#anti-american comments by trump

[tomorrowusa]

"Fool me once... "

Republicans wanting to bring back Trump are dangerous fools – at best.

If you'd like to have some fun, ask Republican office holders in front of a microphone what they think about Trump's Hitlerian remarks.

Trump must get tingly when thinking about authoritarians. POLITICO put together a collection of his 2023 dictator love comments.

One year of Trump’s praise for authoritarians

[that-starlight-prince]

I really really need to stop reading things that I know will make me angry, but I guess on some level I must enjoy hating my fellow people

[wilwheaton]

In this essay, I address the anti-Constitutional discourse that appears in the media: that the Constitution should be displaced by the fears of people who appear on television. This form of opposition to the Constitution poses as expertise. It takes the form of advice to the Court: find some way to allow Trump to be on the ballot, because otherwise people will be upset. Because we are used to hearing endless conversations about politics on television, where everyone seems to be a political advisor, it can seem normal to reduce sections of the Constitution to talking points. But we must pause and consider. In fact, rejecting the legal order in favor of what seems to be politically safe at a given moment is just about the most dangerous move that can be made. It amounts to advocating that we shift from constitutional government to an insurrectionary regime. Indeed, it amounts to participating in that shift, while not taking responsibility for doing so. Let me try to spell this out. In advising the Court to keep Trump on the ballot, political commentators elevate their own fears about others' resentment above the Constitution. But the very reason we have a Constitution is to handle fear and resentment. To become a public champion of your own own fears and others' resentments is to support an insurrectionary regime. The purpose of the insurrection clause of the Constitution (the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment) is not to encourage insurrections! If we publicly say that that Supreme Court should disregard it because we fear insurrections, we are making insurrections more likely. We are telling Americans that to undermine constitutional rule they must only intimate that they might be violent. To advocate pitchfork rulings is to endorse regime change; to issue pitchfork rulings is to announce regime change.

The Pitchfork Ruling - by Timothy Snyder

I’ve pushed fair use here, because I *really* want you to go read the rest of this essay.

[unsolicited-opinions]

I'm starting to think that a whole lot of US Jews don't understand why a crowd of tiki torch Nazis chanted "Jews will not replace us" in Charlottesville. It seems like a lot of US Jews don't yet understand how the anti-immigrant sentiment Trump used to recapture the presidency is a direct threat to US Jews.

If you don't know this yet, please read the broad strokes below:

1. Like a certain Austrian in the 20th century, Trump saw both a disgruntled part of the electorate and their antipathy for non-white, non-Christian, foreign-born people. He capitalized on their xenophobia and feelings of abandonment by blaming foreigners, LGBTQ+ folks, and DEI for all the US's challenges.

He's used and amplified bigotry against already-marginalized people in order to ride his base's bigotry to power. All comparisons people make between this and how Hitler amplified and harnessed the power of antisemitism are entirely appropriate. It's demagoguery.

2. One of the existing, popular, xenophobic ideas on which Trump capitalized is a right-wing conspiracy theory usually called The Great Replacement.

It seems as though many US Jews do not realize that Jews are a huge part of this conspiracy theory.

Great Replacement, also known as white replacement theory or white genocide theory, claims there is an intentional effort, led by Jews, to promote mass non-white immigration, inter-racial marriage, and other efforts that would lead to the “extinction of whites.”

This conspiracy theory was famously promoted at the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, VA, when white supremacists chanted, “Jews will not replace us.”

Right wing commentators have invoked the Great Replacement theory to say Democrats are “replacing” American citizens with illegal immigrants. Belief in the Great Replacement theory has been cited as motivation for recent terror attacks, including the 2018 Pittsburgh, PA, synagogue shooting at the Tree of Life, the 2019 El Paso, TX, and Christchurch, New Zealand, shootings, and the 2022 shooting in Buffalo, NY.

4. This isn't a theory limited to the far-right fringe. About half of US Republicans believe it.

It's been actively promoted on Fox "News" by Tucker Carlson and others.

This was the theory Elon Musk agreed with in a tweet, causing a mass exodus of advertisers from Twitter and prompting Musk's apology tour to Auschwitz with Ben Shapiro.

5. The anti-immigrant fervor, the mass deportation plans...? They're all tied up with Jews in the minds of the far-right base to whom Trump and his henchmen keep winking and dogwhistling. Trump has openly endorsed this conspiracy theory.

I see a lot of Jews online deciding to keep their heads down because they think Jews aren't the immediate target of this authoritarian and I'm gobsmacked by their ignorance of history and failure to pay attention to the rapid and violent increase in far-right antisemitic violence in recent years, driven by the very same Trump who they mistakenly believe is "good for the Jews."

Jews are being set up as scapegoats.

----

The irony is amazing, too. If you ask believers in the Great Replacement conspiracy theory for evidence of the Jewish plot to replace white people, they'll produce headlines about Jewish charitable organizations which seek to aid refugees:

The fact that Jews...care about refugees...is the proof of our sinister plot against white people.

[patriottruth]

This is a reminder that on March 4th, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered donald j. trump to have 87 Democrats in both houses of Congress remove his insurrectionist disqualification from ever holding any federal office again. He failed to do so prior to November 5, 2024. Should he fail to do so by December 17th, 2024, he will not be the 47th President of the United States of America on January 20th, 2025.

So I've seen some comments suggesting this is misinformation. It's not. Per the Supreme Court of the United States' own Berger Test to disqualify judges, the MAGA SCOTUS majority ruling pertaining to donald j. trump being permanently immune from federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment means nothing; because it lacks standing in precedent, law, constitutionality, and relevance.

The three dissenting justices clarify that the only matter that was actually legally settled and, therefore, legally enforceable, pertained to state actions, not federal law enforcement actions against a disqualified insurrectionist presidential or federal candidate, such as donald j. trump, committing the federal crime of being an insurrectionist attempting to hold office without having their insurrectionist disqualification removed via a two-thirds vote of both houses. And so it is legal fact that the Supreme Court did, in fact, order donald j. trump to have his insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses on March 4th, 2024; it's just that donald j. trump and his legal team were too illiterate and unintelligent to actually read what was legal and had standing (state enforcement against federal candidates), and what didn't (federal enforcement against federal candidates). And MAGA SCOTUS is now permanently legally barred from ever addressing any matter pertaining to federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump, so they can't even try to interfere on his behalf again should Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate demand and force a vote on the matter of donald j. trump's disqualification for holding federal office.

