#don't encourage your voters to think this through ha ha

[lenbryant]

What a cry baby. Yes, please cry "fraud" every time you lose. It's so believable. Elections are only fair when you win, right?

[boreal-sea]

I find your post about policy disingenuous. 1) because making it seem like; "it's just about Palestine" is incredibly racist in ways I don't have the spoons to explain right now. But 2), your list leaves out the very real and very racist policy actions that Biden has taken against prisoners and immigrants. Under Biden the situation in prisons and at the border has gotten considerably worse than under Trump. He literally has more children in cages than Trump ever did. But apparently children in cages are only bad when Cheeto Man does it.

I'm not the one making it "just about Palestine", the people screaming "Genocide Joe!" are the ones making it just about Palestine. I'm trying to get people to look at literally any other issue besides Palestine - that's the entire reason I made that chart, to PROVE there's so much more at stake than "just Palestine". Stop blaming single-issue voters on ME when you're actually angry at THEM.

I am in fact currently going through the entire list because a different Anon claimed Biden is not "for" any of the things on the list. It is going to take a long time. But I will tackle your specific concerns.

Biden and immigration

It is frankly unfair to compare the number of people at the border under Biden to Trump's era, because their immigration policies are very different.

Yes, immigration at the border gone up since Biden took office. Most of the encounters at the borders have been with asylum seekers. And yes, technically there are more children "in cages" that there was when Trump was in office... because Trump wasn't letting children into the country at all. Biden is not turning them away, unlike Trump, who cited "COVID concerns" as his reason for turning starving and dehydrated children away from the border. In Trump's case, this was actually just straight up racism, because he hates Mexicans. He also hates Muslims, and enacted many immigration and travel bans against people from majority-Muslim nations. So yeah, of course there were less people being processed through immigration centers: Trump was turning them all away.

Your comparison, therefore, is extremely disingenuous. I don't think kids in custody is good, but I also think it's slightly better than kids dying of thirst in the desert or being forced to return to unsafe places.

Source: Politifact Fact-Check

Biden and prison reform

As for Biden's actions towards prisoners: Biden has been big on criminal justice reform his entire term. Here is a list of some things (among many more) he has done for criminal justice reform:

A majority of the people he nominated to appoint to courts around the country were people of color and/or women, in an effort to increase diversity in the criminal justice system.

He placed a moratorium on the death penalty.

He ordered the Department of Justice to not renew contracts with private (for-profit) prisons for federal prisoners.

He has pardoned and commuted many federal sentences for non-violent drug-related crimes (he has no control over non-federal convictions).

He provided grants to encourage the hiring of people with prior convictions.

He enacted a program to ensure prisoners leaving prison were given proper temporary IDs, which the were not in the past.

He pardoned federal offenses for the simple possession and use of marijuana.

He expanded Pell grants for prisoners to be able to obtain degrees during and after they leave prison

Added more options for prisoners with loans to consolidate and get onto repayment plans as low as $0 a month.

He enacted the First Step act, which facilitates prisoner reentry to society, rehabilitation, and reduces prisoner numbers in federal prison, including the release of over 30,000 prisoners.

He reduced the checking of criminal records in hiring processes for federal positions, enabling more people to be hired to those positions.

Added 19 new recidivism-reduction programs (programs to reduce the chances someone will end up back in jail).

This is not an exhaustive list. He has done EVEN MORE for criminal justice reform than this. You can just google this stuff, it's not hard to find.

Sources:

WhiteHouse.Gov

NBC News

Times.Com

[nicegirlslumbers]

Moving forward, think collectively and humanely

Earlier today, I had a realization. Trying to explain why Latinos voted for Trump is not going to be helpful in the way I intend. It'll actually do the opposite since it might be misconstrued and used as an excuse for racism, as many other posts are doing. Rather than my intention to relieve the confusion I'm seeing in the communities I'm in. Since our new elected president's policies go against what Latinos actually voted for. A better economy, freed from inflation because everyone's pockets are hurting.

