#which are elected by the majority of members of the General ...

[batboyblog]

April 1st is Election Day

Are you feeling sick, depressed, angry, outraged and all the other bad feelings about Donald Trump and Elon Musk this March? WELL FUCKO! its time to get to work, the first major test of the resistance to Trump-Musk is this April first! two special elections to the US House in Florida and a Supreme Court election in Wisconsin.

Florida's 1st and 6th Congressional Districts are having special elections on April 1st.

Right now the House of Representatives is 218 Republicans to 215 Democrats, flip these two seats, its 218-217, one vote away from being able to hold Trump and Musk accountable, and there are lots of Republican Congresspeople in their 70s and 80s.

The First Congressional District used to be well know sex criminal Matt Gaetz' district till he resigned hoping that'd mean The House wouldn't release a report on all his sex crimes, but the House released it anyways and Matt didn't get to be Trump's Attorney General. Any ways Trump endorsed Republican Jimmy Patronis, an ally of Ron DeSantis, which pretty much closed the Republican primary.

The Democrat is named Gay Valimont where ever you live in the US you can phone bank, if you live in Florida, or southern Georgia, Alabama, or Mississippi PLEASE! for the love of GOD! find time this month, one weekend to knock doors, and if you have a spare dollar, maybe don't buy something off Amazon? give it to the cause?

Give Volunteer Events

The Sixth Congressional District used to be Michael Waltz' seat till he resigned to be Trump's National Security Adviser, you know that gross bullying of Ukraine's President Zelensky? Waltz was definitely a part of planning that little show.

Any ways Trump endorsed well known lunatic Randy Fine to be the Republican nominee. Fine's not even in Congress and he's already threatening Democratic members he doesn't like.

The Democratic nominee is teacher Joshua Weil You can phone bank from anywhere and like I said if you live in Florida or southern Georgia please please give of your time and knock some doors. If you have a dollar to spare it'll go a long way.

Give Volunteer/Events

These will both be up hill fights, they are normally very safe Republican seats. However, these are not normal times, Musk and his DOGE are about as popular with the public as an untreated STI. Musk is firing veterans, and military spouses from their jobs, cutting back the VA, and Social Security, firing park rangers, air traffic controllers, nuclear weapon experts, civilian workers from the Defense department, Trump is purging the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. These are all things traditional Republican voters do not like. So you (and I) all have a chance to tell them all about it. No matter what happens on April 1st I don't want a single Florida voter to not know about these elections and how important they are.

Wisconsin!

Every bit as important as the special elections in Florida and maybe more so for the people of Wisconsin, Wisconsin is having an election for a Supreme Court Justice. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is right now 4-3 liberal to conservative. Liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley is retiring and the election will elect her replacement for a 10 year term.

Right now a case is before the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide if the state should ban abortions under an 1849 law. If Conservatives flip this seat they will ban abortion in the state

The Conservative candidate Brad Schimel has made clear in very sexist language that banning abortion is a top issue for him. What's more Schimel is endorsed by Elon Musk. Musk is pouring MILLIONS of dollars into this race, it's the most expensive Judicial race in Wisconsin History thanks to Elon Musk and likely one of the most expensive judicial elections in American history. This is your chance to go head to head with Elon Musk and kick his ass.

The Liberal in the race, Susan Crawford, is endorsed by all the liberals on the court, the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and dozens of unions including the teacher's union. She's promising to keep abortion legal and to stand up to oligarchs like Musk.

If you live anywhere in Wisconsin this election is about you and your future and the next 10 years of your state, please volunteer. All of us can phone bank or postcard write from anywhere, And if you're in Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, or Michigan's UP and you want to make Musk sad? find a weekend this month to go to Wisconsin and knock some doors.

Give Volunteer Events

Where ever you are you can and should make a difference, even if it's just to share this post to help it reach someone else. Its time to stop feeling bad and start fighting back.

[read-marx-and-lenin]

Was it antifascist when the USSR only ever allowed less than 10% of the population to vote for the one candidate the dictatorship put forward for each role?

Why did you deactivate your last account? Were you upset that you looked so foolish? You don't look any less foolish creating multiple alternate accounts to send anon hate with. I don't even have anon asks turned off.

The Soviet Union had universal suffrage. Every voting-age adult was allowed to participate in the elections, besides felons and those who were incapable of voting due to mental disability. All ballots were secret (at least, after 1936. Oftentimes elections prior were done by show of hands, but this became problematic.)

If you are referring to the election of the Presidium or the appointment of the Premier by the elected representatives of the Supreme Soviet, I would consider that more democratic than the election of the President of the United States, since not only was the Presidium a council of multiple people in and of itself instead of one singular person at the head of the government, but the election of the Presidium was undertaken by representatives who were directly elected by the people, as opposed to the electors of the Electoral College in the United States who are appointed by party officials.

If you are referring to the election of the General Secretary of the Communist Party by Communist party members, then that position was not a governmental one. While the General Secretary did indeed have significant political influence due to their role as leader of the vanguard party, they were not a dictator and the position did not confer any state powers.

Not only were the Supreme Soviet and the Presidium composed of many different people who collectively decided upon state actions, many powers and duties were constitutionally delegated to regional councils and soviets. The federal government never held supreme power.

As for the idea that there was only "one candidate" for office during elections, the so-called "single-slate ticket" decried by the West, it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about how communist politics works. Competitive tickets were not impossible, although party discipline prevented them from occurring at any high level. Rather, the single-slate ticket arose because prior to the printing of any ballots, there was a period of discussion to determine who would be the candidate in the first place. So it was not a case of people being told by the party "here is your candidate, now you must vote for them". The people and the party worked together to find candidates who had public support in the first place. In addition, not only could voters simply vote "no" and reject a candidate (and any candidate who did not receive a majority of "yes" votes would be rejected,) but all elected officials were subject to recall at any time if they were found to be deficient in their responsibilities by the electorate. Candidates were not forced on the Soviet people by faceless party bureaucrats.

If you want to know more, I recommend checking out "Soviet Democracy" by Pat Sloan (I should note that that particular work forms most of my knowledge on Soviet democracy, so take all of that with a grain of salt for anything past 1937 when the book was written) and pretty much anything written by Anne Louise Strong, although I would recommend "In North Korea", in particular Chapter 3 which goes into detail on pre-war DPRK elections and includes a very enlightening passage on how the North Korean voters at the time viewed single-slate tickets. Suffice it to say, they did not at all feel disenfranchised.

I can understand why you would be misinformed as to how the Soviet government worked. But to decry the Soviet Union as undemocratic, let alone fascistic, is absurd.

[reasonsforhope]

"For the first time in almost 60 years, a state has formally overturned a so-called “right to work” law, clearing the way for workers to organize new union locals, collectively bargain, and make their voices heard at election time.

This week, Michigan finalized the process of eliminating a decade-old “right to work” law, which began with the shift in control of the state legislature from anti-union Republicans to pro-union Democrats following the 2022 election. “This moment has been decades in the making,” declared Michigan AFL-CIO President Ron Bieber. “By standing up and taking their power back, at the ballot box and in the workplace, workers have made it clear Michigan is and always will be the beating heart of the modern American labor movement.”

[Note: The article doesn't actually explain it, so anyway, "right to work" laws are powerful and deceptively named pieces of anti-union legislation. What right to work laws do is ban "union shops," or companies where every worker that benefits from a union is required to pay dues to the union. Right-to-work laws really undermine the leverage and especially the funding of unions, by letting non-union members receive most of the benefits of a union without helping sustain them. Sources: x, x, x, x]

In addition to formally scrapping the anti-labor law on Tuesday [February 13, 2024], Michigan also restored prevailing-wage protections for construction workers, expanded collective bargaining rights for public school employees, and restored organizing rights for graduate student research assistants at the state’s public colleges and universities. But even amid all of these wins for labor, it was the overturning of the “right to work” law that caught the attention of unions nationwide...

Now, the tide has begun to turn—beginning in a state with a rich labor history. And that’s got the attention of union activists and working-class people nationwide...

At a time when the labor movement is showing renewed vigor—and notching a string of high-profile victories, including last year’s successful strike by the United Auto Workers union against the Big Three carmakers, the historic UPS contract victory by the Teamsters, the SAG-AFTRA strike win in a struggle over abuses of AI technology in particular and the future of work in general, and the explosion of grassroots union organizing at workplaces across the country—the overturning of Michigan’s “right to work” law and the implementation of a sweeping pro-union agenda provides tangible evidence of how much has changed in recent years for workers and their unions...

By the mid-2010s, 27 states had “right to work” laws on the books.

But then, as a new generation of workers embraced “Fight for 15” organizing to raise wages, and campaigns to sign up workers at Starbucks and Amazon began to take off, the corporate-sponsored crusade to enact “right to work” measures stalled. New Hampshire’s legislature blocked a proposed “right to work” law in 2017 (and again in 2021), despite the fact that the measure was promoted by Republican Governor Chris Sununu. And in 2018, Missouri voters rejected a “right to work” referendum by a 67-33 margin.

Preventing anti-union legislation from being enacted and implemented is one thing, however. Actually overturning an existing law is something else altogether.

But that’s what happened in Michigan after 2022 voting saw the reelection of Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a labor ally, and—thanks to the overturning of gerrymandered legislative district maps that had favored the GOP—the election of Democratic majorities in the state House and state Senate. For the first time in four decades, the Democrats controlled all the major levers of power in Michigan, and they used them to implement a sweeping pro-labor agenda. That was a significant shift for Michigan, to be sure. But it was also an indication of what could be done in other states across the Great Lakes region, and nationwide.

