinktanks and conservation orgs and groups that advocate for climate refugees at the local and state levels.

And if you’re feeling particularly frisky and opposed to ecocide and the extinction of almost all complex life on Earth, perhaps consider finding some like minded folks and carefully and without fucking talking about it openly on the internet, engaging in some fun and chill and lowkey targeted direct actions against oil and gas infrastructure and logging and mining operations. Which would be a Bit more useful than pandering for Jill fucking Stein and her oil lobby backers again in 2028.

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

So I am a bit ashamed given modern day politics to admit that I'm left leaning at all. Even if I'm a just Left of Center Libertarian.

But the reason why is because of the fact that a huge swath of the left has an issue when it comes to words. Specifically changing the meaning of words until they mean next to nothing at all.

What do I mean by this? Well let's consider, what words have been made to mean nothing by the left:

Gender

Sex

Abortion

Genocide

Nazi

Man

Woman

Child

Family

Capitalism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Racism

Sexism

Etc

The list goes on and on and on.

Nazi more or less now means, "I don't like you and you don't agree with me thus forth I will bestow this label on you so as to smear you publicly"

Gender used to mean sex and now it both does and does not mean sex and even is now used to mean "Identity" with that was never what it meant.

Genocide is SUPPOSED to mean the intentional removal of a group of people through killing them or breeding them out by sterilization or intentional delusion of their bloodline. (Example of this is the raping of Uyghur Muslim women by Han chinese men and the sterilization of the Uyghur Muslim men by chemical castration or actual castration). Now it just means, "People dying in war is genocide. People not being allowed to chemically castrate themselves is genocide. People being allowed to eat meat is genocide". IE: It means nothing at all.

And then there's my favorite phrase from the left.

"This is a threat to our Democracy" which actually translates to: This is a threat to the power of Democrats therefore we need to smear and slander anyone pushing whatever is being pushed currently. And we will use weasel words normies use in order to scare them away from whatever this thing being pushed is".

First and foremost, we DO NOT live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Secondly, when people want power as BADLY as Dems and will lie, cheat, steal, and smear to get there, you should be concerned. I mean for god sake, people consider a very TINY riot at the capital with 99.99% of people unarmed completely, while we also know feds were in the crowd, an "Insurrection"; But then will not consider fire bombing the security office outside the White House, the pushing down of the WH fence, and the burning of a historical church across the street, and the injuring and killing of several Guards and Police the same thing.

So basically, it's a "If we are in power, everything we do, no matter what it is, is fine and reasonable. If you are in power anything we do to try to remove you from power is fine and reasonable.", situation.

That's why I don't like most of the left. Because they think they are gods. Their "Moral" is correct even when it never stops changing. Look at their defense of slavery in the middle east all because, "Those poor oppressed Arabs". I'm sorry but what?! SO slavery is FINE so long as it's non white doing it? That's what I'm hearing right? And sadly a lot of the time it's "YES! That is what you are hearing". If time has taught me anything it's that most of the left is a brainwashed, uneducated cult. They believe EVERYTHING outside of their cult views as evil and thus forth need to lie about it to make everyone else NOT involved or not informed also have the same resentment towards the people they hate.

And it was the last straw when I saw post after post after post of leftists excusing rape. And then people like Hasan Piker calling Kids, "Colonizers" while in the breath before talking about violent removal of people is fine if they are colonizers.

No leftists. You need to understand something very clearly. The "Right" you view as so bad and evil are consistent in most of their morals. But you view everything in bad faith. Thus can't see past your own bias long enough to realize the actual evil ones are you.

And understand. I'm not calling EVERYONE on the left evil. But if you worship the left, you probably are evil. Even if you believe you are doing "The right thing" that doesn't mean you are. And it's about time you realized that.

[vintageandroid]

More Actionable Things You Can Do

I just want to mention Jay Kuo's substack The Status Kuo, which not only updates on current events with the Federal Government and context, but also, critically, shares things that can be done and specific issues to address with your representatives, and also highlights things that are being done or have been done.

Mostly I wanted to link to his most recent one, which is lengthy but ends with some serious suggestions of things citizens should speak to their reps about.

tl;dr: put the blame on Musk right now and not Trump; urge your Dem congress members to join Senators Schatz and Kim:

[explanation + scripts below the "keep reading" cut, for both Dem reps and GOP reps.]