When I walk into a grocery store, I don't see families and individuals with carts full of yummy food. I see them looking downtrodden, buying a few essentials, yelling at the cashier for the coupon on the back of their past receipts. Most families opt out of grocers for fast food chains. Due to the fact that parents and individuals are working two jobs to make ends meet, they don't have enough time to prepare meals. A single income isn't enough. But now think of an illegal immigrant income. I can't help but feel empathy for them. At the end of the day, we're all trying to survive. But we already had Trump once and -almost- again in 2020. The January 6 capital attack was reported on every channel on my tv, my relatives in Mexico even heard the news. The whole world saw it! So my empathy is limited to an extent.

So I think I'd like to focus on how to move forward. Like my last post, encouraging education, voting locally, for the youth to take action, and fighting for what is justice and our rights. This recent election really inspired me to educate myself more and see how I can help fight for what I believe is right. I've already mourned and raged. Now it's time to use our voices and minds to see through propaganda, the false promises of a better economy, the victory of genocide that we definitely shouldn't be condoning nor aiding, and advocate for the rights of our women, LGBTQ+ members, immigrants, youth, and minorities.

It's very important to vote locally and to even vote. Lots of people I spoke with today said that they didn't vote and I think their vote would've helped a lot! Voting isn't bad, it's a right that lets us take control of a four-year future term that could lead to the betterment of our country. "But what if I pick the wrong one? How do I know which one to pick? "Won't others vote?" Lots of people share the same mentality as you, meaning less voters or ones who vote for a candidate who is against most of your beliefs/morals. Educating yourself about candidates isn't as hard as it seems. Yes, misinformation is everywhere! So let's learn how to adapt to it.

Always have your thinking cap on, be skeptical of headlines, see if the publisher or writer has a bias to one side or the other, this strongly affects their writing. Inspect sources and images. AI is very prevalent and advancing but there will always be little anomalies. Don't let emotional appeals affect how you vote, but instead see if they relate to facts. Don't forget to think as a collective and not only as an individual. Think of the people around you and whether you are immorally punishing them by voting for a candidate/proposition/etc.

Think compassionately and humanely. We can't be individualistic nor filled with hatred for people who just want to live their lives freely. Women, LGBTQ+ members, people of color, the disabled, people wanting to survive literal genocide, and youth are owed that.

[feedists4progress]

do you love talking to people? do you excel at speaking to people off the cuff, on the spot, under a moderate amount of pressure? do you do your best work in person, face-to-face, or at community events? i can't relate but i respect your hustle so much. you are doing what i cannot!

phone banking is a great option if you don't mind (or even enjoy) talking on the phone. i personally find it very stressful but i have friends who love it because they get to speak directly with members of the community and have real, human conversations with them.

how it works: your organizer will help set you up on a platform with a google voice number or autogenerated phone number, give you a script, and turn you loose with an auto dialer to make the calls. as with textbanking, you'll probably also get a list of canned responses related to policy, issues, other relevant info, etc. to refer to in your phone conversations. phone bank for democrats in ...

Florida

Montana

Nevada

North Carolina

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Presidental election

Mobilize has tons more phonebanking events as well!

knocking doors is exactly what it sounds like. i have not done this myself, but if you live in an area where you feel safe walking around and talking to unfamiliar people and want to connect with members of your community, this could be a great option for you!

how it works: your organization will give you a training if you're new at canvassing and will provide you with any materials (flyers, cards, stickers, etc.) you might need. you will also get a script with talking points and canned responses you can use with voters.

Mobilize is once again a great hub for in-person volunteer opportunities.

be sure to look for local door-knocking events! many smaller grassroots campaigns use this method of canvassing to make themselves known and communicate directly with their communities.

target lists for canvassing are generally made up of registered voters or voters who are likely to support your cause, so there is a lower likelihood of confrontation or aggression.

many events recommend showing up with comfy shoes, sunscreen, water, and a mask!

voter registration events: have clipboard, will travel! i haven't done this myself, but i have had some genuinely nice conversations with canvassers on the street.

how it works: your organizer will supply you with a brief training, a clipboard, forms, pens, flyers, etc., and send you out to "hot spots" like college campuses, grocery stores, parks, or city centers. you will also likely get a script with talking points and candidate/policy information.