“Michigan Democrats took full control of the state government for the first time in 40 years. They used that power to repeal the state’s ‘right to work’ law,” explained a delighted former US secretary of labor Robert Reich, who added, “This is why we have to show up for our state and local elections.”"

-via The Nation, February 16, 2024

[aestherin]

I CAN SEE YOU

4 artists and a liar (lawyer)

[Name] — renowned painter. as a member of the current generation of the lawrence clan, an old prominent family in mondstadt, you are expected to show proper decorum at all times, as well as perform what is expected of you. unbeknownst to all, behind the well-maintained and rehearsed facade is someone who deeply admires a famous solo artist from inazuma. deep enough to dedicate a stan account for him.

Albedo — also a renowned painter. a good friend of yours that you made during college, when you were taking up your fine arts major. him being adopted into your friend group just kind of happened naturally, as the two of you were an inseparable pair during college.

Venti — a random guy that you and albedo randomly adopted when an elective class required the students to divide themselves into groups of three. being the free and sociable guy that he is, he didn’t find it hard to make close connections with you and your friend. venti is now a decently known poet who hides under the penname ‘barbatos’. would sometimes get too drunk and tweet on his official writer account, which would then lead to his fans wrecking their brains trying to decipher what this ‘new poem’ means.

Eula — the relative you are closest to (the only one you’re close with, actually). your cousin who has a deep passion for dancing. long ago, she has made the decision to pursue this passion of hers, which led to her being the black sheep of the family. however, eula has no regrets as her career as a dancer turned out to be very successful. she has won competitions, performed on international stages, and has also gained social media traction.

Yanfei — eula’s friend who is a lawyer. similar to albedo, she just naturally fit into your friend group, with how often you and your friends meet with her and eula. despite having the title of ‘attorney’ attached to her name, yanfei remains humble and righteous, a quality that you all love and appreciate. sometimes feels a little sad as she is now based and residing in liyue, while this certain friend group of hers stays in mondstadt.

I CAN SEE YOU — scara x reader smau

masterlist .

TAGLIST I (closed)

@kararisa @aries-afk @aetherialcrafter @jamieexistss @lordbugs @aerisellesuchi @adres-tia @luvlockettt @kinichval @miiltrix @suzueuieeeee @automaticpatroltragedy @ahirusstuff @kyuki07 @kunikuni1819 @hungryreadingaddict @deariroha @rosieyama @slayzzz @tired-jaz @mellowberrie @kyouzki @riabriyn @ravenbc @lalalaloveallmydays @moonlitreveri3 @skyoverkill1 @xiaomainlmao @phoenix-eclipses @yomishen @anemosmybeloved @iaraluvs @kunikuzushiit @lockandkeys @yoursockstinks @idkwhattoputasmyusernme @d1gital-data @shyentsmissingink @liuaneee @najaemism @mywillt0live @aswiftiechildofapollo @toekissers @meigalaxy @nishiriks @executeher @verafunny @gl00muraaii @lily-isalittlegirl @just-a-hopeless-romantic @franaby @shrimplyasleep @scaraenthusiast1 @kyon-cherri @kunikissr

[triple-tree-ranch]

Charles Ponder·

Quit trashing Obama's accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him. Here is a list of his impressive accomplishments:

1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.

2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.

6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.

9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.

14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.

15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

26. First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.

27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

29. First President to go on multiple "global apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours.

30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).

36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences."

37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

I feel much better now. I had been under the impression he hadn't been doing ANYTHING... Such an accomplished individual... in the eyes of the ignorant maybe.!.

[mariacallous]

Who gets to run out the clock?

It’s not often discussed, but the question of “who controls the clock” very much matters when one side is doing the wrecking and one side is trying to stop it.

When prosecutors were racing to hold Trump accountable for his multiple crimes around January 6 and his absconding with classified documents (and trying to cover it up), Trump’s lawyers played a game of delay. They understood that if they could tie the cases up in court and prevent trials from occurring before the election, then Trump could undo all of his legal risk by winning reelection.

The strategy worked, in part because he had a lot of help from specific bad faith judges and justices, and in part because our legal system isn’t set up for speed and can get bogged down easily.

But now the situation is somewhat reversed. The Trump White House is trying to do as much damage as it can as quickly as it can, while opponents are doing all they can to throw sand in the gears. Plaintiffs know that once there’s a preliminary injunction in place, the “status quo ante” will hold until a permanent injunction issues.

That’s why these initial court salvos wind up mattering so much. When the Supreme Court allows the district courts to do their work, unhindered by emergency appeals that stop orders in their tracks, then those courts can freeze conditions as they were just before the bad activities took place. That frozen circumstance then can last for months or years while the parties battle things out at trial and on appeal.

This will have the greatest impact on cases where the government has sought to freeze and impound money, but it could also keep in place key personnel (for example, inspectors general) who were illegally terminated.

This week, for example, another federal judge held that the government grant and assistance freeze order, initiated by the Office of Management and Budget, was illegal. He ordered the frozen money released. “Here, the executive put itself above Congress,” wrote Judge John McConnell in his decision. “It imposed a categorical mandate on the spending of congressional appropriated and obligated funds without regard to Congress’s authority to control spending.” That ruling, along with a similar one issued in another federal case last week, could spare thousands of projects and desperate recipients the pain and shock of permanently losing funds they had been expecting.

Another federal judge held that a member of the National Labor Relations Board was illegally terminated by Trump and has ordered her reinstated. “The President’s interpretation of the scope of his constitutional power — or, more aptly, his aspiration — is flat wrong,” wrote Judge Beryl A. Howell. “The President does not have the authority to terminate members of the National Labor Relations Board at will, and his attempt to fire plaintiff from her position on the Board was a blatant violation of the law.”

A third judge blocked the firing of the chair of the federal Merit Systems Protection Board. That’s a body which protects government workers from political discrimination.

The Trump administration is appealing all of these decisions. It hopes that the conservative majority will side with the notion that the president should have broad power to hire and fire within the executive branch, even if it now looks less likely that the Court will give him the power to withhold funds as he likes.

The High Court could also decline to hear these cases at this time, allowing the injunctions to remain in place and for the cases to develop more fully in the courts below. That would essentially allow plaintiffs to run out the clock for a change.

Not every case may or even likely will go our way. But with its 5-4 ruling in the USAID case, at least we know we have a fighting chance.

The takeaway

Stepping back, the big takeaway here is that the Supreme Court has now instructed the White House to obey a court ruling ordering release of funds the government had frozen. If Trump were truly a king, no High Court could order his government to do so. And if it did, he wouldn’t have to obey.

Moreover, the Supreme Court (again by a frighteningly thin majority) said to him, “Yes, in fact, a single district court has the power to tell you to do this, and we will stand behind that court’s power with our own.” It signaled there are in fact limits to Trump’s power, and the courts will say what they are.

The day may still come when Trump defies the Supreme Court itself and we must lock arms in the streets. But at least for now, there’s still something left for him to defy.

We Dodged A Constitutional Bullet: A 5-4 Supreme Court decision on Wednesday leaves our distressed system alive to fight another day.

[ryttu3k]

Australian federal election 2025 - a primer

Welcome to the 2025 election primer! Here are the contents listed beneath the cut:

The basic info

What are Australia’s political parties?

What is preferential voting?

How do I vote in the House of Representatives?

How do I vote in the Senate?

Where can I get election information?

What happens next?

Hit the read more to learn more about Australia's voting system!

The basic info

Australia is going to the polls on Saturday the 3rd of May. In a federal election, you vote for two houses - the lower house, or House of Representatives, and the upper house, or Senate. If you’re not enrolled yet, you have until April 7th. Do so here! Please note that in Australia, unlike in the States, you don’t declare a party.

The House of Reps vote determines your local member. The amount of electorates won by a party determines who the Prime Minister is. There are currently 151 electorates in Australia (with this election seeing a reallocation to 150 seats); if the Australian Labor Party (henceforth Labor or the ALP) retains a majority of 76 or higher, then they’ve won the election and the leader of the ALP (currently Anthony Albanese) remains Prime Minister.

The Senate vote is set by state - all states get twelve senators, and territories (the ACT and NT) get two. There are a few ways to vote for the senate, outlined below.

In Australia, it is compulsory to enroll, and compulsory to show up and get your name marked off on election day. It’s not actually compulsory to vote once you get your name marked off - you could vote informally by doing basically anything against the rules - but please note that there’s no real benefit in doing so.

What are Australia’s political parties?

Australia’s current government is run by the Australian Labor Party. They range from left to centre-left. The current leader of the ALP, and the current Prime Minister, is Anthony Albanese. They currently hold 77 seats in the House of Representatives, and 25 seats in the Senate.

The federal opposition is the Coalition. This is made up of the Liberal Party and the Nationals, which are both conservative (despite the name!) - the Liberal Party is generally for urban areas, the Nationals are rural. There are also assorted group tickets, sub-groups, and the like. They range from centre-right to far-right. The current leader of the Liberal Party is Peter Dutton. They currently hold 53 seats in the House of Representatives (25 Liberal, 21 Liberal-National, 9 National), and 30 seats in the Senate (15 Liberal, 10 Liberal-National, 5 Liberal-National of Queensland, 1 Country Liberal).