The second tactic is one suggested by the recent statements of Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Sen. Andy Kim of New Jersey. Both senators focus on the fact that while the Democrats are out of power in government, they are not without power to slow or even stop the seizure of the financial levers of the government by the Trump White House. Sen. Schatz declared last week that he would use his right to withhold unanimous consent on all new state department appointees unless and until USAID was restored as an agency. This was a tactic used by Sens. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Tommy Tuberville to stall Biden-era appointments. Such a move would force each and every Trump appointment to go through a full round of regular process before the Senate, instead of batching groups of appointees through. It would mean the GOP Senate would have to decide between using its time to pass things like the budget or get appointments through. Other Democratic senators should be urged to join Schatz in his protest so that he is not a single target who is easier to bombard. Sen. Kim also drew attention by suggesting over the weekend that he’s open to shutting down the government in order to protest the takeover of government systems by DOGE and the shuttering of whole agencies like USAID. Normally, it is the GOP that has threatened shutdowns when it didn’t get its way politically. Here, all the Democrats would have to do is pledge to do nothing—not lift one damn finger—to help the GOP pass its budget or lift the debt ceiling… unless the White House backs off of its attempts to shut off the money and furlough government workers. The government faces a March 14, 2025 deadline to enact a new budget. Barring something truly wild, it almost certainly will have to lift the debt ceiling to do so. Hardliners within the GOP inevitably will use the opportunity to try and extract concessions by way of drastic spending cuts to popular programs. If the Democrats band together behind Sen. Kim’s call to “Just Say No,” as it were, then the budget disaster will be entirely in the hands of the GOP.

(Excuse the long-ass excerpt; there's even more in the link above.)

I encourage you to call or write to your senators, especially if you have dem senators, and encourage them to unite with these two.

Let me give you a simple script.

If you're calling, begin by stating your name and your zip code, and if you're leaving a voice mail, include your address and, perhaps, a phone number. Then, choose one of the bracketed sections:

As a constituent, I urge Senator [Name] to band with [Senator Schatz]/[Senator Kim]'s call to [withhold unanimous consent]/[shut down the government] in protest of Musk's attacks on government agencies. Voters want to see you taking action right now. Thank you for your time.

That's it! That's all you have to say! You can reword that to suit your preferences better, but the important thing is, you don't have to be eloquent, you just have to tell them what actions you want them to take.

Calling is usually better than emailing, but a) the phone lines are melting to bits because they are getting 1500 calls a minute instead of the usual 30-50 and b) emailing is better than nothing. If you can, call, but if you can't, email! Simple as that.

If you have a Republican senator/rep, your focus should be on Musk. This isn't a perfect script, but let me try. Again, if you're calling, give your name and zip code (and if it's a voicemail, your address and maybe phone number), and then:

I want to express to Senator/Representative [whoever] that I believe Elon Musk has too much influence over the current administration given that he was not elected and his actions seem largely self-serving. I urge Senator/Representative [whoever] to take action against his rushed and clumsy dismantling of government agencies. Thank you.

Again, feel free to reword that and if anyone has a better script with more specific actions, feel free to add that.

Also, please remember to be polite to staffers and to be brave and do the thing! As I said in my 5Calls post last week, feel free to let me know you contacted someone and I'll tell you how cool you are for it.

[dicapiito]

Since Black People share zero blame about what happened in the election and why Trump won again; let’s do a master post on who’s to blame as to why Trump won again:

1. White people. They are never to be trusted to actually pay attention to shit so they will believe anything anyone tells them to. If someone is promising to get rid of anyone who’s not white; white people will vote for that candidate. White men vote for violence and white women vote in hopes to be like white men. I mean, Roe V Wade SHOULDVE been important …until I remember those stories from nurses at Planned Parenthood mentioning how obnoxious white women are about the service. White people who are actual allies are very rare and they know if they admitted to being hateful; they’d be all alone watching Fox News.

2. The mainstream media. MSNBC, CNN, Bill Maher, John Oliver, Jon Stewart ( the biggest douchefuck), Chris Hayes, Anderson Cooper, Joy Reid, among others (who I can’t name because I refuse to hate-watch their media). They spent all their fucking time bashing Biden and the Democrats. They let the lunatic leftists have a platform and they treated Trump like he’s no threat until it was way too late. They figured it’s better for their audiences to not take what Trump did in 2016-2020 seriously and just be mean towards Biden, Harris and the Democrats who actually work towards better.