Mobilize has a huge list of voter registration events all over the nation!

many of the events i've seen encourage wearing liberal/leftist t-shirts, hats, pins, etc., to enhance approachability! sunscreen and water are also highly encouraged, and a mask is probably a good idea too!

bring a friend if you don't want to go alone!

become a poll worker. i'm doing this for the first time for my state primary in september and i'm honestly kind of nervous but i think it'll be a good experience! of course, working the polls doesn't support one candidate over another, but poll volunteers are crucial to keeping elections free and fair!

how it works: sign up through your town or city's website (i literally googled "become [city] poll worker" and found the link). you'll do at least one training session and get assigned a role on election day.

some states do pay you for your time working and training, but it may differ from state to state. this handbook from the US Election Assistance Commission should be able to tell you about payment in your state -- i just ctrl+f "compensation" and comb through.

All Voting is Local has a handy guide for first-time poll workers! (their compensation link is broken though)

see you out there!!

[kpolls]

K-polls Rules

Please know that we only accept submissions about K-pop, K-music in general, Korean Dramas and Movies, and Manhwas! Webtoons are very much allowed and encouraged if they're written by a Korean author.

Submit is the word we use, but you send us poll questions through our ask box.

For the most part, I won't be strict about these rules. Especially the interaction rules. These are mostly to prevent fanwars, dogpiling, or hindering people from being truthful because they're afraid of a fandom. There is a lot here but don't worry about it too much. It's just a frame of reference to keep in mind just in case. Check these if you're really worried about what you're going to comment or submit!

Submission Rules:

1. Don't be a monster

Any usage of sl*rs or derogatory language towards minorities or disenfranchised/marginalized people will result in an immediate block. Just general deplorable behavior is not allowed (no, calling someone a bigot or racist is not the same as anything previously mentioned).

2. No rage bait or loaded questions

For example, submitting "why is blank crappy?" is a loaded question with an opinion already built into it. Asking the people who do think it's crappy why they think it is is a better question, but consult the next rule.

Instead of making a new rule I'll just include it here: don't fish for people to agree with you. The example incognitopolls used is "Who else thinks pumpkin spice lattes suck?" and it's not related but still makes for a good example.

No rage bait is self explanatory. Don't submit questions that will clearly insight a fanwar, inherently insults real people, or clearly contributes to a hate train. Referring to rule 7, you are NOT allowed to send polls like "which group/idol/actor/writer etc. do you dislike the most in this lineup".

Once I get more real examples I will expand on this if I can.

3. Do NOT rope real life tragedies or serious event into your submission

Never submit a poll about something serious happening in the community or the industry. This includes idols/actors/writers etc. who are accused of violence (s*xual or non-s*xual), who have recently taken their life, or who have lost someone close to them.

Using him as an example, submitting polls like "Do you think T***l did it?" WILL get you immediately blocked.

We also do not accept polls about non-serious controversies. Just leave them out.

4. Make sure the question isn't too open ended

Something like "people who like blank, why?" doesn't work in most contexts. There are too many answers to give. Incognitopolls can get away with this because the submission is usually extremely specific. In saying this, submissions like "people who are against streaming music, why?" is slightly better than "people who don't like (insert group), why?".

If it requires too many answers, it may not be posted.

5. Joke submissions are allowed (read further)

Inside joke polls are allowed (e.g.: 127 jokes), if you can find a way to make it funny AND make sense as a poll, go right ahead. But please don't spam, repeat polls that have already been posted, or make light of serious topics. This goes without saying, but jokes at the expense of real people are not allowed.

6. No repeat polls or spam

Some topics can be an exception. For instance, if you're going to ask "what's your favorite Le Sserafim title track?" you need to wait until there have been two official Korean comebacks since the last time it was asked. The same goes for questions like "what's your favorite Kdrama from Park Boyoung?", I would wait until the actor has released 2-3 more Kdramas.

If I get an influx of submissions in the same vein, I will use reasonable deduction to rule out if it's spam. Just as a rule of thumb, don't send a bunch of submissions asking what the voters favorite song by 3 or more artists is.

7. Negative polls are allowed

You are allowed to send in polls that ask for simple, innocent opinions. Even if they're negative. This includes "what's your LEAST favorite song". Referring to rule 2, you are NOT allowed to ask for negative opinions on a real person or group. Keep it contained to fictional characters, songs, works, etc.

This does NOT rule out polls asking about the voters' favorite-- for example-- visual, and someone coming in last. Someone has to, it doesn't mean they're being slandered.