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1921), is a United States Supreme Court decision overruling a trial court decision by U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis against Rep. Victor L. Berger, a Congressman for Wisconsin's 5th district and the founder of the Social Democratic Party of America, and several other German-American defendants who were convicted of violating the Espionage Act by publicizing anti-interventionist views during World War I.

The case was argued on December 9, 1920, and decided on January 31, 1921, with an opinion by Justice Joseph McKenna and dissents by Justices William R. Day, James Clark McReynolds, and Mahlon Pitney. The Supreme Court held that Judge Landis was properly disqualified as trial judge based on an affidavit filed by the German defendants asserting that Judge Landis' public anti-German statements should disqualify him from presiding over the trial of the defendants.

The House of Representatives twice denied Berger his seat in the House due to his original conviction for espionage using Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding denying office to those who supported "insurrection or rebellion". The Supreme Court overturned the verdict in 1921 in Berger v. U.S., and Berger won three successive terms in the House in the 1920s.

Per the United States Supreme Court's "Berger test" that states that to disqualify ANY judge in the United States of America: 1) a party files an affidavit claiming personal bias or prejudice demonstrating an "objectionable inclination or disposition of the judge" and 2) claim of bias is based on facts antedating the trial.

All 6 criminal MAGA insurrectionist and trump-loyalist U.S. Supreme Court Justices who've repeatedly and illegally ruled in donald j. trump's favor are as disqualified from issuing any rulings pertaining to donald j. trump (a German immigrant) as the United States Supreme Court ruled U.S. District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis was when he attempted to deny Victor L. Berger (a German immigrant) from holding office for violating the Espionage Act and supporting or engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the United States of America.

The only misinformation that exists surrounding the Anderson vs. trump ruling is the belief that the MAGA SCOTUS ruling on federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump settled the matter and handed him permanent immunity from prosecution should he ever commit the federal crime of attempting to hold federal office. In legal fact, MAGA SCOTUS' nonsensical ruling attempting to grant donald j. trump permanent immunity from prosecution for insurrection is grounds for immediate and permanent disbarment; as they're clearly attempting to legislate from the bench and prevent Congress from legislating in a way that's unfavorable to their presidential candidate.

This is the only pertinent and legally important part of the Anderson vs. trump ruling with regards to federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump or any other insurrectionist committing the federal crime of attempting to hold office without first having their insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of both houses:

Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson Opinion on the Majority Ruling:

Yet the majority goes further. Even though “[a]ll nine Members of the Court” agree that this independent and sufficient ratioAnd MAGA SCOTUS is now permanently legally barred from ever addressing any matter pertaining to federal enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against donald j. trump.nale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy. Ante, at 13. Although only an individual State’s action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.

Yet the Court continues on to resolve questions not before us. In a case involving no federal action whatsoever, the Court opines on how federal enforcement of Section 3 must proceed. Congress, the majority says, must enact legislation under Section 5 prescribing the procedures to “ ‘ “ascertain[ ] what particular individuals” ’ ” should be disqualified. Ante, at 5 (quoting Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7, 26 (No. 5,815) (CC Va. 1869) (Chase, Circuit Justice)). These musings are as inadequately supported as they are gratuitous.

To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate. Section 3 states simply that “[n]o person shall” hold certain positions and offices if they are oathbreaking insurrectionists. Amdt. 14. Nothing in that unequivocal bar suggests that implementing legislation enacted under Section 5 is “critical” (or, for that matter, what that word means in this context). Ante, at 5. In fact, the text cuts the opposite way. Section 3 provides that when an oathbreaking insurrectionist is disqualified, “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” It is hard to understand why the Constitution would require a congressional supermajority to remove a disqualification if a simple majority could nullify Section 3’s operation by repealing or declining to pass implementing legislation. Even petitioner’s lawyer acknowledged the “tension” in Section 3 that the majority’s view creates. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 31.

Similarly, nothing else in the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment supports the majority’s view. Section 5 gives Congress the “power to enforce [the Amendment] by appropriate legislation.” Remedial legislation of any kind, however, is not required. All the Reconstruction Amendments (including the due process and equal protection guarantees and prohibition of slavery) “are self-executing,” meaning that they do not depend on legislation. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 524 (1997); see Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883). Similarly, other constitutional rules of disqualification, like the two-term limit on the Presidency, do not require implementing legislation. See, e.g., Art. II, §1, cl. 5 (Presidential Qualifications); Amdt. 22 (Presidential Term Limits). Nor does the majority suggest otherwise. It simply creates a special rule for the insurrection disability in Section 3.

The majority is left with next to no support for its requirement that a Section 3 disqualification can occur only pursuant to legislation enacted for that purpose. It cites Griffin’s Case, but that is a nonprecedential, lower court opinion by a single Justice in his capacity as a circuit judge. See ante, at 5 (quoting 11 F. Cas., at 26). Once again, even petitioner’s lawyer distanced himself from fully embracing this case as probative of Section 3’s meaning. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 35–36. The majority also cites Senator Trumbull’s statements that Section 3 “ ‘provide[d] no means for enforcing’ ” itself. Ante, at 5 (quoting Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., 626 (1869)). The majority, however, neglects to mention the Senator’s view that “[i]t is the [F]ourteenth [A]mendment that prevents a person from holding office,” with the proposed legislation simply “affor[ding] a more efficient and speedy remedy” for effecting the disqualification. Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 1st Sess., at 626–627.

Ultimately, under the guise of providing a more “complete explanation for the judgment,” ante, at 13, the majority resolves many unsettled questions about Section 3. It forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score. The majority further holds that any legislation to enforce this provision must prescribe certain procedures “ ‘tailor[ed]’ ” to Section 3, ante, at 10, ruling out enforcement under general federal statutes requiring the government to comply with the law. By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.

“What it does today, the Court should have left undone.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 158 (2000) (Breyer, J., dissenting). The Court today needed to resolve only a single question: whether an individual State may keep a Presidential candidate found to have engaged in insurrection off its ballot. The majority resolves much more than the case before us. Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate. It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.

Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed, role in our democracy. The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an “insurrection [and] rebellion” to defend slavery. §3. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision. Because we would decide only the issue before us, we concur only in the judgment.

What all of that means is that between now and December 17th, 2024, donald j. trump has no choice but to go to Congress and have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification, as he was ordered to do by SCOTUS on March 4th, 2024, or he's not legally the President Elect and cannot be inaugurated, sworn in, or hold federal office again on January 20, 2025. The clock is ticking!

