#Greg Gianforte

[politicaldilfs]

2024 Gubernatorial DILFs

1st: Incumbent Renominated Gubernatorial DILFS -- Phil Scott, Greg Gianforte, Spencer Cox

Scott and Gianforte are the cream of the crop. Cox is just barely daddy-ish for me. Although, he's anti-Trump which helps. Still, he doesn't hold a candle to his opponent, Brian King:

If we were voting on looks alone, mine would go: Scott, Gianforte, and King.

2nd: Retiring/Term-Limited Incumbent Gubernatorial DILFs

Jay Inslee, Chris Sununu, Doug Burgum, Jim Justice, Eric Holcomb, John Carney, Mike Parson, Roy Cooper

And finally, the remaining DILFs in the 2024 U.S. gubernatorial elections:

North Dakota -- Kelly Armstrong < Merrill Piepkorn

Washington -- Bob Ferguson < Dave Reichert

Delaware -- Matt Meyer > Michael Ramone

West Virginia -- Patrick Morrisey < Steve Williams

And the remaining DILF candidates:

Josh Stein, Mike Kehoe, Mike Braun

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Gabriel Sherman at Vanity Fair:

In the past week, Donald Trump has signaled a desire to rule like a strongman rather than a president constrained by constitutional norms. Last Friday, Trump’s vice president, JD Vance, scolded democratic NATO allies and met with the leader of Germany’s extreme-right AfD party. On Saturday, Trump declared on social media: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” This Tuesday, Trump blamed Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the brutal war that was launched by Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. “You should have never started it,” Trump falsely said of Zelenskyy, when in fact Putin invaded Ukraine in February 2022. The US president then doubled down on the feud Wednesday, calling Zelenskyy a “dictator.” Democrats are in the minority in both the House and Senate, which means the federal courts and congressional Republicans are the only guardrails on Trump’s second term. So far the judicial system seems to be holding—though a Trump-packed Supreme Court is now destined to rule on all manner of alleged overreach in the coming months. (And it’s an open question as to whether Trump will actually abide by rulings that go against him.)

Republicans in Congress, however, have consistently folded—approving all of Trump’s Cabinet picks, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, with only a faint whiff of pushback on some of their boundary-scorching backgrounds. The confirmations predictably short-circuited many Democratic observers, but the rolling headlines of late have even some Republicans decrying the seeming erosion of checks and balances in recent weeks. “These are the heirs of the Greatest Generation, and they turned out to be the worst generation,” says Stuart Stevens, who served as a chief strategist on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign and has since left the GOP, joining the anti-Trump Lincoln Project as a senior adviser. “It’s tempting to compare Republicans to Prussian aristocrats in 1930s Germany. But Prussian aristocrats were more responsible. They were dealing with civil unrest and the threat of a communist takeover. Republicans today have historically low unemployment, a record stock market. What’s their excuse?”

Political survival is one. Senate and House Republicans know Trump will orchestrate the running of a primary challenger backed by Elon Musk’s unlimited resources if a member defies him. But this is not the whole story of Republican subservience to the president. In private, Republicans talk about their fear that Trump might incite his MAGA followers to commit political violence against them if they don’t rubber-stamp his actions. “They’re scared shitless about death threats and Gestapo-like stuff,” a former member of Trump’s first administration tells me. According to one source with direct knowledge of the events, North Carolina senator Thom Tillis told people that the FBI warned him about “credible death threats” when he was considering voting against Pete Hegseth’s nomination for defense secretary. Tillis ultimately provided the crucial 50th vote to confirm the former Fox & Friends host to lead the Pentagon. [...]

From the moment Trump descended his golden escalator in June 2015 to announce his first run for president, he injected menace into his political rhetoric. On the campaign trail he talked about wanting to punch protesters in the face. During his first term, he praised Montana’s then representative Greg Gianforte for physically attacking Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs in 2017. “Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!” Trump said. (Gianforte later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and received a six-month deferred jail sentence.) When protests erupted after a Minneapolis police officer murdered George Floyd in 2020, Trump called protesters “thugs” and said: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” The phrase echoed a remark made in the 1960s by a Miami police chief associated with stoking racial tensions in the city (Trump claimed he wasn’t aware of its origins). In a September 2020 debate against Joe Biden, Trump refused to condemn white supremacist violence and told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.”