8. For now, NSFW or explicit submissions are not allowed

I'll consider making another account or just tagging the NSFW ones as such. I will update you.

However, don't come into my inbox asking people who they think has the biggest hot dog. Don't send me explicit thoughts about real people at all. They will not be published. Unless it's to my writing acc.

Interaction Rules:

1. Don't insult/demean/intimidate the poll takers

Don't rant in the replies or reblogs about how angry people voting for a certain option made you. Don't insult people for choosing an option you don't agree with (e.g.: you've got to be dumb if you picked blank). This includes joking that whoever voted for blank has no taste. This does NOT include reacting in surprise at a certain option being popular/unpopular (e.g.: people dislike blank???).

2. Don't like it? Ignore it.

I would not recommend following or interacting with this account if seeing negative opinions of the things you like upsets you. If you need to block the account, go right ahead. And you're allowed to speak on it if this account upsets you.

However, do not rant under our posts about how upset you are that a poll exists or what choice is winning. This includes claiming that the poll is somehow damaging to an artist's/actor's/writer's etc. reputation, claiming that anything concerning the polls are hate, and what was mentioned in the previous rule.

3. Don't post about/reblog our polls to encourage an option to win

If it's a silly poll, I won't be strict about this (e.g.: things like "which hair color is the best", polls about fictional characters, anything in that vein). But if it is framed in a way that indicates the results are genuinely upsetting you/are hateful/are "incorrect" then I will be a bit more strict.

We can't totally prevent this, but if we see it or it is brought to our attention, we'll do what we can. That could include issuing a warning, blocking the offending blog if the warning is ignored, or even adding groups/topics/shows/fandoms to a banned list if there is a common denominator. Password is yerimiese. We want people to come here for real opinions and feel comfortable giving them.

4. Don't treat our polls as a popularity contest

Very similar to the last two. In general just don't take these too seriously. Anything voted for or said doesn't actually affect you or the things you like.

If your favorite group or actor is last place in a poll, don't take to the comments to try and bolster up their reputation or accolades. No "blank doesn't care about what you guys say, they're too busy cleaning their awards". It was never supposed to be taken that way.

5. Refer to rule number one of the submission rules

Yeah.

Reasons For Being Blocked:

Repeatedly breaking rules in the replies or reblogs despite being warned

Violating submission rule No. 1

Aggression towards me or any moderators

Inciting fanwars or arguing with people in the replies despite receiving a warning

{last updated: 9-6 for grammar and tidying}

[boudicca]

i think an important point in the not voting thing is that there has been a months-long miscommunication happening on tumblr, where hard line vote blue no matter who bloggers have been misinterpreting people who have been encouraging others to put pressure upon the party through movements like the uncommitted votes during the primary and through phone calls and emails. threatening to withhold your vote if the candidate does not stop supporting the genocide is not the same as actually planning to truly not vote. i know many more people who have been participating in these threats that fully intend to vote against republicans than i have those who truly intend not to vote, and of those who genuinely cannot bring ourselves to vote, almost all have either been black and brown voters who are deeply suffering under democrat policies as-is, or people living in firmly blue states in no danger of flipping, whose vote will not make a difference due to the electoral college (or both). and as a sidenote absolutely no one who usually votes but is saying they don't want to for biden/harris is talking about abstaining from local/state elections, another huge misconception for the really aggressive liberal pro-voting posters

i don't have any commentary to add but thank u this was genuinely helpful

[terastalungrad]

BB20: Sunday 15 October

No episode of Big Brother on Saturday. Strange! That's how it was in early Channel 4 days. No use being interesting on eviction day, housemates. Very unlikely to be broadcast.

Noky is bothered by eviction etiquette. When Farida was evicted, too many people flocked to Kerry who survived eviction.

Noky confronts Olivia about this - a terrible idea, since Olivia doesn't compromise or hide her feelings, no matter how tactless. Olivia was relieved that Farida was evicted, and she was never going to pretend otherwise.

Trish and Yinrun bond over fashion.

Trish: I'm understanding your style more now. You're quite classy.

Yinrun: Yes I am.

They both laugh.

Trish: You've got classy style. I like slutty stuff.

Yinrun: I know.