Here's why this will work: donald trump's legal tactics are deny, attempt to wiggle out of it on technicalities, and delay, delay, delay. Well, from November 2023 to March 4, 2024, donald trump not only said that he was never an officer of the United States, but that he also never swore an oath to support the United States Constitution. And then he said that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says nothing about running for office, only holding office, and since he's only running for office, nothing can keep him off the ballot. And that's where this has finally caught up to him.

SCOTUS illegally took the case to begin with. SCOTUS was required to kick the case back to Congress immediately to force a two-thirds of both houses vote to remove donald trump's insurrectionist disqualification. But they illegally denied Congress the ability to vote on it at the time, illegally legislated from the bench to keep donald trump on the ballot by illegally amending Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and dismissed the clear two-thirds vote requirement to replace it with "Congress must pass new legislation and amend Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in order to keep insurrectionists off of the ballot and out of office in the future. All six MAGA SCOTUS injustices can now be immediately and permanently disbarred from ever judging or practicing law anywhere in the United States now and in the future for that illegal legislating from the bench; because the U.S. Constitution clearly says that the Judiciary can never interfere with Congress legislating, or with the President enforcing the laws of the United States.

donald trump and his allies figured that was a win, that SCOTUS couldn't be challenged, that the Democrats could never get legislation passed to keep him off the ballot or from holding office again, and the matter was dropped. But that's where he was wrong; because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment still reads, and only legally reads, that the only way an insurrectionist can hold federal office again is by a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; and that means that now that donald trump can't try and use the technicality of "I'm not even trying to hold office, I'm just running for office," and he's actively trying to hold office with no technicality wiggle room, donald trump's only path to the White House is to have 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification by December 17th, 2017; and his favorite tactic of delay, delay, delay won't work because delaying means he can't be inaugurated, sworn in, and serve as the 47th President of the United States; and that means Kamala Harris would become 47th President of the United States by default.

If anyone is interested in fighting another trump presidency, contact every Democrat representative in the House of Representatives and the Senate and remind them that donald j. trump cannot be inaugurated, sworn in, and be the 47th President of the United States on January 20, 2025 unless 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats in the Senate vote to remove his insurrectionist disqualification before December 17, 2024. Many of them have online contact forms. You may have to enter an address near their local office in their district for the contact form to go through, but I know they're going to want to be reminded of this by as many people as possible in order to save humanity and American democracy from donald trump. Plus, Kamala Harris can be contacted via the White House Vice President contact form; and as a presidential candidate and the President of the Senate, she and President Biden can do a lot to enforce donald trump having to have his insurrectionist disqualification removed by a two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate before December 17, 2024.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Michael Podhorzer at Weekend Reading:

But, as we will see, America didn’t swing rightward, but couchward:

The popular vote result was almost entirely a collapse in support for Harris and Democrats, not an increase in support for Trump and MAGA. Trump was no more popular this year than four years ago, while Harris significantly underperformed Biden 2020.

Most of Harris’s losses were due to anti-MAGA surge voters staying home.2 She lost the most ground in deep-Blue urban areas, where the dangers of a second Trump administration seemed most remote. About 19 million Americans who cast ballots for Biden in 2020 did not vote in 2024.

Anti-MAGA surge voters stayed home because they were less alarmed by a second Trump Administration than they were four years ago. A key to Biden’s victory was high turnout from less-engaged voters who believed they had something to lose under Trump. In 2024, however, about 15 million fewer votes were cast “against” Trump than in 2020.

As I’ve been saying for years, America has an anti-MAGA majority, but not necessarily a pro-Democratic one. In 2020 (and 2022, in part), alarm about Trump and MAGA was enough to overcome the cynicism and alienation of mostly younger voters who desperately want bigger systemic change, but who oppose the MAGA agenda. This time, their cynicism won out. This was in no small part because the media and other non-partisan civil society leaders were themselves more skeptical of the dangers, and because the inaction of the Biden Administration and Democrats in Congress against MAGA threats belied their rhetoric of existential dangers to the nation.3 This map, from the New York Times, does a much better job making clear where Trump’s “gains” came from – namely, from Harris’s losses.

Indeed, the defining feature of American politics this century is that neither party can “win” elections anymore; they can only be the “not-loser.” Only thanks to the two-party system can the not-loser be crowned the “winner,” since there is no way to fire the incumbent party without hiring the opposition party. Yet political commentators keep confusing shifts in the two parties’ electoral fortunes with changes in voters’ basic values or priorities. A collapse in support for Democrats does not mean that most Americans, especially in Blue America, are suddenly eager to live in an illiberal theocracy. Consider that only once before in American history have three consecutive presidential elections seen the White House change partisan hands, and that nine out of the last ten midterm or presidential elections have been “change elections,” in the sense that either the presidency, the House, or the Senate changed partisan hands,4 which is completely unprecedented.5

[...]

Harris Lost Ground with Anti-MAGA Voters

As regular readers might recall, Biden won in 2020 thanks to a surge of new and less-frequent voters who hadn’t shown up in 2016, and who voted much more Democratic than 2016 voters. These surge voters were the critical “anti-MAGA but not necessarily pro-Democrat” bloc that Harris needed to turn out again in order to win. This year, based on VoteCast data (see chart in the previous section), we can estimate that about 19 million people who voted for Biden four years ago stayed home. (40 percent of those voting in 2024 had voted for Biden in 2020, and 40 percent had voted for Trump. From there, it’s simple arithmetic.16) Moreover, with the same caveats until the voter files are updated, both VoteCast and Navigator found that in the battleground states, a greater share of 2020 Trump voters than Biden voters cast ballots in 2024, albeit by a smaller margin than in the rest of the country. VoteCast also asked whether voters cast ballots “for” the candidate they chose or “against” the other candidate.17 The results show that about 15 million fewer votes were cast “against” Trump in 2024 than in 2020. That suggests a lot of missing “anti-MAGA but not pro-Democrat” voters.

Michael Podhorzer at Weekend Reading delivers a prognosis as to why Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump: Enough of the anti-MAGA vote chose the couch instead voting at all.

[reasonandempathy]

Not American but currently losing my mind about the Americans and others saying that to be a leftist you must be anti-electoral and not vote. Have these people never voted before?

Seriously. I think this is it. Those people have never had to vote for anything before and don't understand that in most cases you won't have a perfect candidate with a realistic chance of winning to vote for.