Australia’s largest minor party is the Greens. They are currently led by Adam Bandt, and are left to far-left. They currently have eleven seats in the senate and four in the house of reps.

Other minor parties with current representation in the House of Reps include one member each for Katter’s Australian Party and the Centre Alliance, and thirteen independents, many of whom are Teals.

The Teals aren't actually a political party - they're independents, many funded by the Climate 200 movement, generally unified by similar policies along the lines of the Liberals (traditionally represented by the colour blue) but with a strong environmental credos and some socially progressive views.

The Senate has two members of One Nation, two members of the Lambie Network, and one member each from United Australia, Australia's Voice, and People First, along with three independents. This year, the United Australia party has been dissolved and has been replaced by... the Trumpet of Patriots party. I wish I was joking. They're far right and actively Trump fanboys. I wish I was joking.

What is preferential voting?

Australia uses a preferential voting system. This means that on your ballot sheets, for both houses, you can list candidates in order of preference. If a candidate gets an absolute majority (50% + 1) for the house of reps, or reaches the quota (7.69%) for the senate, then they get voted in. If they don’t, then it goes down to preferences.

Preferential voting is really cool, because it means you can vote for exactly who you want to vote for without wasting your vote. Once all the ballots are in, all of the 1 votes are counted. If there’s an absolute majority/quota, then that’s pretty straightforward. If not, then the candidate with the lowest amount of primary votes gets their votes dissolved, and distributed to whoever the voter marked as their second choice. Is there a majority/quota? No? The process repeats.

Let’s say an electorate has four candidates - we’ll go with ALP, Liberal, Greens, and an independent - and 50 voters. A candidate would need 26 votes to get an absolute majority, but the primary votes are distributed like so:

Liberals: 19

ALP: 18

Greens: 7

Ind: 6

The Liberals have more votes than the ALP, but still not enough for an absolute majority. Our independent has the lowest amount of votes, so the six papers that mark them as their primary candidate now go to whoever was marked as 2nd on the paper. After their six votes are distributed, the results now look like this:

ALP: 21

Liberals: 21

Greens: 8

Still no absolute majority, so now the Greens candidate has their votes dissolved. Most Greens voters tend to put the ALP as their major party, but we can say that there’s one outlier who went with the Libs second. Their eight votes are distributed:

ALP: 28

Liberals: 22

The ALP now has a majority of 26 votes or more, and are voted in for that electorate! This was largely due to Greens preferences, as the Liberals had a higher primary vote.

How do I vote in the House of Representatives?

The House of Reps is pretty simple. Each of the 151 electorates have their own list of candidates - this could be as short as one ALP, one Liberal, and one Green, or it could include a melange of minor parties and independents. To vote in the House of Reps, you simply number each candidate by order of preference.

I’m a Greens voter, so if there were only those three main parties, I would put the Greens first, then the ALP, then the Liberal Party. Other minor parties and independents get slotted in according to their views. A really really good independent with amazing policies would get listed above the ALP and below the Greens, most minor parties would go between the ALP and the Libs, and really repugnant parties (like One Nation) I put below the Libs.

(This is just how I, personally, would vote, by the way!)

So, why list a minor party above the ALP, when the ALP would end up with my vote anyway?

Because putting the Greens as my primary vote would indicate to the major parties that my values and policies most closely align with them. Let’s say I list the Greens first, and the ALP wins my electorate with the help of Greens preferences. The ALP candidate would then go, “Oh hey, you know what, it looks like the Greens voters were pretty instrumental in getting me elected. I should be supporting Greens policies as well to best serve my electorate.”

(In theory, anyway…)

How do I vote in the Senate?

Senate papers are enormous - states like NSW have routinely had over a hundred candidates. Candidates are listed horizontally - each party/group has a column, and then candidates are listed down the column.

Previously, your option has been to vote above the line by simply marking a 1 for your party or group of choice, which means that their internally-selected preferences will determine where your vote goes to someone who doesn’t get a quota, which can mean that like… 0.1% of the state can vote for the Australian Motorists Enthusiasts Party and they still get in because of weird preference flows. Or, if you want to ensure your vote goes exactly where you want it to go, you can number every single candidate.

Thankfully, there are now easier options. You can now number at least six boxes above the line, or at least twelve boxes below the line. You can vote for more, but not less (you can’t just number three above the line). This still ensures that your vote goes to who you want, but doesn’t mean you have to number over a hundred boxes individually.

I did that once. It was an Experience.

Where can I get election information?

Want official rules and lists of information? Try the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission).

Want mostly-unbiased news, analysis and coverage? Try the ABC. The ABC also has the Vote Compass, which tells you how closely your views align with the parties (the 2025 version is, at the time of this writing, still in process of being prepared).

Daily newspapers are dicey. The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age are the better options, both owned by Nine. Slight left-wing slant. The Australian, Courier Mail, Adelaide Advertiser, et cetera, are all owned by Murdoch and have a massive right-wing slant.

What happens next?

We get a little over a month of election campaigning. If you haven’t given up and moved to New Zealand by May 3rd, then we go to the polls. If you’re enrolled (and if you’re over 18, you should be!), show up at your local polling place (the AEC will have a list), have your name marked off, and receive your two papers. Make your vote and put them in the indicated boxes. Go get yourself a cupcake from the inevitable cake stall or a sausage from the sausage sizzle as a reward.

Can’t get to a polling place in your electorate? Here are some other options! Early voting has boomed in popularity in the last couple of elections and will be available again from April 22nd, there are mail-in options, and telephone voting is now an option for people with visual impairments.

Good luck, everyone!

(Originally posted here for 2016 and here for 2022.)

[starmada4546]

The Derailing Trump Train

This essay is by-and-large for people like me who regularly have to deal with conservative family members or coworkers or whatever godawful thing makes you have to put up with these kinds of people. If that's not you, the advice in this one probably isn't going to be very helpful, but you're welcome to stick around for the analysis, if you like.

As the veneer of moderate, respectable conservatism slips away, people are going to start getting their buyers remorse. I've already heard people discussing how they aren't fond of Trump's policy on Ukraine, or his tariffs, or how Elon Musk is slashing federal jobs and giving himself multibillion dollar contracts. Its... highly frustrating to say the least. When I hear a very conservative uncle talking about how Trump's promised tax cuts don't include him, it makes me want to scream "How the fuck can you possibly be so selfish?! You people have had almost a decade to realize this man is a serious contender for Worst Human Alive and the only time you can start caring is when it impacts you?!"It really hurts to see a man who has spent the last decade fanning the flames of fascism, destroying lives, spreading bigotry, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, only lose his supporters after he starts hurting them specifically.

For those unfamiliar, there's a meme on the internet that many people like to quote in these sorts of situations. It goes something like "'But I didn't think the leopards would eat my face!' sobs woman who voted for the leopards eating people's faces party."

Since the original incident that started this meme, Leopards Ate My Face has become a term that refers to conservatives who voted for a conservative politician who proceeded to do something to hurt them, usually because said conservative voter didn't bother to figure out what said politician actually stood for. It's a popular meme for good reason; it's cathartic to laugh at the comeuppance of others, right?

I generally speaking disagree. This sort of thing drives me absolutely up the wall. It's selfish people finally getting hurt by their own selfishness, but in a vast majority of cases, those selfish people still won't accept they were ever actually in the wrong. It's always that they were lied to, or that the circumstances changed, or some other bullshit excuse that serves the same rhetorical purpose: I can't possibly have been wrong, so something outside my control intervened. This is, of course, demonstrating a key feature of the conservative mindset, which is the fundamental lack of self accountability. If there was any acknowledgement that everything that was going to happen was well known in advance, that political scholars and economists and journalists were Screaming From The Fucking Rooftops that this was going to happen, they'd have to acknowledge that there were steps they could have taken to have not caused harm for themselves, because in the fundamental selfish narcissism of conservative thought, the only thing that is immutably morally wrong is anything that hurts me.

If there was any acknowledgement that they could have done five minutes of research to keep from committing the most egregious of moral sins, doing something against their own interests, they'd have to accept that they bear the responsibility for that. So it is always, always, someone else's fault. Any evidence they could have used is dismissed out of hand; the news stations are lying, the economists are profiteering hacks, and the political scholars are propagandists.

But go far enough down the train tracks, they start running out of people to blame. When they're far enough out from the election that the opinions and writings of the fourth estate don't matter to them anymore, the republicans control all three branches of government, and most of what vestiges of leftism still exist in the government are seemingly hellbent on being the most ineffectual, pathetic doormats in the history of opposition parties, the list from the center of the Venn Diagram of "People who I think have the power to screw me over" and "People who I hate," starts growing dangerously short for their cognitive dissonance. It may not often seem like it, but there is a limit to how far these people can stretch and distort their own reality.

This is where we see the step of most groups built on ideologies of hate, supremacy, and/or exploitation wherein the members of the group begin to turn on each other, or at the least to begin their own balkanization. Remember, the very last person they can blame for their woes is themselves. They will blame anyone and everyone else, including their Der Fuhrer before they go that far. If they start running out of people to blame, they find new ones.

(This also mirrors a key feature of fascism, where when an outgroup can no longer be reasonably blamed for the problems of a society due to their absence or lack of cultural relevance, and are replaced with new outgroups, thereby making the ingroup smaller and smaller, but I'm sure that's only a coincidence, wink wink nudge nudge.)