Any one of these jokers could’ve taken an actual stand and report actual news about Biden but once Covid got calmer thanks to Biden and the White House became boring again because the Biden Administration was busy ACTUALLY WORKING; it just wasn’t enough for them. Once they knew leftists also found another cause they could hijack for themselves to “ stick it to the Dems” they also let these fuckers on their show to help spread more lies about the Democrats. But nope! They latched onto the “ Free Palestine” movement and sold that shit, knowing full fuckin well that it’s not America’s problem about the conflict and Biden and Harris were making sure to get a two state solution.

Their buyers remorse media is not cute and they are only doing this because they know they are a major reason why Trump won again. They’re also scared of retaliation so they’re going to act like they “ regretted it” and that Biden “ wasn’t so bad” while not ever really apologetic but their audiences will eat it up.

3. Nonblack PoC. Latino, Asian/ Pacific Islander community ( I’m not even shocked. I’m apart of this group and they love antiblackness), Arab Americans ( Rashida Tlaib is antiblack but because leftists are stupid; they couldn’t see something so obvious). The desperation to be accepted by white people and also the xenophobia in all these communities had them voting for Trump. They have the “ I’m one of the good ones” mentality and well they’re about to see that antiblackness and xenophobia has screwed themselves .

4. Social media websites letting misinformation spread, and I include tumblr since yet again this happened. I appreciate that X has a community note and people tried to fight it but it was just way too great. Too many bots were getting through. Facebook, tumblr, Twitter, TikTok, likely Instagram as well. And once the elections are over; it’s like they treat the election interference shit like it didn’t happen.

5. Leftists. As usual, since they’re bored and rich, they do this protesting “ the establishment” every four years because they don’t want to pay their fair share of taxes. They went right along with the Free Palestine bullshit because it has worked for them before. Susan Sarandon , remember her? She helped fuck over 2000 as well as 2016 and let the GOP into the White House. Since leftist includes being racist/antiblack and antisemitic; it’s a great way to get more stupid white people to not vote or “ protest vote” and help the GOP win. Now that they have; we won’t see the likes of Jill Stein or any third party candidates. They are only around to help fuck over the Democrats and yet this lesson seems to have to keep being repeated and holy fuck it’s fucking annoying.

6. Nancy Pelosi. I know I haven’t said much but she wanted Biden to step down. She wanted an open Democratic primary to get a new candidate and to go right past Kamala Harris. Her bullshit has been known for awhile, especially if you live in the Bay Area. People forgot because of Covid and because of the whack job who attacked her husband. But remember; she’s also Gavin Newsom’s aunt and well…do with that what you will. If Democrats have any chance at getting their base back; Pelosi needs to step aside and let Hakeem Jeffries be Speaker. Pelosi knew damn well if it was not Kamala Harris; Black People would not show up but she is a white woman first so of course she did what she did. And for her to act like Biden was too old when she’s in the same age group was even more moronic since he won against Trump the first fuckin time

7. antisemitism also played a huge part. Remember Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff is Jewish so if it wasn’t antiblackness; antisemitism was also at play here. Even though people won’t say it just like they won’t say their true reasons why they didn’t vote for Kamala Harris. Jewish People were the only allies along with the lgbt community who overwhelmingly voted for Kamala Harris. Every group has knuckleheads but the knuckleheads were extremely smaller than everyone else.

8. The Squad members. AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Jayapal, Cori Bush, Summer Lee and Jamaal Bowman. It’s time to get rid of these idiot DSA morons and the fact that Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman are out is awesome. They always wanted to fuck over the Democrats because they want to appear like they’re activists while they really just sell “ someday it’ll be better” while making $176K a year. They need the GOP in charge so they can coast in the House. Too bad leftists don’t get that.

So now that we all know who’s to blame; maybe now take some fuckin responsibility and hope to fucking heaven that Trump won’t have SCOTUS overturn shit but who are we kidding? With Elon Musk around; a lot of things will be rolled back but let’s see if people learn anything from it. Oh who am I kidding ?

Oh and thinking of moving to Canada? Lmao Justin Trudeau already went “ AHT AHT”. Best believe other countries are already following suit so y’all are going to be owning up to who you voted for lol.