There is this weird reversed USA exceptionalism mixed into it, too. Of course the scale of who gets to be the US president is different since it affects literally the whole world, and Trump is particularly bad, but really no in most other countries you vote for the least bad one too. This is saddening, but it's not an impossible choice that's never happened before. It's pretty fucking clear who you should vote for.

I'm tired of Americans using Gaza as an excuse to not vote too. Utilizing dead people this way when we all know that Trump would be so much worse for Palestine and not voting will lead to him winning makes me want to puke. They all will find any excuses to stay home and keep doing internet activism without ever causing a chance, even if it's a genocide.

Lastly, I've seen people say that Republicans and Democrats are the same thing at this point or that harm reduction is a bad thing, and like.... are they dense? Do they seriously think a whole country will want to revolt? Do they not think that slowing down the rise of fascism for a couple of years - which will help the lives of millions in their own countries and in others - doesn't matter?

They keep acting like it's fandom wars and you can't vote for someone unless they're 100% morally pure. It enrages me so bad, Americans affect our politics and our economy and our environment and they're too fucking stupid to realize they're being manipulated into throwing away a fundamental right generations had to fight for.

Presented and co-signed without comment, other than to add that it's not appropriate to presume good intent on the part of them.

Some are sincere, certainly. But I've also had Trumpet Fascists comment on some of my posts telling people to "vote their conscience" in Democratic primaries and in the general election.

[stvrl0st]

☆INTRO POST☆

(updated)

.ABOUT ME.

HIII I'm star/stvrl0st !! my blog is mainly a shifting one !! I'm 16, so DNI FREAKS. my pronouns are she/her & I'm bi & ace !! ANYONE IS WELCOME TO MY PAGE ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT SHIFTING I WILL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER THEM !!

.MY MAIN DRS.

tangled the series

stardew valley

wicked

both of my fame drs<3

MY LITTLE PONYY

harry potter

stranger things

911 (no. not 9/11. 911 the tv show)

hazbin/helluva (DO NOT JUDGE ME. I DO NOT SHIFT FOR ALASTOR. I LIKE THE PLOTS.)

SUPERNATURAL.

.DNI LIST.

shifters who think "race changing" is a thing. (istfg if anyone is gonna say something in the comments I'm literally gonna block you.

racists, homophobes, transphobes, TRUMP SUPPORTERS, anti shifters, ect ect. (I will answer any questions if you would like to learn about shifting tho<3)

THOSE shifters who shame other shifters for what their drs are & s/o is.

shifters who spread misinformation.

shifters who think that nobody else can have the same s/o (yeah I didn't rly wanna put this in but I've actually had like a really bad experience w/a girl who threatened me so😭)

people who force their religion aka saying shifting can't be a thing bc of God & stuff.

.INT LIST.

SHIFTERS. OBVIOUSLY.

ANYONE WHO SHARES THE SAME DRS AS ME.

short but idc.

DMS/MESSAGES ARE OPEN FOR ANYONE BTW !!

I found out about shifting in late/early 2021/2022 & I have not shifted yet !!

my favorite color is dark navy blue/dark blue😻🫶

also im sry but pls dni if you hate taylor swift&swifties😭 if you do just stay quiet abt it w me pls

I'll probably update this later idk

9-1-1, the american television series.

[liberalsarecool]

Trump's openly anti-Semitic comments were not intended to attract more Jewish Americans to vote for Trump. They were designed to make Trump's anti-Semitic followers happy.

[piastrispastry]

Why am I seeing people blaming Lando for Trump being elected like he personally made that decision?

First off can I remind you all this man is a British citizen. He can’t vote in US elections even if he wanted so how on Earth is it his fault Trump got elected?

People refer to the comments from the Miami GP and honestly I hated that McLaren were chosen to host him for so many reasons but here’s as condensed and relevant as I can make this.

Lando and many other drivers like him are PR trained and when you have such a high profile guest such as Donald Trump in your garage for the weekend your PR team has probably given you approved responses to a variety of questions.

The answer Lando gave sounded so PR approved, it sounded sterile, non-committal really. And please correct me if I’m wrong but I’m sure in a stream he has expressed his dislike for Trump.

I also hated how he was asked this question in the first place. This man had just won his first race in over five years yet you use up your limited time on asking him about a controversial man which is guaranteed to get him hate. I know this is how the media works but it makes my skin crawl.

And to anyone saying the other two in the top three didn’t say anything, their teams weren’t hosting Trump. I’m sure if you asked Max about James Charles he probably would have given a similar PR approved answer.

Also, for the record, Trump said he was Lando’s good luck charm, not the other way round. I saw that on TikTok and it was just plain wrong.

So please can we stop blaming him for the results of an election he didn’t even vote in? The hate is getting mental by this point.

In conclusion, I know I am not American but I am a politics student and about as anti-Trump as they come (having argued with multiple boys in that class about him this week).

My heart goes out to every woman, POC, LGBTQIA+ member, child and anybody else who is going to be negatively affected by Trump’s administration. Please know that my inbox is always open if you need someone to talk to ❤️

[beardedmrbean]

Lefty Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was dragged on X for “jewsplaining” to the Anti-Defamation League after the group defended Elon Musk’s “awkward gesture” that progressives insisted was a Nazi salute. 

Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) accused the antisemitism watchdog group of “defending a Heil Hitler salute” before arguing that the ADL “works for” President Trump and his allies.

“Just to be clear, you are defending a Heil Hitler salute that was performed and repeated for emphasis and clarity,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote in response to the ADL on X.

“People can officially stop listening to you as any sort of reputable source of information now. You work for them. Thank you for making that crystal clear to all,” she added.

Footage of Musk thanking Trump supporters took off Monday, with many questioning whether the tech mogul did a fascist salute after he placed his right hand over his heart and extended his arm in the air.

The ADL took to X in Musk’s defense, writing, “It seems that [Musk] made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute,” and argued people on both sides of the aisle shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

Many social media users quickly took offense at AOC’s response, calling out the Bronx and Queens rep for trying to explain antisemitism to the watchdog group, with one commentator noting: “We now have AOC jewsplaining to the ADL.”

Another X user chimed in: “AOC trying to Jewsplain to the ADL why they are antisemitic. She’s officially lost her mind.”

Some users used the moment to drag Ocasio-Cortez, who has been an outspoken critic of Israel and previously accused the country of committing “genocide” against the Palestinian people.