So, after analyzing the toxic narcissism inherent to this worldview, I'm gonna go ahead and proceed to light myself on fire with napalm by defending it.

Ok ok, I'm not actually going to defend it. But I am going to ask for it to be encouraged?

This behavior is absolutely fucking terrible, don't get me wrong, but it is also self destructive, at least as far as cohesive fascist movements go. When they start pointing the blame fingers at each other, that is the death knell for fascism. Fascism exists because it's an ideology of hate, but it proliferates because it doesn't market itself that way. It markets itself as a series of benefits for the average everyman, which are obtained through bigotry. When those benefits don't materialize, which they can't, because bigotry has never served anyone but those who already hold all the power, it creates resentment and distrust. This is usually where the fascists point at something else and say "Look, a minority!" but that strategy only works for so long before it becomes put-up or shut-up.

So believe me, when that conservative uncle complains about Trump's tax cuts and you just want to go ballistic, I understand that sucks. But I urge you, smile and nod. It's a low bar at this point, but he's taking a second to think about it. Maybe it isn't going to get him to take his head out of the Kool-Aid fountain, but resentment and distrust don't start a violent boil overnight. In fact, we don't need a violent boil. We don't necessarily need for these people to start voting for democrats, we just need them to decide they'd rather not bother heading to the polls on election day. A small simmer is enough.

Because eventually, when Trump strips enough of the iron off of the track, the train derails.

In the wise and seemingly eternal words of Sun Tzu, "Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake."

[ralfmaximus]

America is not just suffering from a wealth gap; America has the equivalent of a class apartheid. Our systems—of education, credentialing, hiring, housing, and electing officials—are dominated and managed by members of a “comfort class.” These are people who were born into lives of financial stability. They graduate from college with little to no debt, which enables them to advance in influential but relatively low-wage fields—academia, media, government, or policy work. Many of them rarely interact or engage in a meaningful way with people living in different socioeconomic strata than their own. And their disconnect from the lives of the majority has expanded to such a chasm that their perspective—and authority—may no longer be relevant.

Our society is run by people who don't buy their own groceries, who buy stuff without looking at the price tag, who don't have to worry about a sudden $500 emergency wiping them out.

Most of us are a bad month away from homelessness.

Or are already homeless. And our leaders are baffled by this.

Just get a job. Just get off the street. Just ask your parents for money. Just put it on your credit card. The old one broke? Just get a new one. Just take the day off if you're sick.

Anyway. The article taught me a new concept, "comfort class". It describes anybody who never has to worry about money. But alas, there's not much discussion there about what we can do about it.

Suggestions?

[rnadett]

"Caitlyn did not grant Zaun independence."

There's no current evidence for that. When Jayce negotiated with Silco, he promised a seat on the council and independence.

Since Jayce and Silco's situation mirrors Caitlyn and Sevika's, and we know the writers love parallels, it's likely that this is what happened.

So there is a high chance that Zaun gained independence as well, not just a seat on the council.

But whether yes or no - Let’s analyze the political situation after the war in Piltover from a rawer, more realistic perspective:

The new council members are relatives of the previous members—households. This is an important detail that most overlook. Due to their resentment, they will likely never reach the level (or after a long journey) where they can understand Zaun's situation, like Caitlyn did by the end of season two. However, Caitlyn, unlike them, genuinely wants to help Zaun.

Who better to represent Zaun's interests than Sevika, who, unlike Silco, would never abandon anyone?

(Yes, I know, Ekko. But the fact that he wasn't the one—there’s a reason for that, which we’ll probably learn from the spin-offs.)

Silco unlike Sevika - was never truly loyal to anyone but himself - He would have sacrificed everyone, except for Jinx, making him unfit to represent all of Zaun's people, since he even enslaved the next generation (employing children in factories) to maintain his power.

Unfortunately, by the end of season two, the political situation wasn’t one that could be solved with a snap of the fingers, especially considering everything that had happened in the second season, or that Zaun would ever truly be in a position to retaliate without massive losses.

(And for those who think this would be the right solution—I don't understand why there should be repeated bloodbaths? To more innocent people die? For what? To put your ego before the sake of people? For revenge? After finally both side willing to cooperate?)

Another important point, as mentioned earlier: council positions are inherited in Piltover, not filled through elections, so if Caitlyn had wanted to include more Zaunites, it wouldn’t have been possible. In the beginning of s2 she could only be "the leader" because Ambessa didn’t just manipulate her, but also the influential houses, who empowered Caitlyn with this position. Caitlyn, in turn, accepted this position because of the manipulation, even though she never asked for it (just as Zaun's people made Jinx a symbol, though she never asked for it).

By the end of the season, neither Mel nor Jayce were in the council to form a unified majority with Sevika and Shoola, nor did Mel give up her position for another Zaunite (this could have been independent of her; we don’t know if Piltover exiled her or if the rest of the council was only willing to compromise with one Zaunite member).

Also Caitlyn gave up much of the political influence guaranteed by her family name (- since Caitlyn didn't want her mother's privileges in season one either). This was a massive loss of prestige for her house, something she was aware of - and just likely, after Silco’s death, the Chem Barons began shifting their power - (After all, these people—regardless of whether they were born as Chem Barons or council members—will always be greed-driven hyenas.) - The Kiramman family’s wealth was slowly being dismantled politically—its retention would have only been guaranteed by remaining on the council. Caitlyn consciously gave that up with putting Sevika and Zaun in her position.

As I said, politics in Arcane is much rawer—gradually less visible—than it can be portrayed.

If we look further down the rabbit hole, or even back to season one, the events hint at this pattern.

What else happened politically in the first season, and how did it unfold during season two?

If it could be visually represented and quickly understood by people, 3/4 of the fandom, for example, would blame Heimerdinger—the true culprit of Zaun's neglect—not Caitlyn or Jayce (season one).

He was the one who had been the most influential figure in Piltover for 200 years, spanning countless generations of council members, until Mel turned the power dynamics in the council in Jayce’s favor. After that, Jayce immediately saw what Heimerdinger had ignored—the damage caused by Zaun’s systemic neglect, a consequence of Heimerdinger’s 200 years of blind governance. Heimerdinger was the one who always hypocritically spoke about the safety of inventions, but under his supervision, toxic factories were built, which sickened people, like his own assistant (Viktor).

His real fear of Hextech had nothing to do with abandoning Zaun.

Everyone in Piltover knew about the toxic factories—even the Kiramman family, who provided Zaun with ventilation systems. Heimerdinger failed every generation, even Vi and Jinx’s parents, and even after the civil war, he never crossed the bridge, during which this generation lost many people. Moreover, Heimerdinger’s irresponsibility contributed to Jayce and Viktor building the Hexgate in a way that poisoned Ekko's tree, as he was still one of the leading scientists and most influential council members at that time (before Mel shifted the political power dynamics) - so the responsability was not just theirs but he also was responsible for it.

Against all this, Caitlyn in season one completely went against Heimerdinger’s ignorance. Her first action in s1 was to go down to Zaun—not taking 200 years—and see the other side as well. Contrary to the fandom’s (again) misinterpretation, she was the first character to show real empathy for Zaun. This is symbolized by her relationship with Vi, which also built the foundation for Ekko and Heimerdinger to work together (which I will elaborate on below).

Let's jump to season two right after the ending events of season 1 : Despite Caitlyn's grief and anger, she always stuck to one of her core principles (with varying degrees of success): no Zaun civilian should be harmed. And before you think that’s bullsh*t, let me explain further:

Caitlyn’s kill count among Zaun’s people is ZERO.

I’ll explain this in more detail soon, but first I need to build the puzzle:

First of all:

What was Ambessa’s real plan with the memorial attack?

I think we all clearly saw that she didn’t want to let the desire for revenge 'extinguish in Piltover's heart.' But her more important goal was to:

Find the perfect person who would serve her manipulation best, someone with enough influence and respect in the eyes of Piltover’s houses and someone who, due to their inexperience and blinded anger, is malleable enough to serve her interests.

Caitlyn always struggled against Piltover's propaganda within herself—and the seed of this was her rogue mission to Stillwater in the first season. By the end of the first season, this seed could have blossomed into a flower. However, when her mother died (an event she blamed herself for) and after she felt that Vi had "betrayed" her (a parallel to Jinx), it was like cutting down that flower. The roots remained, but Ambessa hoped that a different kind of plant—one she could guide—would grow in its place.

The moment Caitlyn and her strike team with Vi interrupted the council meeting, Ambessa knew Caitlyn would be the person to build her entire plan around - I think she had a feeling before too - that's why she sent Maddie to be close to her, but after that she was sure. For Maddie she was likely just an ordinary spy for Noxus—sometimes spies operate in foreign nations for decades, even when the two nations are not at war. Why she was chosen? Mostly because Caitlyn caught her attention. In fact, if I delve deeper, it might have been the exact opposite: There is more likely she was the one who told Ambessa to keep an eye on Cait. I mean, if you were in Maddie's shoes, wouldn't it strike you as extremely unusual for Piltover's most influential daughter to choose a profession that’s entirely unbecoming of her rank—one that, no less, focuses on cleaning up the filth of the elite? Of course it would. So, Maddie, and the fact that Noxus’s gaze had irreversibly shifted to Caitlyn, wasn’t a coincidence, especially given that Caitlyn had repeatedly mentioned she had first-hand knowledge of the events.