But ya know, Biden was “ too old” and Harris was “ too joyful”

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ramon Antonio Vargas at The Guardian:

The US senator Amy Klobuchar says she hopes her party does not reflexively rule out running a woman for the White House after Kamala Harris – her fellow Democrat – lost to her Republican rival Donald Trump in November’s presidential election, arguing it is not the “lesson to learn”. Responding to a question Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press about whether Harris’s defeat might dissuade Democrats from nominating a female presidential candidate, Klobuchar said: “You have seen women run other countries quite well” before singling out the former German chancellor Angela Merkel as an example. Klobuchar added, “You’ve also seen women in the US [be] incredible mayors, incredible governors,” while further noting that fellow Democrats Tammy Baldwin, Elissa Slotkin and Jacky Rosen defeated Republican men in Senate races held in battleground states that Trump carried in the fall. “I mean – this happened,” Klobuchar, of Minnesota, said to Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker. “So I just – I don’t think that’s a lesson to learn.” Klobuchar’s remarks served to rebut comments that Joe Biden recently delivered to the ABC program The View about his vice-president’s electoral loss to Trump. In a clip Meet the Press aired Sunday, Biden said Harris was “qualified” to succeed him as president. But the president told The View that, as disappointed as he was, he wasn’t surprised Harris’s run for the Oval Office came up short after her critics went “the sexist route, of the whole, ‘This is a woman, she’s this, she’s that.’” Welker asked Klobuchar whether Democrats might have had a better chance of retaining the presidency if Biden, who defeated an incumbent Trump in 2020, had not waited until June to announce that he was abandoning his campaign for a second term. Klobuchar said her party “would have been served better by a primary” election that was different than the one which saw Biden easily beat a few long-shot Democratic challengers. Biden subsequently avoided a rematch with Trump by dropping out in the wake of a disastrous debate performance that exacerbated questions about his mental acuity and then endorsing Harris for president instead.

From the 05.11.2025 edition of NBC's Meet The Press:

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D) went on NBC’s Meet The Press Sunday to state that it’s wrong to rule out a female Democratic Presidential candidate for 2028.

See Also:

HuffPost: Amy Klobuchar Has A Message For Dems Worried About 2028 Female Candidate Chances

[spock-smokes-weed]

Sorry I’m not done chirping. I have bad insomnia right now.

I’m honestly so sick of the pearl clutching from liberals right now about people not voting. It comes across as so fucking tone deaf.

Listen, I am pro voting and of the mind it’s much smarter in the long run to vote instead of sitting out. Low voter turn out is how the Republicans can stay in power.

However, I feel like turning up your nose at those who don’t vote doesn’t do anything to actually understand WHY people don’t vote. And it’s usually because the Dems never fucking bring anything to the table and try to coast on being the lesser of two evils. That is honestly such an insulting way to run a campaign.

Especially when it comes to minority voters. A lot of them have spoken to how they feel like their material conditions never improve under either party. Yes they get worse under republicans, but “not making things worse” should never be the standard we set. But that’s the message Dems have been running on since Ronald Regan.

And in regards to the moment we’re in now, I think it’s heartless to be looking down on Muslim and Palestinian Americans for not wanting to vote for Kamala Harris. Sure, Palestine might not be a deal breaker for YOU, but spare a fucking thought to the people who’ve lost whole branches of their family in this genocide. This comes back to what I said before: things would be worse in Gaza under Trump, but you’re delusional to think the Biden administration has handled this well. On the issue of Israel/Palestine, Biden and Trump are the same.

As Genocide Joe’s VP, Kamala Harris absolutely has to answer to the abysmal way the administration has handled this genocide. It’s cowardly for her to stay silent and hope she can toe the line up until Election Day. And the time to call her out isn’t when she gets in the White House, it’s right now while she’s still courting the American people.

There are plenty of people who want to vote for the Harris/Walz ticket and their progressive policies, but the silence on Palestine is an absolute deal breaker. My GOAT Hasan Piker said he would literally door knock for Kamala if she changes her position on Americans unwavering support to Israel. Continuing to stick by Israel is LOSER behavior. It’s another example of Dems scurrying to the right on unpopular issues because they’re spineless cowards who are afraid of making brave political decision. The Dems have nothing to gain from their current position. Literally nothing. 

For the people are going to vote no matter what (like myself) now isn’t the moment to spit and hiss at people for not wanting to vote, now is the moment to stand with the people who feel left behind by democratic policy and DEMAND the democrats do better. And we do that by disrupting the good press Harris is getting right now. Go out and protest and call your representatives!!! Make it clear “I’d love to vote for Harris but I can’t in good conscience until her position on Israel changes” THAT’S IT!!!! Even if that’s a lie!!! It’s okay to lie to politicians!!!! Tell them you won’t vote even if you are!!!! Enough noise will make it impossible for them to ignore it!!! 