January 6 further catalyzed GOP fear of Trump-inspired violence. Romney told his biographer, McKay Coppins, that an undercurrent of anxiety thwarted Republican efforts to formally punish Trump for his role in inciting the riot. “One Republican congressman confided to Romney that he wanted to vote for Trump’s second impeachment, but chose not to out of fear for his family’s safety,” Coppins wrote in his book. “When one senator, a member of leadership, said he was leaning toward voting to convict, the others urged him to reconsider. You can’t do that, Romney recalled someone saying. Think of your personal safety, said another. Think of your children. The senator eventually decided they were right.” Former Wyoming representative and prominent anti-Trump Republican Liz Cheney told CNN that House GOP members confided to her that they were “afraid for their own security—afraid, in some instances, for their lives.” Representative Jason Crow of Colorado told NBC News after January 6: “I had a lot of conversations with my Republican colleagues last night, and a couple of them broke down in tears—saying that they are afraid for their lives if they vote for this impeachment.”

Republican Peter Meijer, then a Michigan representative, told Atlantic writer Tim Alberta in 2021 that one colleague seemed to nearly have a nervous breakdown over fears of being harmed by MAGA supporters if he were to vote to certify the 2020 election results: “He asked his new colleague if he was okay,” Alberta reported. “The member responded that he was not; that no matter his belief in the legitimacy of the election, he could no longer vote to certify the results, because he feared for his family’s safety. ‘Remember, this wasn’t a hypothetical. You were casting that vote after seeing with your own two eyes what some of these people are capable of,’ Meijer says. ‘If they’re willing to come after you inside the US Capitol, what will they do when you’re at home with your kids?’” Trump’s mass pardoning of January 6 participants has recentered those events in Republican minds of late.

Gabriel Sherman wrote a solid column in Vanity Fair on how the threat of political violence from far-right MAGA cultists serve to keep Republicans onside in enacting the dangerous Trump agenda.

See Also:

NCRM: Cowardice’: GOP Faces Backlash After Report Suggests Death Threat May Have Swayed Vote

[mxdwn]

TikTok Banned in State of Montana

https://music.mxdwn.com/2023/05/18/news/tiktok-banned-in-state-of-montana/

[smivic]

We are defined by the questions we ask.

So, here’s a question: where do you live when you realize?

—That your children are more likely to die of gun violence?

hat your health outlook is diminished?

— That your suicide rate is higher?

— That teen birth is more likely?

— That murder rates seem high?

__ That climate change threats are getting more severe for you?

— That one out of four young people won’t consider your higher education offerings?

— That there are significant college faculty shortages?

— That there are significant hospital closures and hospital staffing shortages?

— That you are very dependent on the federal governance you are told to hate?

— That your right to vote is is threatened?

— That conservative policy is throttled by mawkish authoritarian rhetoric?

Answer:

Chances are you live in a place where science, reason, facts, justice, equity, health, safety, ecosystems, and established rights are under continual attack. 

 That is, you likely live in a “red state” and are the victim of “red-stateism”.

 Your leaders are determined to distort responsible governance by:

— Undermining education, science, reason, facts, justice, equity, health, safety, ecosystems, and established rights,

— Advocating allegiance to conspiracy, rumor, vacuous legend, and arbitrary political dominance,

— Making the opposition into “enemies” (“the vermin”), illegally and unjustly defined, “us” vs “them”, superior vs inferior, then attacked,

— Suppressing the hard work of democracy and its precious responsibilities,

— Making governance into laboratories for “white” “Christian” authoritarianism and fascism.

Why?

“It is easier to believe a lie than the truth.”(George Orwell)

We’ve been sucker-punched, rope-a-doped by an evil empire!

231219

[ruthstruths]

Sam samming

[contemplatingoutlander]

Any state that bans the study of how climate change is having an impact in the state should be denied FEMA emergency support for extreme weather disasters stemming from climate change.

These totally amoral politicians backed by the fossil fuel oligarchs should not be able to take advantage of federal money to help their states after climate related disasters if they are fighting against even acknowledging that climate change exists.

Let them fend for themselves and see how quickly they begin to rethink things.

[coochiequeens]

Update on a story I already posted about

By Anna Slatz February 5, 2024

The family at the center of a custody battle with Montana Child and Family Services over their 14-year-old “transgender” daughter is reportedly facing imminent arrest after speaking to media about their ordeal. Krista and Todd Kolstad had previously been ordered by a judge to remain silent on the case, but chose to speak out about their situation last week.