“If, like @ADL, you fight antisemitism every day, I’m ready to respectfully hear your opinion on what Elon Musk intended. THAT’S NOT WHAT @AOC IS DOING. This is a cynical political game for her. She supports antisemites. She’s scoring cheap points against the ADL because they support the rights of ALL Jews including Israeli Jews,” one person wrote.

Others took offense at Ocasio-Cortez going against one of the most prominent American Jewish civil rights organizations in the US just because it didn’t fit her agenda.

“Just to be clear, AOC is trying to delegitimize the preeminent American Jewish civil rights organization here after spending the last 15 months defending those guilty of the very ideology the ADL was founded to combat,” one commentator argued.

“The ADL gave a good sound statement and AOC just went for its neck because it didn’t align with her politics. The U.S. political debate is already off the rails and it’s not even day one. If AOC wants to blame someone for encouraging antisemitism she should look at the mirror,” another person added.

Meanwhile, Musk defended the one-armed gesture he gave during Trump’s inauguration — arguing the left-wingers who accused him of giving a Nazi salute “need better dirty tricks.”

“The ‘everyone is Hitler’ attack is sooo tired,” Musk wrote on X.

Musk later thanked the ADL for coming to his defense, writing, “Thanks guys,” along with a crying laughing face emoji.

[mariacallous]

What the 2024 election results made clear is that the Obama coalition is dead. If Democrats are to have any shot at reclaiming power, so too must be the niceties and mores of the Obama era.

Yes, Democrats must get mean – ruthlessly, bitterly mean. This is not to say, however, that they need merely to cast aside the former first lady’s once-famous, now-infamous messaging mantra. No, what I prescribe is not just a new approach to political discourse but a new theory of opposition party politics.

Trumpsim has corrupted America in many ways, but one of the most obvious is how voters now expect lawmakers and surrogates to be truly vicious cultural warriors for them. One can see manifestations of this in the congresswoman Nancy Mace’s deranged bullying of the congresswoman-elect Sarah McBride, the endless and deliberate mispronunciation of Kamala Harris’s first name, and the fact that Marjorie Taylor Greene is one of the top fundraisers in the House of Representatives.

This phenomenon also exists on the left. The coffers poured open for Jasmine Crockett following a tête-à-tête with the aforementioned Taylor Greene, during which Crockett mocked her colleague’s “bleach-blonde bad-built butch-body”. And one could argue the strongest period of the Harris-Walz campaign – at least in terms of Democratic enthusiasm – was during the “weird” and “couch” sagas of Brat summer.

As the commentator SE Cupp recently observed, “it doesn’t get said enough, but Trump’s enduring legacy will be convincing BOTH parties to lower the bar, and that possessing moral authority on anything is no longer a currency that matters”. Democrats can either bemoan the fact the fundamental rules of politics and discourse have changed or they can adapt to it. In the four years to come, emboldened voices on the right will work to expand the Overton window. Democrats’ reaction to this effort must not materialize as feigned – or earnest – injury and horror. Take the punch and return the favor.

This new, more muscular messaging strategy must be combined with a far more aggressive war footing in the halls of Congress.

The Democrat Adam Gray’s unseating of the Republican congressman John Duarte in California’s 13th congressional district cemented a nigh-historically tenuous situation for the House Republican party. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, will have only a 220-seat majority. However, Republicans are poised to lose three seats (if not more) as members resign to join the Trump administration. That will leave them with a majority of 217-seats, meaning Johnson can only afford to lose one member on major – and minor – votes.

The Republicans’ legislative to-do list is nothing to scoff at. In addition to renewing Trump’s first term tax cuts and possibly imposing hyper-controversial tariffs on various imports, Johnson will need to pass a bill to fund the government. Democrats must not help him.

Time and again congressional Democrats have swept in to save Republican leaders – and Republican voters – from their own lawmakers. This generosity must end. The Dems must bleed the Republican party of its political capital at every opportunity, even if it means the American people experience some pain. On a Bulwark podcast this week, the writer Jonathan V Last channeled Alan Moore’s iconic comic book anti-hero Rorschach to describe the mentality Democrats should adopt: “The politicians will look up and shout ‘save us,’ and I’ll look down, and whisper ‘no.’”

Yes, Democrats should make the next four years of Republican governance as grueling and painful as possible. Do not help them pass a budget (if Johnson, as Last playfully notes, offers up DC statehood as an incentive for cooperation, we can have another conversation). Do not vote for a single cabinet nominee – even those who qualify as “adults in the room” (sorry, Marco Rubio). Relatedly, do not hold back from highlighting all the darkest aspects of said nominees’ backgrounds – from former Fox host Pete Hegseth’s alleged sexual assault to Robert F Kennedy’s purported role in the deaths of dozens during a 2019 measles outbreak in American Samoa.

While on the Hill, casual comity is fine. Lawmakers should continue to break bread and imbibe brandy with one another. That is all to the good. But Democrats’ outdated impulse to prioritize good relationships with their conservative colleagues at all costs must end. Recall, many of these men and women have spent years valorizing a violent mob that sought to kill them. Comity for the sake of comity is, well, utter comedy.

On that note, there is no world in which Joe Biden and Harris attending the inauguration makes basic strategic sense. Such a move would only serve to undermine trust in a Democratic party brand that’s already on life support. Either Donald Trump is a fascist or he isn’t. There is no such thing as Schrödinger’s autocrat.

Liberals made the decision to compare the former and future commander-in-chief to Hitler. Rhetoric like that can’t be memory-holed. Thus, symbolically lauding the man’s re-ascension to power will not preserve the Democrats’ reputation as the “party of norms”. On the contrary, it will cement the growing sense – particularly after the pardon of Hunter Biden – that Dems traffic in lies and deceit with the same shamelessness as Republicans.

These strategic shifts – in messaging, in oppositional governance, and in observation of norms – will be difficult for some to swallow. After all, as Robert Frost often liked to observe, “a liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel”. Democrats must get over themselves; far too much is at stake.

What gives me hope now

To the limited extent I’m optimistic about the next four years, my resolve is rooted in the fact that Trump’s incoming administration – and his Republican coalition more broadly – will probably prove to be more fractious and wracked with infighting than it was during his first term. As we saw following the “Doge” chief Vivek Ramaswamy’s deranged, 90’s sitcom-addled tirade about H-1B visas and the “mediocrity” of American culture, deep policy disagreements plague the current marriage of OG Maga and the Silicon Valley tech bro billionaire class.