The biggest problem with the Democratic Party is that they’ve tried time and time again to chase the success the republicans had, instead of engaging with their own base. We are seeing right now the progressive policies are popular and it’s smart politics to build a base on that. And it’s actually incredibly dumb to adopt right wing positions on issues like immigration and Palestine. Drawing the line in the sand now while the Dems are on a winning streak could do a lot to drag American politics away from the nightmare we’ve been living under since Regan. 

[centrally-unplanned]

Since I have been accidentally doomposting recently around the I/P conflict might as well balance that! The long game is in fact working okay in regards to the US - many more Americans are souring on Israel's response. This poll is overstating it imo (you see lower numbers in other polls) and that doesn't mean this is *salient* or anything to voters, they don't care that much. But the Democratic party is clearly turning against Israel's continued excesses in cruelty. And this was probably "inevitable" in the sense that as the events of Oct 7th receded and Israel continued to blunder the weight of daily news would take its toll. You see that in White House policy even, which began as more-or-less obligatorily supportive of Israel given how horrible Oct 7th was, to growing impatience with the horrors they were inflicting in return. (IMO Biden is over the "hump" of his old-man-default stance of Israel being the Good Guys, he has too many bitterly bruising encounters with Israel's government recently. But that is tea leaves reading for sure)

Now ofc the US doesn't actually have much of a role in the conflict, few responses "within the overton window" are going to make that much of a difference (the US is not going to arms embargo Israel under virtually any scenario, alas, and even that extreme act would only make a small impact). And ofc the Republican party is not shifting nearly as much, so if for example Biden & the Dems lose the election that would virtually eliminate any soft pressure the US is currently exerting on Israel to moderate (which has done something but not much so far). But until then I think both the voting base for the Dems and the admin in general has been shifting towards stronger advocacy for increased aid & security to the Palestinian people, which is probably the best way US policy can help.

With very low confidence I think US policy towards the conflict has been improving recently and it might continue to swing up, reducing the acute danger a lot of Palestinian people currently face. Ofc the question of "will Israel let that happen" hangs over it all; I am certainly less sanguine about that. In particular, Netanyahu can read polls just like I can - an Israeli strategy of "waiting for Donald Trump to come to power" has to be on his radar. And no foreign state has demonstrated its eager willingness to play the game of US domestic politics like Israel has. But the election is still far off, Israeli doesn't really have that kind of time, so there are some real windows here.

[mariacallous]

What’s your opinion on the NYC mayor primary election? The DSA is pushing Zohran hard, but I can’t see anyone outside of white transplants from the West Coast and Midwest voting for him

I think there's too many progressive/liberal candidates, and if too many of them remain we'll have the same issue we had in 2021 where Adams, a more centrist/less progressive or liberal candidate, maintained a consistent 30% and, due to ranked choice voting, kept that through several rounds until he got to 50.4% and won because the vote was split so many ways with so many unlikely candidates.

I think this time Cuomo will be the candidate in that position, for better or worse.

I'm not really feeling any of them but I'm not opposed to many either, except Zohran and Adams and the private equity guy.

I was talking with a coworker who said that they expect Cuomo to get the Dem nomination and the mayoralty in the general, and that one of the upsides is that he is so instinctively opposed to Trump that he wouldn't buckle or bow down but would fight him and the administration, and that may be what helps him get both the nom and the office in city hall.

I think a lot of New Yorkers are also not going to back anyone who isn't going to be seen as tough on public safety or on lowering prices and building more housing quicker.

[jyndor2]

kamala harris was not going to do any good for palestinians. she politically died on that hill, and it's crazy because I do think she would have been degrees better for palestinians but I have nothing to back that up - it's just a belief I have.

most americans don't care about politics until it impacts them personally. this is the sickness of this society - we are so alienated, so individualistic, that we refuse to care about things until we are the ones at immediate risk.

trans people have been begging cis queer people to have their backs for almost a decade that I am aware of but I'm sure longer. but a lot of us, to some extent myself included, thought that we had beat the majority of queerphobia - which clearly we had not. if we had listened to those who were most at risk, maybe we would have had a plan for when the dems failed to have ALL of our backs.

and white women are the most obvious example of a group not having any solidarity with anyone until it is our turn to get fucked. we are the most dipshit ass marginalized group there is, constantly stuck between holding onto our whiteness for dear life while bemoaning the pain we go through as we are made to fit this bullshit farcical model of white womanhood.