Also, contrary to another misinterpreted image in the fandom, Caitlyn and Vi did NOT gas all of Zaun. Their plan was a complete cooperation between Vi and Caitlyn, as they fully followed Vi’s plan from season one and the gas was, unfortunately, an added consequence—aka a "necessary evil"—to avoid the real catastrophe: the bloodbath that Salo and the families of the other deceased council members wanted (and likely the majority of Piltover's population supported) under Ambessa's incitement.

So you can critise it all you want, and I in fact agree with your moral ground, but you need to accept some harsh realities too: with this single action, they completely prevented a civil war (which again - Salo, under Ambessa’s leadership, wanted), which likely would have led to the near-extermination of Zaun, with countless civilian and child casualties. But Ambessa wouldn't have been able to actually profit from it, because she wouldn't have had enough time to gain anything from the situation and get closer to her main goal: Hextech. Additionally, with a quick, bloody strike, it’s likely that the majority of Piltover would have eventually opposed her actions/presence in their city- losing her political power.

And as I mentioned before: Contrary to the widespread belief in the fandom, if you check the scenes of The Grey frame by frame from ep 3 and compare them with Episodes 2 and 4, you'll see that the claim "the entire civilian population of Zaun was gassed" is a huge misconception and misinformation.

Caitlyn and Vi only went after Chem Baron members/heads, who kept children like Isha as slaves—whom they also didn’t kill. Only old industrial areas were gassed, which at the time served as Chem-Baron bases.

Moreover, "thanks" to the denser air (mentioned by Ekko in s1) the gas didn’t spread to other areas. Several things confirm this: Ekko’s base is deep within Zaun, yet it wasn’t affected. If the entire Zaun had been gassed, they definitely would have been impacted.

Also Cait and Vi's kill count with this was essentially zero.

Even Chross and Margot were only captured, and the rest were temporarily disarmed with gas and then released (Later, you can see the same gang members at Vander's statue alive and well - but without their leaders) - So the "lethal gas" theory has also been debunked.

The gas itself—likely in dense and concentrated amounts—probably had a "tear gas"-like effect (as evidenced by Jinx's reaction and symptoms). It’s "only" the long-term (years of continuous) inhalation that poses a serious health risk over time.

Following these points, I would like to bring up a few more references, particularly from the perspective of character interactions—or the lack thereof—which ultimately serve as pillars for the above and are interconnected:

Ekko’s lack of intervention in Caitlyn and Vi’s actions shows that they were not against neutralizing the Chem Barons and gang members in Zaun.

The Firelights, as revealed in season one, knew practically everything happening in Zaun, as they were able to track Caitlyn and Vi when even Silco couldn’t.

Ekko completely agreed with neutralizing (capturing) the Chem Barons, as their power struggle involved many refugees.

The Firelight members only turned against Caitlyn/Piltover/oppression when Ekko disappeared (independently of Caitlyn) because they thought Caitlyn had captured Ekko—and when Ambessa, mostly behind Caitlyn's back, used police brutality. Caitlyn, however, was not entirely unaware and held Ambessa accountable. Of course, her biggest mistake was not immediately turning away from her.

So I think Caitlyn's greatest guilt was not the gas (which was again: It was Vi's plan too) But to allowing her anger toward Jinx to ultimately not be directed at Jinx, but rather at everyone else through Ambessa—mainly the innocent civilians, whom she never wanted to harm from the very first season. And the fact that she let this drag on for so long, even though she was lowkey aware of what Rictus had done in Zaun, yet was still able to stay with them for months after that.

I didn’t initially intend to write this post solely about Caitlyn, but everything seemed to land on her, misinterpreted. Also, when talking about political undertones, it’s important to mention that Heimerdinger wasn’t accepted by the Firelights without real confrontation (unlike Caitlyn) because he immediately won their trust, but because Caitlyn, through her interactions with Ekko in season one, had already paved the way for Ekko to trust a Piltover citizen, as Caitlyn nearly died for the cause on the bridge in season one.

Clearly, if Ekko had been there in season two when the enforcers and Noxian soldiers were abusing innocents in Zaun, he would have confronted Caitlyn again, but unfortunately, this didn’t happen. However, at that point, I think Caitlyn just needed a push, as she was full of ongoing internal struggles, which pulled her back to her true self—and that this push came from Vi—more specifically, Vi’s family and all the suffering that their story represented for Zaun—made their relationship much more valuable in this context.

In summary: Politics in Arcane was portrayed very well and complexly, but precisely because it wasn't presented simply to the viewer, many couldn’t/don’t interpret it correctly. Also, just because something wasn't specifically presented on-screen doesn't mean it didn't happen (I'm referring to the first three paragraphs about Zaun's independence), as the writers deliberately connected ALL the scenes and interactions in various ways from season 1.

Thank you for reading all this. :)

Also, If you're curious for even more, I have an 8-minute video analysis where I delve into Heimerdinger's situation—what I hinted at here—mainly through Viktor and Jayce, and you can find the link to it here: https://youtu.be/y7Y__xyDyG8?si=5d5bl-Mc8758Gq6L

[satanfemme]

On Supporting the Trans Community in Virginia (US):

as of February 2025, Virginia is the safest southern state for both trans kids and trans adults. anecdotally, I've met many trans families in the south who have fled to our state to avoid persecution. major cities, such as Richmond, are in particular safe havens for the LGBT community here. however, we are a purple state with our fair share of fascists in government and conservatives voting those fascists in, and as such we are obviously not as protected as many blue states have shown themselves to be. so, many of the rights afforded to trans people, especially to trans children, are currently at high risk.

this will be a simple guide to some ways that you, especially if you are a Virginian or new to politics, can help advocate for and/or protect the trans Virginian community politically. I am invested in this topic as someone who has been involved in this state's politics professionally for over a year now, and who has personal interest in this state not only remaining safe, but broadening its protections in the future. I am also writing this as someone who is hopeful that broadened protections are very possible to achieve, if only people are loud and unwavering in their support.

(disclaimer that this guide is being written on 2/11/25, and with the way politics move sections of this may become obsolete in the future. I am also speaking directly to Virginian state politics only. if sections of this feel relevant to other states and/or federal politics, good. if sections of this feel contradictory to how you understand other states and/or federal politics to be, please don't harass me about it ^_^. lastly, I would consider myself knowledgeable on this topic but not an expert or authority figure by any means.)

topics of pressure I will cover here: the Virginia High School League, the VCU/UVA healthcare systems, the General Assembly, the 2025 election, and pro-trans organizations I trust

I am putting this under a read more because it is a long post (I have a lot to say), but I want to encourage people to reblog it if they find it helpful.

Pressure the Virginia High School League

yesterday, the Virginia High School League, which overseas over 300 public high schools, announced that it would walk back its 10 year long policy protecting transgender athletes in Virginian high schools, instead caving to the recent executive order on this topic and banning transgender girls from competing on a high school level. over the past 10 years, their trans policy has protected 42 students total, an average of 4 a year across the entire state. we are still waiting for more information to come out about this decision, but if it is upheld it is likely to take affect over the summer.

notably, the vote behind this decision was likely rushed and unfair. the meeting this vote took place through was called last minute on a friday afternoon and at least 2 pro-trans members of the voting committee, Senator VanValkenburg and Delegate Cousins, who would have fought against this transphobic decision, were unable to vote because they were stuck at the GA serving the state when the meeting was called.

additionally, this decision is likely illegal, as it goes against Virginia's Human Rights Act, an act that is embedded in our legal code. this act explicitly protects against discrimination on the basis of both assigned sex and gender identity.

anyone can contact the executive director of the VHSL, Billy Haun, and inform him that this decision is harmful and not going to be accepted quietly. his public email is bhaun@vhsl.org.

if you live in Virginia, or know any students who do, you should also contact the committee member who oversees your district to let them know how you feel. a full list of committee members with their contact information is available here. demand that they are accountable for this decision and that they re-instate their previous trans-inclusive policies.

Pressure the VCU and UVA healthcare systems

across the country, only a few hospitals so far have caved to the executive order banning gender affirming care for people under 19. this executive order is not yet law, and is unenforceable, therefor these are conscious decisions being made by boards of directors.

two of these hospitals are in virginia: VCU Health and UVA Health. trans minors and young adults in their care have already been denied treatment going forward. this, once again, goes against Virginia's Human Rights Act. in other words, these decisions are being made to prioritize unenforceable orders over the democratically decided upon code of law in our state.

to my knowledge, the reason VCU Health caved so fast is that they have many expensive programs, such as their cancer center, and they're concerned about losing funding. so they've thrown trans children and young adults under the bus to secure more money. I am less aware of the situation at UVA Health but I would assume it's similarly funding related. this is not an excuse, as they are still required to follow Virginia law, including the Human Rights Act, and they are obviously still expected to center their patients' best interests. this new policy is going to get kids killed.

VCU Health is intertwined with the state's attorney general, who seems to be the one who pressured both of these hospitals into making these decisions. I recommend contacting attorney general Jason Miyares about this to let him know how you feel. his public phone number is (804) 786-2071.

besides Miyares, I'm not currently aware which points of contact are the most effective, but any noise about this is good and helpful right now.

The General Assembly

Virginian lawmakers meet in Richmond for about 3 months at the start of every year to pass the bulk of state legislation. when it comes to trans rights, votes fall along party lines with democrats reliably voting in support of us, and republicans reliably voting against us.

a list tracking all current LGBT+ related bills can reliably be found through Equality Virginia's website here.