Steve Bannon, even more recently, vowed to “take down” the “truly evil” Elon Musk and excise him like a cancer from Trump’s orbit. Throughout the president-elect’s last stay in the White House, intra-party conflict was largely drawn along old guard versus new guard lines. Trump has since turned the Republican into a cult of personality. As such, slavish loyalty to the king is the only coin of the realm – and there are now major competing policy interests among his yes-men. Couple this with the reality that Trump is a lame duck and party elites will constantly be jockeying to be viewed as the heir apparent, and his den of vipers may just consume itself.

[parallel--parallel]

I was trying to stay out of this discourse because usually fandom chooses to believe what they want to believe no matter what, but it doesn’t feel fair if I sit this out anymore as so much plainly wrong or misleading information is going around

If Joss following Trump means he supports him, does Joss following Biden (and Obama, and a whole lot of Thai progressive politicians) means he supports them too?

He made a cleanup now and unfollowed all politics as well as many non-controversial accounts, but my point stands. His follow list was much more mixed and diverse than people want to admit

About Tate, he unfollowed him YEARS ago. It’s a valid question to ask “why he followed him in the first place”, and here’s why: Before Tate became known as the trafficker piece of sh*t, he was a famous boxer. Back then Joss was into boxing himself and he literally followed every boxer ever

He still follows some boxers including Talbott who is ANTI-Tate and is vocal against toxic masculinity

Another thing, if Joss really was a raging MAGAt, would he be close friends with Luke who is strongly against Trump and right-wingers? Luke even follows AOC (for those not familiar with American politics, AOC is MORE left-wing and progressive than Kamala Harris)

And Gawin, bless his hermit soul, he rarely promotes himself, let alone politics. His sister tho, she posted ANTI-Trump memes on igs comparing Trump to Joffrey from Game of thrones and she follows ANTI-Trump commentators like thedailyshow with Jon Stewart

Then there’s p’Jojo who loves working with Joss and now p’Ark, I’ll just leave this here

I know all this because I follow leftist politicians on Instagram and I also follow GMM actors, directors and some of their friends and family so I see when someone follows politicians

Another thing, I noticed that Joss doesn’t even hang out with problematic GMM-tv actors and those who have shared bigoted views in the past. Closest people around Joss in that company seem to have left-leaning views, and obviously it doesn’t necessarily mean he has them too, I’m just saying, he being fr a MAGA and a bigot seems unlikely to me. He could be a normie centrist, or someone who finds craziness and stupidity of American right amusing (he didn't follow any Thai right-wingers and weirdos) but nothing more than that in my honest opinion. If out of 1285 accounts he follows, only 5-10 were these trash accounts, I think it's really a stretch assuming that's what he supports

In the end, everyone's feelings about this are valid and I'm not trying to shame those who don't feel comfortable supporting him. All I'm doing is sharing my personal take. I'm politically a leftie to the point that if I were more left I would turn into Karl Marx, and still, I'm willing to give Joss the benefit of doubt because he hasn't ever shared any bigoted or toxic opinion and I've been following him for many years. That is all

[awwkie]

I have to admit, this isn't really my typical post. I'm just really frustrated and want to vent that frustration somewhere. I just hope someone from the US ends up seeing this and rethinks things.

I've started using Tiktok as a consequence of the new hate speech regulations on Meta platforms.

Today, I got this video on my FYP:

It's a video of an anti-fascism protest in Germany. Specifically, it's a protest against AfD, a German far-right party.

So far so good.

What really bothered me is what I saw in the comments:

These are all comments from people from the US (I checked their profiles before taking the screenshots). They constituted the majority of top comments under that video.

As a European, this is incredibly frustrating. Why do so many Americans think everything is about them? A quick Google search would have told them that the protest is against the German far-right, not president Trump. It's absurd to assume that a protest in a foreign country (that you know nothing about by the way!!) is about your elections. Anyone familiar with German politics would have known that the AfD has unfortunately gained a lot of support in the country. Protests like that have happened before, but the majority of people from the US care about it only when they think it's about them.

Another comment really bothered me:

I know it's an innocent comment. But the reason you are not seeing this on US platforms has nothing to do with censorship. The truth is, when do you *ever* see in-depth coverage of foreign politics on US platforms? Mainstream US news are not reporting this because this is about German politics, and the US as a whole does not care about what's going on over here in Europe.

If you're from the US, I encourage you to research Americentrism. A lot of USamericans live in a sort of bubble and fail to consider not everything exists in relation to their country. This leads to a lot of frustration from people from other nations like me.

English is used as an international language. For most of us it's the only way to interact with people from other countries. It's already hard to find content online that isn't made from a US perspective. But even when we do find it, it often gets co-opted by USamericans, even when the original post was not about them.

[madamspeaker]

In an interview for a forthcoming book, Mrs. Clinton also suggested that if Donald Trump won in November “we may never have another actual election.”

Hillary Clinton criticized her fellow Democrats over what she described as a decades-in-the-making failure to protect abortion rights, saying in her first extended interview about the fall of Roe v. Wade that her party underestimated the growing strength of anti-abortion forces until many Democrats were improbably “taken by surprise” by the landmark Dobbs decision in 2022.

In wide-ranging and unusually frank comments, Mrs. Clinton said Democrats had spent decades in a state of denial that a right enshrined in American life for generations could fall — that faith in the courts and legal precedent had made politicians, voters and officials unable to see clearly how the anti-abortion movement was chipping away at abortion rights, restricting access to the procedure and transforming the Supreme Court, until it was too late.

“We didn’t take it seriously, and we didn’t understand the threat,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Most Democrats, most Americans, did not realize we are in an existential struggle for the future of this country.”

She said: “We could have done more to fight.”

Mrs. Clinton’s comments came in an interview conducted in late February for a forthcoming book, “The Fall of Roe: The Rise of a New America.”

The interview represented Mrs. Clinton’s most detailed comments on abortion rights since the Supreme Court decision that led to the procedure becoming criminalized or restricted in 21 states. She said not only that her party was complacent but also that if she had been in the Senate at the time she would have worked harder to block confirmation of Trump-appointed justices.

And in a blunt reflection about the role sexism played in her 2016 presidential campaign, she said women were the voters who abandoned her in the final days because she was not “perfect.” Overhanging the interview was the understanding that had she won the White House, Roe most likely would have remained a bedrock feature of American life. She assigned blame for the fall of Roe broadly but pointedly, and notably spared herself from the critique.