Reduxx was first to break the story after speaking to the Kolstads about their tragic situation on January 29. In the interview, the Kolstads revealed that their 14-year-old daughter, Jennifer*, had been removed from their custody after they declined to actively “affirm” her newfound gender identity. Montana Child and Family Services (CFS) argued to a court that it was in the child’s “therapeutic best interest” to have her gender identity “respected,” and a petition was presented for the child to be sent to a family member in Canada.

Stepmom Krista and “Jennifer” Kolstad. Photo Source: Provided.

The removal was the culmination of a months-long battle between the Kolstads and CFS which started on August 18, 2023, after Jennifer claimed to a friend that she was suicidal and suffering from terminal cancer. The friend reported the claims to police, who reached out to the Kolstads to confirm that Jennifer was alright.

Later on that evening, a CFS case worker arrived at the Kolstad home for an inspection and private interview with Jennifer, at which point the child declared she had drank toilet bowl cleaner and overdosed on pain medication.

Though she showed no symptoms of illness and had no access to either substances, Jennifer was taken to the hospital on an emergency basis for bloodwork, which conclusively determined she had fabricated her claim of overdosing. She also does not have a medical history of cancer despite having claimed to her friend that she was terminal.

The Kolstads attempted to inform CFS that Jennifer had a tendency of attention-seeking behavior and fabricating wild claims, but throughout the incident, Jennifer’s “gender identity” was the main point of contention. The child told CFS she identified as a “boy” named Leo, and that her parents were abusive and not willing to facilitate her gender transition.

Jennifer spent two days in the hospital for suicide monitoring, at which point the Kolstads agreed with CFS that she would benefit from being sent to a residential treatment facility for counseling. While there were a number of Montana-based facilities floated as options, the possibility of Jennifer being sent to Wyoming was also mentioned as an unlikely alternative.

The Kolstad family. Photo Source: Provided.

On August 22, the Kolstads were told that Jennifer was next in line for a bed in Billings. But, later on that same day, they received a call from the hospital informing them that she was instead being sent to an unnamed facility in Wyoming. Faced with a number of unanswered questions and a concern about Wyoming’s laws allowing children to transition, the Kolstads expressed a hesitancy to allow Jennifer to be sent across state lines.

Within 10 minutes of refusing to immediately sign paperwork releasing Jennifer to the facility, Montana Child and Family Services arrived at the Kolstad residence with police and served them with paperwork temporarily removing Jennifer from their custody.

Jennifer was eventually returned to Montana to enter a youth group home for additional counseling, but the Kolstad’s fight with CFS had only just begun.

Though initially told that Jennifer would be returned to their care after her time at the group home was finished, CFS petitioned the court to remove Jennifer from their custody completely and have her sent to her long-estranged biological mother in Canada.

“We were told that letting Jennifer transition and live as a boy was in her ‘therapeutic best interest’ and because we aren’t willing to follow that recommendation, the court gave CFS custody of Jennifer for six months,” Krista told Reduxx. “CFS is now going to place Jennifer in the care of her birth mother in Canada, who has never really been a part of her life. The judge said to us ‘you need to expect that reunification with your family may not be what you are expecting.’”

In response to the decision, the Kolstads released a video on social media pleading for help. The court demanded they remove it and issued a gag order restricting the Kolstads from speaking further on the case.

They voluntarily defied the order, re-uploaded the video, and spoke to press regardless out of concern over what was happening to their family. While a contempt of court hearing was set for January 29, the Kolstads had to file for a continuance in order to leave the state and attend to a severely ill family member in Ohio.

But the already-mind boggling story has only continued to grow in complexity after the Governor of Montana, Greg Gianforte, released a statement on X (formerly Twitter) siding with the decision of the state’s Child and Family Services.

While not directly accusing the Kolstads of abuse, Gianforte suggested that Jennifer was removed from the household for legitimate reasons.

While the CFS affidavit does extensively detail the child’s complaints of abuse for not being “affirmed” in her desire to live as a “boy,” the argument made by CFS that resulted in her being removed from her parent’s care was their hesitancy to immediately sign paperwork sending her to Wyoming.

Both the CFS affidavit and the accompanying report neglect to acknowledge that Jennifer had lied about having terminal cancer, drinking Clorox toilet cleaner, or overdosing on prescription medication — all statements that would lend weight to the parent’s initial warnings that Jennifer had a history of attention-seeking behavior.