I have been tracking trans legislation in this state for 3 years, and this is the 3rd year in a row that all anti-trans bills have been defeated in committee thanks to the democrats and those lobbying the democrats.

this year we have 6 pro-LGBT bills which right now have successfully crossed over, meaning they're progressing through the GA and are on track to pass. (at which point our governor, who is a trump supporter and anti-trans, could still veto them)

how you can participate in this: when deciding how openly supportive or unsupportive they want to be, and when deciding which bills are worth submitting for the next GA session (because they are limited on how many bills they can submit each year), legislators look at what their constituents are telling them over phone, email, and in person. it is important that we pressure republicans to stop targeting us AND that we pressure democrats to continue supporting us even if/when their staff tries to convince them we aren't worth saving (something many people are predicting is going to happen with elections coming up). in other words we can rely on the dems now, but we need to ensure they still have our back in the future too.

side note for this section: when contacting a legislator and their staff, you should at the very least tell them your zip code, if not your address, so they can confirm you are a constituent.

you can find out who your VA legislators are through this website.

when deciding how to contact them, I would personally rank in-person above emails, and emails above phone calls.

you can meet with your legislators, or their staff, in-person with or without a prior appointment AND with or without the support of a larger organization. you could, right now, walk into the GA building in Richmond, find their office, and tell them your thoughts directly. anyone is allowed to do this during working hours. in my experience, this is incredibly easy to do, and they will be cordial with you even if they disagree with you. it costs you nothing but your time to force them to listen to you rant and vent. if you want to go in a group, you can join a lobby day with an organization you trust, or go with a group of friends and host your own personal lobby day. the reason in-person meetings are so important is because they allow you to have a natural dialogue with your legislator and it forces them to put a face to what you are saying, so you are more than just a statistic.

emails are also incredibly beneficial, especially when it comes to legislators who are already supportive of you, because it allows them to easily reference your statements during debate. I have heard from legislators themselves that they like it when people send them informative emails, even if they have already met with or been called by the person, so they can pull up exact quotes during committee meetings and directly speak to what the facts are, and how their constituents are being affected.

year-round outside of the General Assembly session itself you should continue calling and emailing your legislators, though I am less informed on how to meet with them in person as this depends on the specific office and representative. (I know my RVA reps have open offices year round for example, but I can't promise that of everyone).

On Voting

this November, every Virginia lawmaker including the governor and attorney general will be up for re-election. this has the potential to flip our GA to a republican majority, which would guarantee an onslaught of anti-trans legislation. or, alternatively, it could broaden our democrat majority, which would bode well for expanded protections for trans people and create stronger opposition against transphobia in the state.

as someone who has been watching the dems on a state level, and has been speaking to many of them directly, I strongly encourage you to vote blue for the GA this November. I can not stress enough how important it is that we at the very least maintain a dem majority in this state if we want to protect and expand trans rights, not to mention the rights of women, the Black community, and the LGBT+ community as a whole considering the important constitutional amendments that are making their way through the multi-year voting process now.

I am aware it makes me sound like a liberal. in this instance I do not care, because I have seen the impact first hand. on a state level, the VA democrats are not spineless, and they are making genuine efforts to support our community.

there will also be a vote this November on our next governor, which has the potential to be a game changer (either for the better or worse). currently, our dem-majority GA has been passing many great bills that are just getting vetoed by governor Youngkin, who is a big Trump supporter. if we elect another republican governor, the best we can hope for is a few more years of stand-still. if we elect a democrat governor instead, a lot of the pressure that's been building up these past few years will finally be released and we could genuinely push this state to the left. a lot of people, including legislators themselves, are hopeful that our next governor will be a democrat. but this is NOT a guarantee.

lastly it's a similar situation with our attorney general, Jason Miyares, a republican who pushed the VCU and UVA decisions I mentioned before. he has been directly responsible for holding back many LGBT+ rights. replacing him with a democrat has the potential to shift this state's approach to trans rights for the better.

personally, I am very nervous about these elections and would like it if more Virginians were aware of their importance.

Organizations I trust

fighting this battle alone isn't going to be as affective as if you get involved in larger organizations with the resources to put large amounts of pressure on the state. I'll give you the local groups I most trust, and who I've seen do the most good. through their websites and social media pages, you can find ways to support them and/or get involved through events or calls to action.

ACLU VA

Equality VA

He She Ze and We

Side by Side

that's all I have today

I may have more to add to this in the future, but these are just some basic directions for anyone who feels overwhelmed and isn't sure how to approach this topic outside of social media.

I don't have any big conclusion here, I just hope this is educational and/or informative to someone out there, thank u

[bromantically]

Transcript:

"Thanks very much for joining me. We are living in a dangerous and unprecedented moment in American history, and I'm getting a lot of calls from people who are not only upset about what's happening, but are wondering how we best go forward. Well let me tell you, we've got to be smart. We've got to be organized and we've got to fight back. This is not a time for wallowing in despair and hiding under the covers. The stakes are just too high. We are not just fighting for ourselves. We're fighting for our kids, for future generations. We're fighting for the future of this planet. In the first two weeks of his presidency, Donald Trump defied the Constitution by ending birthright citizenship, fired government watchdogs, allowed drilling along our coastlines, pen violent insurrectionist, suspended all foreign aid, and tried to cut off virtually all federal funding. So how do we go forward? First to be effective, we've got to understand what in fact is happening around us right now. Second, we need a short-term strategy. What do we do tomorrow and the next day and the day after that? Third we need a long-term strategy. How do we build a movement that gains political power?

Here is, in my view, a brief overview as to what is happening under Trump. Most importantly, the move toward oligarchy in our country, government run by the rich and the powerful is proceeding rapidly. And it's not being done secretly. A little over a week ago, Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, standing right behind them with the three richest men in the world, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg. Men who have become over 200 billion dollars richer since Trump was elected, and who now are worth almost a trillion dollars more money than the bottom half of American society, 170 million people.

But it's not just oligarchy that we should worry about. This country under Trump is moving rapidly toward authoritarianism. Just a few examples: In violation of the Constitution and federal law, Trump attempted the other day to suspend all federal grants and loans. That means he blocked funding for Medicaid, Head Start, food stamps, homeless veterans, etc., etc.. Tens of millions of Americans, some of the most vulnerable people in our country, were impacted by that decision. Fortunately, Americans all across the country stood up in outrage and said, no, no. And with the help of the courts, much, but not all of that freeze and funding was rescinded. You may have noticed that Trump is intimidating the media with lawsuits against ABC, CBS, Meta, and the Des Moines Register. If Trump does not like what media reports, he is threatening them with lawsuits, undermining the First Amendment. That is a direct movement toward authoritarianism.

Now, that's a very broad overview of where we are today. In terms of short-term strategy, we've got to mobilize as strongly as we can against Trump's dangerous proposals. And let me just say this, importantly, yes, the Republicans control the House and the Senate. But do not forget, their majorities are small. In the House, a body of 435 members, they have a four vote majority. That is a razor thin margin. And their legislation can be defeated. There are a number of Republicans out there who won in Democratic districts by small margins. So let me tell you, these guys do respond to phone calls and emails. So if there's a piece of legislation you disagree with, get on the phone and call the capital switchboard at 202-224-2131. And what is some of that legislation that we should be concerned about? Republicans right now are working on what's called a budget reconciliation bill. The most important element, which would be a massive tax break for the wealthy to be paid for by large cuts in Medicaid and other programs that working families and low income people desperately need. At a time of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, when so many of our people are struggling to put food on the table, we must not savage programs for working families to provide huge tax breaks for billionaires. We must vigorously oppose Trump's efforts at mass deportation. Yes, we must strengthen our borders. Yes, we should deport people who have been convicted of serious crimes. But no, no, we cannot destroy families who have lived and worked in this country peacefully for decades.

Not only is Trump's Mass deportation program immoral, it will have a severely negative impact on our economy. As all of you know, we are seeing extreme weather disturbances and devastation in our country and all over the world related to climate change. Think about LA. Think about North Carolina. We must vigorously oppose this absurd drill baby drill doctrine, which will only make an incredibly dangerous climate situation even worse. And those are just a few of the issues that are coming down the pipe. But we cannot just play defense. We have got to be on the offense. Please never forget that the agenda that we are fighting for is widely supported, widely supported by working families all across this country, and we must continue to fight for that agenda. The American people do not want cuts to Medicaid and the privatization of Medicare. They understand that healthcare is a human right, not a privilege. We must continue the struggle for Medicare for All so that every American has the health care that he or she needs. That's not a radical idea. That's what Americans want. Federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage. We must raise that minimum wage to a living wage. At least $17 an hour. If you work 40 hours a week in America, you should not be living in poverty.

All over this country, we have a major housing crisis. And it's not just 800,000 who are homeless. It is millions of working families who are spending 40, 50, 60% of their limited incomes on housing. Instead of spending almost a trillion dollars a year on a wasteful and bloated Pentagon budget, we have got to build millions of units of low income and affordable housing. And when we do that, we put large numbers of people to work at good paying union jobs. I could go on and on, but let me conclude by saying this: The United States is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. If we stand together and oppose right-wing efforts to divide us up by our race, by our religion, our sexual orientation, or where we were born, if we stand together, there is nothing that we cannot accomplish. Bottom line, let us go forward and fight for a government and an economy that works for all, not just a few. We simply do not have the luxury of moaning and groaning. We have got to stand up and fight back. We can do it. Let's go forward together. Thank you very much."