Some Democrats will most likely agree with Mrs. Clinton’s assessment. But as the party turns its focus to wielding abortion as an electoral weapon, there has been little public reckoning among Democrats over their role in failing to protect abortion rights.

Even when they held control of Congress, Democrats were unwilling to pass legislation codifying abortion rights into federal law. While frequently mentioned in passing to rally their base during election season, the issue rarely rose to the top of their legislative or policy agenda. Many Democrats, including President Biden, often refused even to utter the word.

Until Roe fell, many in the party believed the federal right to an abortion was all but inviolable, unlikely to be reversed even by a conservative Supreme Court. The sense of denial extended to the highest ranks of the party — but not, Mrs. Clinton argued, to her.

“One thing I give the right credit for is they never give up,” she said. “They are relentless. You know, they take a loss, they get back up, they regroup, they raise more money.” She added: “It’s tremendously impressive the way that they operate. And we have nothing like it on our side.”

Mrs. Clinton did not express regret for any inaction herself. Rather, she said her efforts to raise alarms during her 2016 campaign went unheeded and were dismissed as “alarmist” by voters, politicians and members of her own party. In that race, she had talked about the threats to abortion rights on the campaign trail and most memorably in the third presidential debate, vowing to protect Roe when Mr. Trump promised to appoint judges who would overturn it.

But even then, internal campaign polling and focus groups showed that the issue did not resonate strongly with key groups of voters, because they did not believe Roe was truly at risk.

Now, as the country prepares to face its third referendum on Mr. Trump, she offered a stark warning about the 2024 election. A second Trump administration would go far beyond abortion rights to target women’s health care, gay rights, civil rights — and even the core tenets of American democracy itself, she said.

“This election is existential. I mean, if we don’t make the right decision in this election in our country, we may never have another actual election. I will put that out there because I believe it,” she said. “And if we no longer have another actual election, we will be governed by a small minority of right-wing forces that are well organized and well funded and are getting exactly what they want in terms of turning the clock back on women.”

Mrs. Clinton described those forces and her former opponent as part of a “global phenomena” restricting women’s rights, pointing to a push by Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader, pressing women to focus on raising children; the violent policing of women who violate Iran’s conservative dress code; and what she described as the misogyny of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

“Authoritarians, whether they be political or religious based, always go after women. It’s just written in the history. And that’s what will happen in this country,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Mrs. Clinton viewed her remarks as another attempt to ring an alarm before the 2024 election.

“More people have got to wake up, because this is the beginning,” she said. “They really want us to just shut up and go home. That’s their goal. And nobody should be in any way deluded. That’s what they will force upon us if they are given the chance.”

But she also seemed to expect that many would dismiss her concerns once again. “Oh, my God, there she goes again,” she said, describing what she anticipated would be the reaction to her interview. “I mean, she’s just so, you know, so out there.”

But she added: “I know history will prove me right. And I don’t take any comfort in that because that’s not the kind of country or world I want for my grandchildren.”

Nearly eight years after her final campaign, Mrs. Clinton remains one of the most prominent women in American politics, and the only woman in the country’s history to capture the presidential nomination of a major party.

Her life encapsulates what could be seen as the Roe era in American life. She embodies the professional and personal changes that swept the lives of American women over the past half-century. Roe was decided in 1973, the same year Mrs. Clinton graduated from law school. Its fall was accelerated in 2016 by her loss to Donald J. Trump, which set in motion a transformation of the Supreme Court.

Had Mrs. Clinton won the White House in 2016, history would have turned out very differently. She would most likely have appointed two or even three justices to the Supreme Court, securing an abortion-rights legal majority that probably would have not only upheld Roe but also delivered rulings that expanded access to the procedure.

Instead, Mrs. Clinton said Democrats neglected abortion rights from the ballot box to Congress to the Supreme Court.

Along with her prediction for the future, Mrs. Clinton offered a detailed assessment of the past. For her, the meaning of the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was clear — and devastating.

“It says that we are not equal citizens,” she said, referring to women. “It says that we don’t have autonomy, agency and privacy to make the most personal of decisions. It says that we should be rethinking our lives and our roles in the world.”

She blasted Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the case, saying his decision was “terrible,” “poorly reasoned” and “historically inaccurate.”

Mrs. Clinton accused four justices — John G. Roberts Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — of being “teed up to do the bidding” of conservative political and religious organizations and leaders — though she believed many Democrats had not realized that during those justices’ confirmation hearings.

“It is really hard to believe that people are going to lie to you under oath, that even so-called conservative justices would upend precedents to arrive at ridiculous decisions on gun rights and campaign finance and abortion,” she said. “It’s really hard to accept that.”

Yet, she also had tough words for her former colleagues. In the Senate, she said, Democratic lawmakers did not push hard enough to block the confirmation of the justices who would go on to overturn federal abortion rights. When asked in confirmation hearings if they believed Roe was settled law, the nominees noted that Roe was precedent and largely avoided stating their opinion on the decision.

Those justices “all lied in their confirmation hearings,” she said, referring to Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett, all of whom were appointed by Mr. Trump. “They just flat-out lied. And Democrats did nothing in the Senate.”

She added: “If I’d still been in the Senate, and on the Judiciary Committee, I think, you know, I hope I would have tried to do more about what were just outright prevarications.”

It is unclear how Democrats could have stopped those justices from reaching the bench given that they did not control the Senate during their confirmation hearings. When Mr. Trump took office, Republicans also had unified control of 24 state legislatures, making it all but impossible for Democrats to stop conservatives from pushing through increasingly restrictive laws.

For years, she said, Democrats failed to “invest in the kind of parallel institutions” to the conservative legal establishment. Efforts to start the American Constitution Society, she said, never quite grew as large as the better established Federalist Society, a network of conservative lawyers, officials and justices that includes members of the Supreme Court.

“I just think that most of us who support the rights of women and privacy and the right to make these difficult decisions yourself, you know, we just couldn’t believe what was happening. And as a result, they slowly, surely and very effectively got what they wanted,” she said. “Our side was complacent and kind of taking it for granted and thinking it would never go away.”

Mrs. Clinton was born in 1947, when abortion was criminalized and contraception was banned or restricted in more than two dozen states. In Arkansas, where she practiced law while her husband served as governor, she watched the rise of the religious right and the anti-abortion movement.