and unfortunately I think we have to talk about the reality that americans period, we all have never listened to our victims in the rest of the world. not really - we didn't and don't care about the genocides, not cambodia (there were leftists supporting the khmer fucking rogue after all), not korea, not argentina, not rwanda, not congo and sudan right now, and certainly not palestine.

because it hasn't just been white women being gross towards anti-genocide protesters after the election. liberals of all identities have been showing their asses on social media and in real life (although for me I've only heard white and non-Black women doing this irl). and you know what? I am still gonna stand in solidarity with you no matter what but I'm never gonna forget that your support is conditional.

I've told people to avoid these heated convos since the election because we can't have you fucking dipshits negatively polarizing against fucking GENOCIDE SURVIVORS AND VICTIMS. you see how quickly so many zionists turned right wing because their politics were conditional? don't do that. you're allowed to be mad but when you punch down at people with far less power than you have, I have to assume that your principles are about as sturdy as a house of cards.

and you may say, "well cait why are you punching at liberals? isn't that the opposite of what you said to do?" and first I would say, I am giving TOUGH LOVE - if you see me saying "im still gonna have your back but you need to grow up politically" and see some woman breaking a boycott and drinking starbucks with a petty look on her face, then idk what to tell you. because my point is that we can bicker and yell and dislike one another but if you need me i've got you.

idk that most liberals have got anyone but themselves.

[dhaaruni]

This is a bit of a weird perspective, but do you think there's something to be said about how Democrats are losing support because of a feeling of abandonment from marginalized groups?

My first gut reaction after last November was that Democrats lost because they felt too "socially radical" for the median voter, and that the median voter just kinda sucked. So they need to move to the center, right?

Now, I'm not so sure. One of the biggest issues in the election was immigration. The current admin's policies are WILDLY unpopular in their extremity (see this past weekend), and they weren't exactly hidden or unknown. Except... The Dems tried to appeal to the "tough on immigration" sentiment by having Kamala go to ICE detention centers and the like.

So what voters were being offered was.... Republicans, and Republican-lites. So why wouldn't they vote for the ones who seemed like they would at least be hard-line and effective about it?

There's also something to be said for messaging and policy creating opinion, as opposed to following it. Eg, support for transgender rights was steadily growing, until it received a MASSIVE backslide once it became part of the Republican party's messaging. And Dems just kinda... Cede that ground with milquetoast efforts to make it more "moderate". The Overton window on tons of issues has shifted a LOT- trans issues are the most dramatic, but it's happened for lots of things.

Idk. Bit of a ramble. I've just run across a couple of your posts that say you think Dems need to move towards the center socially to ever win anything, and I'm torn on whether I agree or not.

I don't agree.

Democrats didn't lose in 2024 because of turnout among their base, they lost because of persuasion in swing states, especially in the Sunbelt, and even then, Kamala lost the electoral college by like 200k votes across the Blue Wall. Turnout was very high, and in swing states, Kamala got the necessary white support to win, but she crashed and burned with Hispanic voters who went ~20 points right in Pennsylvania and Michigan and even if they're only a small portion of the electorate, that swung the election.

Also, in blue urban centers, again, Democrats didn't lose on turnout, they lost because a bunch of reliably Democratic groups, mainly non-college Hispanics and Asians but also some Black voters, all got really fed up with migrants in their communities and went hard right. Look at the precincts in Queens and the Bronx that went furthest right, they're predominantly Hispanic and Asian. Look at the South Side of Chicago and how far right it swung, its residents were furious that migrants were being housed there while American citizens were struggling.

Plus like, Trump's best issue is still immigration even after all the due process violations, and the reason he's polling so low is because of his brainwormed tariffs and inability to actually do anything about cost of living. People aren't into ICE agents being in plain clothes and going into schools and raiding playgrounds for nannies, but Trump is still at -3 on immigration based on aggregated polls, and is at -7.3 overall so he's doing BETTER on immigration than on other issues even with all the atrocities that his administration are committing. Like, no matter how much Trump himself talks about bringing the smartest immigrants to make America great, Stephen Miller runs the show on this issue and he wants all brown people gone.

I also just don't think you can change public opinion by changing policy on the national level. You have to meet people where they're at and persuasion is on the scope of decades, not years.

So yeah, I get what you're saying but I disagree.