The Montana Safety Assessment completed by CFS.

Previous accusations of household instability detailed in the CFS report from 2016 and 2017, both of which involved Todd’s ex-wife, were noted “unsubstantiated,” and there has never been any history of Todd nor Krista physically harming or otherwise neglecting any of their children’s care.

But despite the clear indications that the “abuse” in the Kolstad residence was limited to not affirming Jennifer’s “gender identity” and expressing a hesitancy to sign paperwork allowing Jennifer to go to Wyoming, a push to paint the Kolstad’s as legitimately abusive has begun in an apparent effort to justify CFS’s actions. Disturbingly, many of those pushes appear to originate directly from the Governor’s office.

Travis Hall, Governor Gianforte’s senior advisor, has shared two posts to his social media account in which it is implied that the Kolstads were severely abusing Jennifer.

In one post shared by Hall, a user claims that even children living in “absolute filth, meth labs, with both parents being dealers and addicts” were not taken away from their parents in the way Jennifer was, implying what was happening in the household was far worse.

Another post shared by Hall features a link to an article from TownHall reporter Stephen Brown which appears to have been created with the input of the Governor’s office. In the article, Brown refers to Jennifer with “they/them” pronouns, and runs defense for Gianforte’s suggestion that the Kolstads were abusing Jennifer and that CFS acted appropriately.

On X, an individual claiming to be a lawyer who works to “protect trans kids” in Montana has been spreading the false accusation that Todd Kolstad, Jennifer’s father, was “convicted” of domestic abuse. In actuality, documents reviewed by Reduxx demonstrate the charges, which were unrelated to Jennifer, were dropped in 2021. The Kolstads are currently engaged in a lawsuit against the Glasgow Police Department for their alleged mismanagement of that case, and the officer at the center of the suit is also being pursued by other Glasgow residents for similar acts of misconduct.

But while the Kolstads have experienced an outpouring of support on an international level after taking their story public, Governor Gianforte appears to be doubling down once again.

This time, the Kolstads have been made aware through their lawyer that they may be arrested when they return to Montana from Ohio where they are still caring for a sick relative.

“We were very concerned, but not surprised, to learn from a credible source that the Governor of Montana plans to arrest us the moment we step foot back in Montana. We are also told that he has tasked his senior adviser and director of strategic communications to use the media to punish us for speaking out about the state’s medical kidnapping of our daughter,” Krista Kolstad said to Reduxx in an exclusive statement.

“It was an abuse of power for the state to revoke custody of our daughter because we wouldn’t affirm her ‘gender identity.’ It is an abuse of power to use tax-dollars to smear us as negligent in the press despite records that prove we have always proactively sought care for our daughter’s ongoing, unrelated mental health issues. We have also followed medical recommendations pertaining to these issues since she has been in state custody. The only thing we ever objected to is ‘transitioning’ our daughter.”

Krista continued: “Any accusation that she was taken from our home due to abuse or neglect secondary to this issue is a bald-faced lie with political foundations. Our daughter is not a political pawn. She is a child and she should be with her family – not the state. We are never going to stop fighting for our daughter.”

Since receiving the news of their possible arrest, the Kolstads have no plan to return to Montana at this time.

Mattie Watkins, the family’s media representative reiterated Krista’s sentiments, and slammed Gianforte’s office for participating in the “smear” campaign against the Kolstads.

“We anticipated Governor Gianforte’s next move would be to smear US Air Force veteran, Todd Kolstad and his wife, Krista, as abusive parents. It’s clear that his top priority is his political reputation – not the child at the center of this increasingly political fight,” Watkins said.

“Surely to defame parents as abusive, to take away their child, requires some standard of evidence. If not, where does this stop? Which family, in which state, is next? In my opinion, Gianforte is giving state agents a manual on how to sever the parent-child relationship and bypass all levels of law and government in order to put any minor they like on the affirmation to lifelong medicalization pipeline. Our children are not safe in government care.”

*The child’s name has been changed at the request of her parents.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

The kids are alright.

[politicaldilfs]

Montana Governor DILFs

Greg Gianforte, Ted Schwinden, Marc Racicot, J. Hugo Aronson, Elmer Holt, Brian Schweitzer, Forrest H. Anderson, John E. Erickson, Frank Henry Cooney, Stan Stephens, Thomas Lee Judge, John W. Bonner, Roy E. Ayers, Sam C. Ford, Steve Bullock, Tim Babcock

[woodsfae]

I've met Adria a few times. She's an amazing speaker and so brave.