Scandalised laughter!

Yinrun: Your style suits you.

More scandalised laughter!

Trish: Yours doesn't.

I LOVE THEM.

Matty talking positively about being in an open relationship. It's not about preventing cheating, he says, but about being open to experiences.

Olivia finds this unbelievable, especially that Matty's mother knows.

Henry and Jordan gather around Farida's bed.

Henry: Shall we say a few words?

Jordan: No. She wouldn't have listened to them.

Henry laughs the Toriest laugh ever laughed.

Yinrun and Jordan bonding over clothing. I think eviction night has encouraged the housemates to think about fashion.

Hehe, Dylan's realised the shopping was done badly.

Paul perceives that groups are forming in the house. The shopping will be a touchy subject, because the two broad groups have different values and priorities.

Kerry speculates with Hallie about Paul. Kerry reckons Olivia fancies him, but won't let herself "go there".

Jenkin's shocked that there's such argument over the food even though they had a luxury shopping budget this week.

Jenkin: All I asked for was a Kinder Bueno. And I didn't even get it.

Trish ordered lamb chops, and occasionally cooks them for herself. She's shocked that she's gained a reputation over snacking.

Hallie: Your snacking is fucking lamb chops and pasta, bruv.

Trish takes this in very good humour. She's happy to change her habits.

Later, Trish worries she and Olivia could be in line to replace Farida as a public enemy.

Kerry was a lifelong Tory voter, but was put off by Boris Johnson. Don't get too excited, though, she thinks Rishi Sunak is the best of a bad bunch.

Zak questions why politicians are paid so much. "They don't," says Kerry. Henry believes the reason there aren't good people in politics is because they don't get paid enough.

I really wish it was more well-known how much money MPs are able to make through their positions. Boris Johnson is going to be so much richer as a former Prime Minister than he was before. And he was already extremely wealthy.

Oh, Zak, you legend!

Zak: How much does the average MP make a year?

Henry: Between 60 and 70 -

Zak: The average person in the UK earns £20,000 a year. 80% earns £20,000 per year.

I did NOT expect accurate anyone in this conversation to be this informed!

The figures are out of date, and presumably he means 80% earn £20k or less - but still. Henry struggled to remember Liz Truss's name earlier, despite being a die-hard Tory supporter.

"I need to stop moaning about being in the highest tax bracket," says Kerry.

She says she was on just over £7k a year when she started in the NHS, and Zak points out that that money would've gone a lot further back then.

I keep thinking of Kerry as being older and a bit out of touch. She is ... two years older than me. But hey, voting Tory ages you.

Jenkin's really hurt by Kerry mentioning being in the highest tax bracket.

Trish builds bridges with Olivia. But ooh, they send Kerry away because they're having a big chat. In the bedroom! You can't hog the bedroom! This house has so many spaces for deep chat.

Chanelle given a secret mission - give housemates backhanded compliments to earn a big jar of sweets for the house. The more brutal, the more sweets.

Chanelle slags off:

Kerry's jumper. Says it looks like something from a circus. Kerry happily agrees.

Matty's hat. Says it looks like the ugly rabbit from Wallace and Gromit. Dylan tries on the hat to show that it's equally unflattering on everyone. "I think you look alright," Chanelle tells him.

Jenkin's accent. We don't do backhanded compliments in Wales, so to Jenkin she says, "As much as I like being Welsh, when I listen to you it makes my ears bleed. ... Do you want this tea or what?"

Jordan's style. Slags off his shirt, making Jordan want to go and change. Big Brother clarifies she was meant to criticise his SMILE.

Dylan's hairdressing skills. Dylan's trimming Zak's hair. "Have you done it with your eyes shut?" This inspires Dylan to ... try harder.

The house is delighted to get the sweets. Matty is delighted because his lovely rabbit hat is off the hook.

"I was ragin'," says Jenkin about his accent. "I was going to pull you aside and be like: BUTT!"

Jordan has changed his shirt.

Biggest reveal from this task: the housemates were provided with clothes from this year's sponsor.

Noky comes to collect photos of the housemates' family from the diary room.

Oh, she does a fun thing of pretending she's gathering people for a bad reason. Zak is DELIGHTED by her prank.