[mightyflamethrower]

Forget her awkward off-putting personality and her habit of speaking like a dim-witted kindergarten schoolteacher. Those are public-facing problems and public-facing problems have to be pretty extreme for them to be disqualifying. Dems stuck with Biden until he had a total debate breakdown.

Dems would like another Obama, and Kamala isn’t that, and they’d settle for a normal human being who isn’t some nightmarish hybrid of Chauncey Gardiner, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with none of the positive aspects, and all of the negative ones, but the media and every establishment voice will spend the remaining months telling us that Kamala is the embodiment of the right side of history.

From a practical politics standpoint anyone (or almost) anyone can be turned into a viable public-facing figure with enough cultural firepower behind them. Look at what they managed to do with an obscure  Vermont socialist crank and an obnoxious Westchester hipster of Puerto Rican descent.

The real issue is that Kamala is leadership kryptonite. Her original presidential campaign dissolved into infighting between her staff and her sister. And she dropped out before she could even contest a primary.

As vice president, she not only made zero impact on anything, but her office staff abandoned ship. The only thing she made into a signature issue was opposing Israel over the war with Hamas.

That’s not a dealbreaker, but her inability to run anything is. Biden was an empty space that his staff filled. Kamala isn’t an empty space, she’s worse, like a lot of CBC members, she seems to be a bad boss with a penchant for nurturing drama around her. That wouldn’t be a first in the White House, but it’s especially damaging during a campaign.

Biden, as terrible as he was, had a circle of loyalists who served him to the bitter end. He tended to be abusive, but like every successful D.C. lifer, he had people he count on. That’s why he lasted this long even well past the point where he could meaningfully function.

Kamala does not. Her people come and go. She has few loyalists and her staff tend to wash out quickly. It’s one thing for this to be the case for female CBC house members (which it often is) but it’s a major problem for a presidential candidate running a national campaign. It means she doesn’t have meaningful support and in a business where politicians can’t do anything without loyal staffers, it’s a hole. A big one.

This isn’t something the average person cares about, but people in D.C. politics do. They see it as a serious failing that will impede her ability to succeed. It’s why they don’t think she can go the distance. And why they’re hesitant to get behind her.

[helladirections]

HOW DOES POLITICS WORK??

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ASKING. I HAVE SEVERAL RANTS BELOW THE CUT:

Primaries are not necessarily real

There wasn't an official Dem nominee yet anyway

Line of succession doesn't really matter, but pipeline of talent does

1. Primaries are not necessarily real

Ok so we all know how the process appears. On your state's primary election day (different days for different states, annoyingly) you vote for who you want for president. The person with the most votes wins the state.

But here's what people don't always know...

Each state party has different rules about how delegates are assigned. Some give 100% to the winner of the popular vote, some go proportionally. But regardless, these delegates (who are also voted on as a super down ballot thing that most people don't pay attention to) go to the DNC convention where they do the official ballot. Think of this as the electoral college but just for the Dem Party. Each state has a number of votes, theoretically the popular vote guides how the delegates vote, but legally there is flexibility. PLUS, you might see some history or that Netflix biopic where you hear things like "releasing delegates" or "releasing delegates to...". What that means is a candidate who doesn't have enough delegates to win can "release" their delegates to vote for whoever they personally want, or whoever the candidate directs them to. "Multiple ballots" at a convention means that no one has enough delegates the first time and they have to vote again. And in between those votes the candidates and their teams make deals and discuss and ideally people drop out and release delegates.

So your vote in your state is incredibly important. But also. It might not be.

2. There wasn't an official Dem nominee yet anyway

As I explained above, the nominee is decided officially at the DNC convention. You saw the same type of system at the RNC this week. It wasn't until the last day of the convention that they did the official vote and Trump officially accepted the nomination from his party. Before that, there wasn't technically an official nominee yet. Legally. Procedurally. That's part of why it was so weird that they had a debate so early.

Similarly, the DNC hasn't happened yet, so there's not an official nominee either. Typically people don't run against an incumbent president though so it's mostly for show. Obviously, this year it won't be for show, and some of what I talked about in #1 will be relevant.

3. Line of succession doesn't really matter but pipeline of talent does

You may know that the VP takes over as President if the President dies. Next in line is the Speaker of the House, and then it goes down a long list. But Biden didn't die, he just isn't running for reelection and waited until the last minute to do that.

Biden did endorse Kamala. But that doesn't mean Kamala is definitely automatically the nominee. And there's no guarantee of who the VP candidate would be. It just means that she's the front runner and likely has access to the entire campaign infrastructure (including money) that Biden had.