[read-marx-and-lenin]

alright.

I'll start with Lenin first, then move to Marx. Lenin was an autocrat and a dictator. There's no way around it. He was unelected and created a one-party state. This was due to the fact that the revolution was led by a vanguard, which the members of, once they succeeded in overthrowing the old government, could easily set up a self-serving dictatorship. He's not a Marxist, and he's not a Socialist.

Since Lenin obviously did not in any way uphold the vision of Marx, I'll tackle him separately. A (stateless) communist society does eliminate many hierarchies, but leaves the most coercive systems untouched. Those being: the hierarchy of the collective over the individual and that coercion required of industrialism. In a commune, one's individual vote is negligible, since the outcome is only affected by one person's vote in very rare circumstances. Once the votes are tallied, the individual is expected to conform to the decisions of the majority, and to accept the commune's laws and customs. This leads to the individual becoming feeling helpless and weak.

Secondly, Marxism fails to address the coercion required to make an industrial society function. In order to have products, you must have a payroll of workers to stand where they are told to stand and do what they are told to do and go home and show up to work when they are told to do it. Instead of working towards goals that are immediate, which directly affect one's condition (such as building a house to live in), one must do a task or set of tasks that ultimately has little to do directly with one's own material well-being. Instead, the hyperspecialized work required in an industrial society is made livable indirectly via trade. This leads to a dependence on the industrial system as a whole, which requires a massive amount of cohesion to function.

Humans are no longer permitted to act autonomously since doing so would be a hindrance to the system. Behaviors which are not conducive to the system are disallowed, but all unimportant facets of our life which do not interfere with the functioning of the system are permitted to grow within said limits.

Lenin was elected as Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars by the Congress of Soviets a total of nine times before his death. His position was not one elected by the people directly, but rather he was elected by the congressional representatives of the soviets who were themselves elected by the people. You can argue that his position should have been directly elected if you want, but you cannot say he was unelected. Regardless, while the Chairman of the CPC was the head of government of the RSFSR, and later the Soviet Union, the CPC was not a one-person council and the council as a whole was subordinate to the Central Executive Committee, which was in turn subordinate to the Congress of Soviets. Lenin was not an autocrat or a dictator; he did not hold sole legal authority and the Soviet government had numerous checks and balances.

I see no reason to believe a vanguard party or a one-party state is undemocratic. The USSR was a dictatorship, but not a dictatorship of one person. It was a dictatorship of the proletariat, as the bourgeoisie were stripped of the right to vote and to be elected. You can object to this if you like, but I personally don't think that was a bad decision.

You seem to be arguing that Lenin was neither Marxist nor socialist because the nascent Soviet Union was not yet classless or stateless. Yet why should it have been expected to be? Communism is not something that can be achieved overnight, or even in one generation. In the meantime, there must be some mechanism for suppressing and overthrowing the bourgeoisie. No matter how democratic, how horizontal, and how people-oriented that mechanism is, it still constitutes a state insofar as it constitutes an organ for the oppression of one class by another. Unless you are arguing that the rights of the bourgeoisie should be maintained and protected, you cannot escape this fact.

At the point of achieving a stateless, classless communist society, I don't see why decision-making would necessarily be performed through simple majority vote. While it's rather pointless in my mind to be speculating about how a hypothetical communist society of the future might function, I think it's safe to say they'd be far more capable of exploring alternative forms of decision-making than we are now. In any case, the question of how a future communist society might function is entirely separate from questions of past and present systems of government.

You are right to point out that the industrial mode of production requires collective and specialized activity in order to function, but I fail to see what the alternative is. Humans are a social animal, our production has always been collective and we have always benefited from specialization in labor. The advancement in industry has made possible a reduction in socially necessary labor time, not an increase. It is capitalism and the profit motive that has mandated long hours and low autonomy in the workplace, not industry itself.

People are not inherently stupid or self-centered. They can understand very well the relationship between one sector of industry and another. You do not need to be building a house to understand how, for instance, the nails you are manufacturing will be used to build houses and other goods. You do not need to be manufacturing nails to understand how the iron you are mining will be used to make nails and other goods. The idea that it is alienating to be engaged in a task that is socially beneficial rather than merely individually beneficial is absurd.

You talk about social cohesion as if it is impossible or undesirable. But again, what is the alternative? An incoherent, fragmented society? No society at all, and people just fend for themselves as individuals? I fail to see how anything less than social cohesion is desirable.

You say that industrial society is coercive and prevents people from acting autonomously. I say, what does it mean to act autonomously? Humans must satisfy our basic needs before we can think about engaging in autonomous activity. If you are starving, you are compelled to seek food. If you are freezing, you are compelled to seek shelter. Individual freedom is subordinate to our material conditions, and only through improving our material conditions can we satisfy our basic needs and guarantee individual freedom.

If we are to have a society where the individual freedoms of everyone are maximized, then we must have a society which guarantees everyone their basic needs. Food, shelter, clothing, medicine, education, transportation, communication, etc. All of these must be secured before a person has full freedom to act autonomously. Improving the quality of these things and the efficiency of their production improves the standard of living and reduces socially necessary labor time, which allows for greater degrees of freedom.

You say behaviors which are not conducive to the system are disallowed. I do not necessarily disagree, but I feel you are intentionally obscuring the nature of such behaviors. What is “the system” here? The system is society. So a behavior not conducive to society is an anti-social behavior, a behavior that impedes or harms other members of society. Why should these behaviors be allowed? Is it maximizing autonomy and freedom to allow someone to steal or rape or murder with impunity? No, it is merely trading someone else's freedom and autonomy for your own.

You can certainly maximize your own freedom and autonomy at the expense of others, but if we are to live in a society where the freedom and autonomy of everyone is to be maximized, then there must be certain limits to individual behavior for the sake of others. Maybe someday humanity will evolve to a state where one can live in their own private world with maximum freedom to do as they please without worrying about impacting others, but until that day we will have to live in a society with other people and the social restrictions that come with that. Personally, I don't think it's such a burden to have to care about other people.

Society as it stands today is indeed imperfect and often oppressive. Socialist states in the past and present have yet to achieve the classlessness and statelessness that marks higher-stage socialism, i.e. communism. They too are imperfect and have restricted people's behavior in various ways, some I would argue are necessary, and some I would argue are unnecessary. However, I believe that socialism offers us the greatest opportunity to improve society as a whole and liberate humanity from oppressive structures. I believe that capitalism remains the central impediment to the advancement of society and the pursuit of human freedom. I believe that a vanguard party and a dictatorship of the proletariat have been the most effective means of combating the bourgeoisie so far. And I believe that the advancement of science and industry has been the most effective means of securing and improving the basic needs of the people as a whole.

My question to you remains: what is the alternative? You can criticize all you want, and thoughtful and rational critique of all things is both important and beneficial, but unless you have an alternative to socialist revolution and industrial society, then you're just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. How are we to combat the bourgeoisie without a vanguard or a state? How are we to provide people with their basic needs without industrial production?

[anexperimentallife]

The US far right has been working on their plan since AT LEAST the 1960s, when I was a kid listening to evangelicals talking about their plan to take over the US, and eventually the world. It's called "Christian Dominionism," and it's a fascist ideology which goes hand in glove with the GOP's plans.

Although it was not expressed so much to the world at large, this plan was OPENLY and FREQUENTLY discussed in far right circles. We kids, if we asked about it, were told that it was "God's Will." Ask any exvangelical about it, and they'll confirm. (Part of why I know so much about these dangerous and deluded folks is I WAS ONE OF THEM in my youth.)

And where has that plan gotten them? Well, the GOP recently released a hundreds of pages long document filled with their intentions if they win--including a nationwide abortion ban and a repeal of anti-discrimination laws, among other things.

Trump has already signaled his intent to create a military dictatorship if elected, by repealing laws against using the military against US citizens on US soil sp he can deploy them against dissenters, etc., and if the GOP pick up a few more congressional seats, he can do it. The GOP has already pushed to repeal presidential term limits, and Trump has indicated he'd like to be president for life.

So I'm amazed at all the people who think withholding their vote and letting the GOP win is going to somehow fix things and "push the Dems left."

You wanna know how to push US politics leftward? You're not gonna like it, because it takes actual work beyond stomping your foot and pouting and performatively showing everyone how "pure" you are by refusing to vote.

You have to start the same way the far right did (and again, they've been OPENLY talking about and pursuing this plan since I was a kid in the 1960s, AT LEAST)--they started by getting the most extreme right wingers they possibly could into any position they could. Positions like school board member, police chief, sherrif, city prosecuter, city council member, municipal judge, mayor, governor, hell, fucking dog catcher.

They encouraged far right extremists to become police officers and military personnel and work their way up the ranks to the point at which even the famously-racist FBI reported that major city police departments across the nation were pretty much taken over by members of white supremacist organizations.

In formerly reasonable churches, right wingers pushed for the hiring and training of more and more right wing pastors and mire right-wing theology.

More affluent right-wingers bought local papers and broadcasters, and as their political power grew, they changed laws to make it easier for a single entity to control the news--until now a mere handful of entities own nearly every major media outlet in the US.

And then they used every victory as leverage for the next one, and worked their way up. I mean, there's more, like the capitalization on economic and social anxiety and their inentional exacerbation of same so they could take advantage of it, but that's intertwined with the rest.

Essentially, they got this far because they put the work in.