From the time she arrived in Washington as first lady, Mrs. Clinton fought openly for abortion rights. She famously declared that “human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights” in a 1995 speech at the World Conference on Women in Beijing. When she became a senator, Mrs. Clinton voted against the partial-birth abortion ban, unlike more than a dozen of her fellow Democrats. As Barack Obama’s secretary of state, she made a mission of expanding women’s reproductive health across the globe.

In 2016, Planned Parenthood endorsed her candidacy, the first time the organization waded into a presidential primary. In her campaign, Mrs. Clinton promised to appoint judges who would preserve Roe, opposed efforts in Congress to pass a 20-week abortion ban and pushed for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which banned the federal funding of abortions.

Even her language was updated. For years, when it came to abortion, she championed her belief in a phrase popularized by her husband during his 1992 presidential campaign: “safe, legal and rare.”

In a private, previously unreported meeting recounted in the book, campaign aides told Mrs. Clinton to drop the phrase during her 2016 run. Her staff explained that increasingly progressive abortion-rights activists thought calling for the procedure to be “rare” would offer a political concession to the anti-abortion movement. And with so many new restrictions being passed in conservative-controlled states, abortion was increasingly difficult to obtain, particularly for poorer women, making “rare” the wrong focus for their message. Abortion should be “safe, legal, accessible and affordable,” they told her.

“Well, that doesn’t make any sense,” she said in response at the time. “That’s stupid.”

In the interview, Mrs. Clinton said she quickly came to embrace the shift in language. What she and other Democrats had tried to do in 1992 with “safe, legal and rare” was “send a signal that we understand Roe v. Wade has a certain theory of the case about trimesters,” she explained. But by 2016, the world had changed.

“Too many women, particularly too many young women did not understand the effort that went into creating the underlying theory of Roe v. Wade. And the young women on my campaign made a very compelling argument that making it safe and legal was really the goal,” she said. “I kind of just pocketed the framework of Roe.”

Still, Mrs. Clinton felt like many of her warnings over the issue were ignored by much of the country.

When she delivered a speech in Wisconsin in March 2016, arguing that Supreme Court justices selected by Mr. Trump could “demolish pillars of the progressive movement,” Mrs. Clinton said that “people kind of rolled their eyes at me.”

Mrs. Clinton said she saw her defeat in that election as inextricable from her gender. As she has in the past, she blamed the former F.B.I. director James Comey’s last-minute reopening of the investigation of her private email server for her immediate defeat. Mr. Comey had raised questions about her judgment and called her “extremely careless” but recommended no criminal charges.Other political strategists have faulted her message, strategy and various missteps by her campaign for her loss in 2016.

“But once he did that to me, the people, the voters who left me, were women,” she said. “They left me because they just couldn’t take a risk on me, because as a woman, I’m supposed to be perfect. They were willing to take a risk on Trump — who had a long list of, let’s call them flaws, to illustrate his imperfection — because he was a man, and they could envision a man as president and commander in chief.”

Mrs. Clinton said she was shocked by how little the reports of Mr. Trump’s sexual misconduct and assault seemed to affect the race. They did not disqualify him from the presidency, at least not among most Republicans and conservative Christians. But his promises to appoint justices that would reverse Roe helped him win, she said.

“Politically, he threw his lot in with the right on abortion and was richly rewarded,” she said.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jennifer Rubin at The Contrarian:

For several years, whenever Hillary Clinton appeared for an interview or commented on events on which she had particular expertise, she was greeted with howls from the punditocracy to essentially shut up and go away. Granted, she has been on the national stage since the 1990s, but frankly, Americans could have used more of her insight and advice on the deeds and misdeeds of President Trump over the years. Now, less than a week into the Trump orgy of unconstitutional power grabs, preposterous declarations (renaming the Gulf of Mexico might be the stupidest of the bunch) and the release of the Jan. 6 felons (some of whom were convicted of violent crimes), I sure would like to hear the voice of the other woman nominated to run for president. Many of us would welcome the clear, compelling voice of former Vice President Kamala Harris.

Democracy defenders anticipated that Democrats might be caught on their back feet, but when the Senate minority leader issues anodyne declarations so utterly inapt in the current climate, it’s time to look for a single charismatic voice, one well-versed in law and unafraid to trim her sails. (Sen. Chuck Schumer’s statement after a deeply dishonest, dark, dangerous inaugural address suggested he had not been listening closely: “It’s now time to look to the future. The challenges that face America are many and great. The Senate must respond with resolve, bipartisanship, and fidelity to the working and middle class of this country.”) Trump has launched a full-out assault on the Constitution and the rule of law. His gambits include: attempting to excise birthright citizenship from the 14th Amendment; undermining professional, competent governance with “Schedule F”; and—frighteningly—to move to militarize the border, invoke emergency powers, and grab the Alien & Sedition Act out of the 18th century. (As Ilya Somin explained about the latter, “[T]he Alien Enemies Act cannot be used in our current situation because we are not in a ‘declared war’ with any foreign nation, and there also is no ‘invasion’ or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government.’”)

Harris was the last administration’s most compelling advocate on a range of legal and public-safety issues, from the reversal of Roe v. Wade to the dangers of untrammeled executive power to anti-immigrant incitement. She showed Democrats how to be tough on the border without being cruel, reckless, and contemptuous of the Constitution. (At the Ellipse speech just before the election, she declared, “When I was attorney general of a border state, I saw the chaos and violence caused by transnational criminal organizations that I took on and when I am President, we will quickly remove those who arrive here unlawfully, prosecute the cartels and give border patrol the support they so desperately need.” However, she consistently reminded us we are a nation of immigrants.) She never minced words about Trump’s dictatorial ambitions. She did warn us less than two weeks before the election, “Donald Trump vowed to be a dictator on day one. He vowed to use the military to carry out personal and political vendettas. His former chief of staff said he wanted generals like Hitler’s. Trump wants unchecked power.” Given that she is a former prosecutor who boasted that she put violent criminals behind bars, I certainly would like to hear what she has to say about letting out of prison 1500 people convicted in association with the Jan. 6 insurrection (which resulted in the death of several police officers and serious injuries and trauma to scores of others).

[...] She was right about what Trump intended to do and the danger he posed to the rule of law. She was right about the Supreme Court. Though she certainly deserves a break, whenever she is prepared, given our political vacuum, no one is better positioned to summon democracy defenders to stand up to a lawless president than Kamala Harris.

Jennifer Rubin wrote in The Contrarian on why Kamala Harris should take her perch being the voice for the rule of law calling out Felon 47’s dictatorship.

America will regret picking the Constitution-pissing felon over the prosecutor.