So who else besides Kamala? It doesn't have to go by current position, which is why the line of succession doesn't really matter. It's the pipeline of talent - meaning who else is relevant doing good work and has name recognition. Some names that have been floated:

Gavin Newsom (CA Governor) Gretchen Whitmer (MI Governor) Pete Buttigieg (Mayor Pete, tranpo secretary, former candidate) And others

And names that people float but will never happen: Michelle Obama Hillary Clinton Nancy Pelosi Chuck Schumer etc.

So who's gonna run for president in November?

TBH probably Kamala because she has the biggest head start and those endorsements are powerful. She'll probably pick the most generic white man as her VP. But other people are likely to try and give it a go as well and it wont be official until the last day of the DNC

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO VOMIT. I MISS DC AND IT'S NICE TO USE MY POLI SCI DEGREE FOR SOMETHING

[punk-rock-is-not-dead]

Survey

from @bubblesurveys

Who is your least favourite character from your favourite book? (no villains/bad guys allowed) Probably Eddie Kaspbrak from IT

Do people tell you you have cold hands? My geography teacher in hs Tom (who was from Ireland) did. He gave me tea every morning bc of it. :P

When was the last time you held an umbrella? Um... idk, a few months ago?

Do you still listen to any disbanded bands? Nirvana, the Beatles, the Doors shit like that.

What colour is the last coat you wore? red and black

Do you feel that the shape of the pasta alters the taste? Nope. Pasta e pasta!

How often do you listen to rock music? Almost every day.

When were you last in a classroom? Ha ha like 28 years ago?

In games, do you like to roleplay as good or bad? Um....

What was your favourite colour when you were 10? Probably blue.

When were you last in a hospital? about 12 years ago with dehydration. I make sure that I drink enough 💧now.

Is there an instrument you don't like the sound of? Some singing voices? Like Brad Roberts bass voice, it's just too low...

When was the last time you had a lava lamp in your room? Don't own one.

What was the last frozen food you ate? Probably pepperoni pizza?

What is the shortest haircut you have had? Boy short.

How many letters are in the author's name of the last book you read? 16.

How are you currently holding your device? I'm on my computer :)

Have you ever sponsored an animal? nope

Would you rather be a kangaroo or a sea turtle? a kangaroo. I love dem 'roos!

Do you like to get ready in the bathroom or the bedroom? It depends.

What's your favourite Coldplay song? Yellow or Clocks.

What do you think about turbulence on a flight? Scary :o

Normally, do you sleep too many hours or not enough? Not enough.

How many keyboards/languages do you have on your phone? 2 English and French

Do you have a favourite insect? Ew. NO!!!

Have you ever worn coloured contacts for Halloween? Like red ones or black ones? I wish. :)

How often do you wear heels? Never. Rather wear sneakers or Converse, or combat boots.

Do you have a favourite episode of your favourite show? ALL of the X-Files

What was your first teacher's first name? I don't remember :o

What colour are your toothbrush's bristles? white

Were you a dog, how long would your snoot be? I'd be a pug so my snout would be short?

Have you ever gone ice skating alone? No

Can you hear a clock ticking now? No..

How about birds tweeting? nope

How long would your ideal magic wand be? lol idk as long as it worked be fine with me. ^^

 What colour is your ceiling? painter's beige starting to yellow

Do you own a scooter? nope

Which pastel colour is the nicest? blue or green

How many hours until you have to get up next? idk about 2 for snack? 3 or 4 for insulin and 5 for supper?

When did you last play a Mario game? I played Kart awhile ago as well as Bowser's Inside Story

Ever owned an actual piggy bank? yepp

How many words of Spanish do you reckon you know? si. lol

How many rugs/mats/carpets are in your house? Not many cos we have hardwood.

When did you last swing on a swing-set? When I was 8??

Do you have a favourite Haribo shape? Bear? idk

How would you describe your favourite singer's voice in 2 words? beautiful and clear (taylor swift)

Do you study any subjects in your free time? Latin, French, German, Italian...

Any interesting or unusual facts about your house? It's about 200 years old? Was owned by a dr???

Would you rather become fluent in 3 European languages or 3 Asian languages? Asian. I'd love to learn Korean.

Are your bedroom curtains long or short? I have blinds :P

That's all. I will have a sideblog later filled with these things and web thingies from like Geocities...