US News Article

I know y'all should all know by now, but here is a current example of how drag bans actually ban trans people from existing in public spaces

This was the email that was sent to Adria Jawort, a two spirit author scheduled to speak at a Montana library, on the first day of pride month.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Mira Lazine at Erin In The Morning:

On Tuesday, Missoula County District Court Judge Shane Vannatta of the 4th Judicial District Court ruled that Montana’s Senate Bill 458, a bill that defined trans people out of the law, was unconstitutional. The order was struck down on a technicality - it was determined that the bill’s title was vague due to there being multiple meanings of the term “sex,” along with a lack of clarity regarding the usage of the words “male” and “female” in the title. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that due to the ambiguity in the title, Montanans could come to the conclusion that the state is endorsing discrimination against transgender and intersex individuals. “The court does not insert its opinion in this order as to what title should have been used or should be used,”Judge Vannatta said. “Rather, the court has concluded that the word ‘sex’ in the title has not been clearly distinguished (i.e.,intercourse or gender) and that the subject in the body of the Bill (providing a definition for ‘female and ‘male’) has not been identified in the title.” Senate Bill 458 defines sex as strictly belonging to “males” and “females” based on chromosomes and gamete production, making no exception for intersex individuals and thus putting a halt to legal protections for transgender individuals. It redefined sex as such in 41 different legislative contexts, potentially upending the lives of many transgender Montanans. It was signed by Republican Governor Greg Gianforte, and it explicitly ignored the dominant scientific view that sex is a spectrum and can be changed, and is not strictly defined as ‘male’ or ‘female.’ The bill was introduced in 2023 during a Republican-majority legislature that was actively working to oppose transgender rights. The legislature had passed a bill, Senate Bill 99, that banned gender affirming care for minors, however it was later overturned by U.S. District Court Judge Jason Marks. They had also barred lawmaker Zooey Zephyr from the House floor during the legislative session after she pushed back against the gender affirming care ban, citing “decorum” while silencing one of the few transgender representatives in the state.

In Reagor v. Montana, Missoula County District Court Judge Shane Vannatta ruled that Montana’s anti-trans extremist trans erasure bill SB458 is unconstitutional due to vagueness in the meaning of “sex” and lacking clarity on usage of the terms “male” or “female.”

[zaza-expert]

If you don't live in montana I cannot possibly express to you the sheer amount of "shady sheehy" ads there are. It's genuinely unreal, I tried to explain it to a friend from out of state before he visited and he brushed it off and then the first night we were hanging out we tried to watch a YouTube video and saw at least 4. I'm so fucking sick of this I need to be able to watch an episode of my damn show without 80 billion ads about a politician I wasn't going to vote for anyway !!!

[n0thingiscool]

Last week, the judge in Held v. Montana handed down a victory for the 16 young plaintiffs, who argued that the state’s continued production of fossil fuels violated their constitutional rights. Advocates say the landmark ruling could have broad ramifications for future climate litigation. But it’s also clear that Montana was woefully unprepared to face climate science on trial.

[rjzimmerman]

Montana’s top court delivers rare victory for climate activists. (Washington Post)

Excerpt from this story from the Washington Post:

Montana’s permitting of oil, gas and coal projects without consideration for climate change violates residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment, the state’s Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, upholding a landmark ruling in a case brought by youth activists.

The 6-1 ruling is a major, and rare, victory for climate activists, who have tried to use the courts to force action on government and corporate policies and activities they say are harming the planet. In their decision, the Montana justices affirmed an August 2023 ruling by a state judge, who found in favor of young people alleging the state violated their right to a “clean and healthful environment” by promoting the use of fossil fuels.

Melissa Hornbein, a senior attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center and attorney for the plaintiffs, said the decision would force Montana state agencies to assess the greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts of all future fossil fuel projects when deciding whether to approve or renew them.

“This ruling clarifies that the Constitution sets a clear directive for Montana to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, which are among the highest in the nation on a per capita basis, and to transition to a clean, renewable energy future,” Hornbein said in a statement.

In a statement issued after the ruling, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) said the justices’ ruling would lead to “perpetual lawsuits that will waste taxpayer dollars and drive up energy bills for hardworking Montanans.”

Sonny Capece, the executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association, said the ruling could have wide-ranging effects on industry as well as other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, such as landfills, local government services and universities.