They talk about their families. They all cry. Except for Jordan, whose photo is of a lovely plaza he likes.

Henry is properly head over heels with Jordan. Gazing at him with stars in his eyes.

Trish and Zak bond over having list their fathers.

Chanelle in the diary room is given the final word of the episode. I think we're seeing the production team making sure everyone gets a chance to stand out.

[doctor-looneys-remedy]

As most of us have, I have been sinking a lot of thinking time into the upcoming election.

I was looking ahead at my sample ballot. Honestly, one of the things that always bugs me is the random state and local initiatives that are on there that, honestly, if they haven't gotten a lot of press, you may not know about. Or, the language is so purposefully confusing that you have no idea what the intended outcome really might be. Every time I think "I feel I should know a LOT more about this. "

I found something today that might help!

If you want to learn more about those bills that are on your sample ballot, check out legiscan.com .

On this page, on the left you can choose your state, type in the bill and then choose the one that closest matches the text on your ballot. From there, you can see who sponsored the bill, and also look on the "votes" page to see if it has more D or R votes supporting it, or if it is bipartisan. I can't say that it will give you whatever the hell the intent of the bill is, because, unfortunately, they probably don't know if its going to fund the Governor's cousin's new car, but, it is a reasonable place to start and get some info.

Also, if you choose to scroll through the votes page, you will see that there is a link to the followthemoney.org page for each office holder, which is a nice bonus.

Let me encourage you to check and double check your voter registration. You should be able to verify it online through your state voter registration site. Let's not let allow any shenanigans with that. (I have been checking mine every few weeks, and will continue as the elections nears us.)

[thoughtsbeewild]

Why did he call himself the rating machines? sounds scary

His truth social so cray cray, like damn this orange is on serious attack mode on all this socials. Slow your role, I wish i had that dedicated time to read it all, but i dont. More or likely he is repeating the same messages, just waiting for the debate to be honest..

When he posted on truth social" I am the ratings machine" that sounds scary. WTF does that mean?

My translation, created a fun meme for him aka the rating machine..like a terminator on a mission to recruit RFK, Elon Musk, and others( i dont care for)..He calling himself a ratings machine is that a positive thing? He on a rager...chill orange..

If you look from the other side of the spectrum, you see the democrats are marketing selling this delightful joy. I thought of Joy from Inside out pixel movie.

So which looks bad the ratings machine or joy? Think about it on swaying or dipping into the fantasy liberal regime or at least getting some of thier votes to the ratings machine side.

I am unclear of what the FUCK THESE Endorsement mean, is that suppose be a big deal in your politic world? Like why should we clap or give a round of a applause? i don't get it, makes no sense..

Unless you got Beyonce that is a big UNITY TWIST FOR CELEBRITY WOKE SHIT FOR THE FUCKING WHOLE WORLD TO BE BLOWN AWAY and that will take away some of liberal dummy young adolescent , kim Kardashian wanna be voters to vote orange...

CAUSE YOU KNOW ALL THE RICH ELITE CELEBRITIES, DEMONCRATS,DEEPSTATE AND BIG MAIN STEAM MEDIA THOSE ARE YOUR BIGGEST ALLIES..

I know sort of Elon Musk story, he got dissed at the white house and many other factors that lead to his decision. Make sense, like he doing a courtesy fuck you back. I get it, do your thag.

RFK, i cannot understand him at all. I dont know much, he followed the footsteps of his dad party and finally figured out at age of how old is he now(took him over 50 years for his brain to work, like what), that the demoncrat are shady,shitty, humans throwing subpoenas shut him and you up.

BTW Vegan food is gross , nasty and expensive. Have you tried plant based meatball, that shit is so nasty. Tried organic deodorant, yuck, it chaffed my armpits like crazy. Never again. organic is so expensive, double the price at whole foods, trader joes, sprouts. Like if we are inflation, why the fuck we wanna spend double more money being healthy.

Get your ass to Costco, get the family/king bulksize, your set for life ..cheaper and will last a long time to provide more room for other purchases..fuck the organic shit, that shit is gross..