If the US left is going to turn things around (and if it's not already too late), we've got to do the same, but it takes RESEARCHING and PROMOTING your local and state candidates, attending city council and school board meetings, and shit like that. It's actual fucking work to fix a country.

And then, after you've done all that--and after you've shown up to primaries to try to get any non-authoritarian leftist candidate you can nominated--then you vote for the leftest folks you're able to in the general. If there are no remotely leftist candidates, you vote for the centrist or right winger who will do the least damage.

Again, that's what the US far right has been doing for decades. Taking action. Wherever possible, taking new ground, but when they couldn't do that, ceding as little ground as possible. If they couldn't win, they made damn sure to do everything in their power to try to keep actual decent human beings from winning.

Actually doing the work doesn't have the emotional satisfaction of a grand gesture, but it definitely shows who is serious about making a difference and who would rather let everything burn than sully their imagined purity by voting for anything less than perfection.

Listen, Trump is not going to end the genocide in Gaza--in fact he increased tensions between the Israeli occupation and Palestine. And the GOP will never be persuaded. Hell, they want to let Russia take Ukraine and declare open season on asylum seekers.

The Dems suck. But the GOP is far, far worse, and will do MORE damage, and kill FAR MORE innocents. And if allowed to do so, will make it even harder to change the system than it is now. They've already PUBLICLY ADMITTED that their only chance of victory is keeping people from voting. Don't play into their hands.

Under current circumstances, you know what the Dems are going to do if Biden and a bunch of other Dems lose for not being pure enough? You think they'll be all like, "Oh, no! The left sure taught us a lesson by handing the country to the GOP! We'd better shift to the left!"

No. They're going to sip champagne in their multi-million dollar mansions and have meetings about how they need to move FURTHER RIGHT to win elections, because the left doesn't vote.

And if the US becomes a military dictatorship, most of the high ranking ones will simply take their fortunes and leave.

Yup, it'd sure teach ol' Joe a lesson to force him to spend the rest of his days sipping cocktails on the Riviera.

Look beyond the single battle and think strategically. That's how the GOP keeps gaining power. And refusing to act strategically is why the left is losing. We cannot take the hill we want right now. But if we lose the hills we've already taken, we risk losing the entire goddamn war.

So fucking vote. Work to get every leftist you can in any office you can. And if you can't do that, support the one who will do the least harm.

And if it takes voting for that shitbag Biden to keep Trump and the GOP out, hold your fucking nose and pull the goddamn lever.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Zack Beauchamp at Vox:

When I was researching my book on anti-democratic politics, I found a striking pattern in modern incarnations of it — that these movements, almost uniformly, claim their most aggressive anti-democratic policies are actually defenses of democracy. While Donald Trump worked to overturn the 2020 election, for example, he insisted that he wasn’t trying to steal an election — but rather to “stop the steal” Joe Biden had already pulled off. When Trump returned to power this year, I expected to see the same rhetorical maneuver deployed to justify his inevitable power grabs. And indeed, many of Trump’s Day 1 executive orders did exactly this. Take, for example, Trump’s revival of Schedule F — a move that, in theory, could allow Trump to fire tens of thousands of nonpartisan civil servants and replace them with MAGA cronies. Such a move would be a serious threat to democracy, in that it would consolidate key powers of state in the executive’s hands in a manner that proved crucial to the rise of elected authoritarians like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. Yet in the text of the order, Trump sells the move as a vindication of democratic principles. Because the president and vice president are the only executive branch members “elected and directly accountable to the people,” they must be able to assert greater control over civil servants “to restore accountability to the career civil service.” The same is true of other executive orders that might aid in Trump’s efforts to consolidate power. An executive order on “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship” does not provide any concrete protections against abusive surveillance or internet control practices. It does, however, order the attorney general to set up an inquiry into Biden administration policies that could serve as a pretext to harass and dismiss federal employees who don’t share Trump politics. An order claiming to combat the “weaponization” of the federal government similarly does very little to prevent Trump from, for example, ordering the attorney general to investigate his political enemies or the IRS to audit them. In fact, it lays the groundwork for two separate probes into Biden administration policies that could end up targeting both federal employees and private citizens.

[...] Going forward, Trump will almost assuredly not do anything as blatant as abolishing elections. Instead, every move will be given a democratic defense, every power grab described as a victory for the American people against the “deep state.” The aim is to make the reality of the situation into just another partisan debate, where Trump says one thing while Democrats (and the media) say another. The erosion of core democratic principles, like separation of powers and political noninterference with government functions, will appear to many like a perfectly normal part of democracy. [...]

The global spread of American-style authoritarianism

As democracy became ideologically dominant around the world, similar practices became popular globally. Today, its most sophisticated practitioners are elected executives who have worked to take down democracy from within — people such as Orbán, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Narendra Modi. Orbán describes his political project, which in reality is the construction of an authoritarian kleptocracy, as an attempt to wrest back control of Hungarian democracy from Eurocrats in Brussels — with specific tactics, like restricting LGBT speech on television, being sold as an extension of the Hungarian people’s will. When Netanyahu attempted to impose political controls on Israel’s judiciary in 2023, removing the sole formally independent check on his majority’s power, he argued that he was merely reasserting the people’s control over unelected branches.

Fascist-in-Chief’s democracy-eroding EOs serve a purpose: baselessly claim to protect democracy while simultaneously undercut democracy.

[eugenedebs1920]

It doesn’t take a world class detective to figure out why Trump’s DOJ would denote the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or why Trump would remove 17 Inspectors General, who saved Americans $91 billion last year, why they would dismantle the Kleptocracy Unit at the DOJ, why they would kneecap the Public Integrity Unit, or why they would end programs looking to stop foreign interference into American politics.

There’s a simple reason for this. Trump has, and will continue to use foreign interference and corruption to manipulate our elections, to deceive and misinform people, to politicize and divide Americans, to wear down those who care about honesty and integrity.

He has done this for the better part of a decade. Using this bully pulpit as a megaphone, projecting lies, disinformation and misinformation, while the mainstream media is too feckless and weak to point out the blatant falsities, their corporate overlords not understanding the vital role a free press plays in a free country, only focused on profit.

This plays directly into the hands of our adversaries. With a nation divided, with the inability to decipher what’s true and what isn’t, with the constant burden of fact checking and debating objective reality with those who refuse to see it, our society, our country is vulnerable. Weakened by the onslaught of corrupt practices, further straining the capacity for concern on those who would.

This is what keeps me up at night. Trump has also removed high ranking military officers. He removed the heads of the intelligence agencies, purged and stacked the DOJ, removed top law enforcement officials. Pretty much anyone who would or could hold him accountable, gone.

There are two exceptions, one being this pathetic, shameless, spineless Republican majority in the house and senate, the smallest majority since the Great Depression, all too cowardly to uphold the Constitution and adhere to their oath in fear of being primaried by the capitol of the worlds richest man, Elon Musk.

The other being that which has emboldened him to, ever so brazenly, engage in a crime spree starting 3 days before his inauguration and progressing exponentially since. The United States Supreme Court. Although my Conlaw has improved over the last few years, I am no constitutional scholar, but I do possess reading comprehension skills and the ability to think critically.

When I read: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This clearly states that no one who has engaged in INSURRECTION or REBELLION and taken the an oath to uphold the Constitution can hold office, and is disqualified thereafter in doing so.

The slate of fake electors is an affront on the Constitution. Riling up his supporters with knowingly false claims of a rigged election is a slide against the Constitution and engaging in rebellion. Then telling his base to “fight like hell or you won’t have a country anymore” and sending them off to storm the capital, beat cops, and desecrate our nations most sacred place. Thats an insurrection, at minimum it’s rebellion.

Then to CONTINUOUSLY lie and whine about the 2020 election for 5 years now… It’s f*ckin exhausting…. 😑

Not only did the Supreme Court allow an insurrectionist to run and hold office in direct contrast to what the 14th amendment section 3 says, they topped it off by granting absolute immunity for actions taken in office.

This country was founded on the premise that no one is a king, no one has the power to dictate policy themselves, and that no one is above the law. It doesn’t take a constitutional scholar to understand that!

Now, just over 100 days in, we have, by insurmountable numbers, the most corrupt, criminal, lawless and unconstitutional administration to EVER occupy the executive branch.

Never. And I mean NEVER!!! Do I want to hear about Hunter Biden and his laptop, or Joe Biden and his pardons, or Obama and his tan suit, or Clinton and blowjobs, ever, EVER AGAIN from any maga or Republican for as long as this country is still a free nation or I still take breath.

At 100 days the criminality is so rampant it makes organized crime look legitimate! It’s staggering!…

The thing is. This is just setting up for what’s to come. The preparation for the real criminal acts. Just getting warmed up, testing the waters of Congress and SCOTUS, seeing exactly how for they can go before someone of consequence checks them.

There is one last line of defense. The final guardrail of our democracy still secured and bolted down.

Us

It’s not to say that it isn’t out of control already, but when it does TRULY cross that rubicon, endangering the very foundation of our country, it’s up to us to defend that which has so graciously given us the freedom and privileges we’ve enjoyed our entire existence here, and gather en mass, standing up for our nation and the Constitution. So many have given so much for us, it would be blasphemy to relinquish our rights to a second rate reality tv personality.

I believe in us. I believe in the American people. I believe in you.

🎶This land is your land, this land is my land, from California to the New York Islands, from the redwood forests, to the Gulf Stream waters, this land was made for you and me 🎶