I think the better idea/proposal is try to encourage people to stay in shape, but its hard cause in each human life you will have your down days, your up days.. Not everyday is always SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS, you will go through the storm with a shit load of stress and wanting BAD COMFORT YUMMY FOOD. BAD CHOCOLATE WITH ALMONDS OR HAVE A CHEAT DAY FRIDAY DONUT FOR THE WIN! but to be forced to into an organic person because RFK has a problem with it and govt will limit unhealthy food to Americans, cmon man... AMERICA SUPPOSE BE LAND OF THE FREE, FREEDOM TO EAT WHATEVER THE FUCK WE WANT!

I would want to HAVE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE TO HAVE FOOD OPTIONS HEALTHY OR UNHEALTHY, JUST LIKE HOW YOUR PROMOTING AVAILABILITY OF ELECTRIC AND GAS CARS...DONT FORCE PEOPLE TO BE HEALTHY BUT HAVE LEADERS TO ENCOURAGE A POSITIVE MESSAGE SHOULD ONE DECIDE TO WANT BE HEALTHY...JUST SAYING..

At this time, insane high prices of everything, you gotta think cheap, like a cheap ass until change happens...

But if you challenge yourself go vegan or do not look in the mirror for a week. I BET YOUR ASS WILL LOSE! that is a hard challenge.

Your marketing is basically terminator attack mode, i don't watch the other side bullshit and fakeness. So I am not sure how hardcore they are going on this magnificent joy fictional character bullshit..

[jamhood]

Beacon of Freedom

Even though said to be the leader of the free world and the most powerful position in the world, a president of the United States really isn't. Thank goodness a president doesn't have the power to fundamentally transform the United States, as Obama thought he could. If indeed he could, the United States would cease to be the beacon of freedom to the world. The free market economy of the United States would be dismantled and replaced by the authoritarian collectivist society proffered by Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky and their kind. From March 23, 2015 Washington Post article by Michelle Ye Hee Lee [washingtonpost.com],

He and his peers … believe communist influences have been played down by the media. Obama has shown to be an ineffective communist, ... He has failed to unravel the capitalist system over the past six years that he has held the most powerful position in the world.

And

No other person can claim the title of Obama “mentor” than Davis, wrote Paul Kengor in The Communist, his book about Davis and Obama. “Frank is a lasting, permanent influence, an integral part of Obama’s sojourn."

The influence of Davis and Alinsky on Obama, Hillary Clinton and other global collectivists of the Democrat Party is abundantly manifest in their speeches. They consistently implement the principles of Saul Alinsky from his publications, Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals. Examples,

Control healthcare and you control the people.

If people don't think they have the power to solve their problems, they won't even think about how to solve them.

If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.

The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results.

The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization.

In the beginning the organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems.

When she was a college student, Clinton studied Saul Alinsky. Clinton first met Alinsky in 1969 at Wellesley working on her thesis on his controversial theories of community organizing outlined in his 1946 handbook, Reveille for Radicals. In Clinton's 1971 letter to Alinsky [news.yahoo.com] referring to his new book Rules for Radicals she wrote,

When is that new book coming out or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation? I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille and need some new material to throw at people. If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring …, I do so now. I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you.

Yet, she denounces as radicals those free market economy Republicans and right thinking people who hold that government must adhere to the Constitution. She defames them as a "basket of deplorables." A most conspicuous example of Clinton's devotion to Alinsky is her constant use of Alinsky's fundamental rule,

Accuse your opponent of what you are doing, to create confusion and to inculcate voters against evidence of your own guilt.

As the proponents of global collectivism, the left, only have one principle, which is the ends justifies the means, any indictments of their wrongdoing are cast aside. Clinton, Obama and their kind use the principles of those on the right against them.

Make the enemy live up to their own rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

The occupant of the office of president isn't a king, emperor or dictator. The president isn't responsible for the economy and everyone's well being. By indoctrinating the people into the notion of the president as the leader of the free world and the most powerful position in the world, the global collectivists of the Democrat Party and their minions in the news media, if they attain the goal of their struggle to become the permanent majority, will have everyone accustomed to the idea of the president as dictator and absolute ruler of the United States. As the political party with a permanent majority, they could establish an absolute democracy in which no minority political party, nor anyone not in the majority, would have any say in government.

Heed the words of Pericles, the ancient Greek Athenian statesman, "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." Let us make a stand to preserve our constitutional republic of the United States from becoming another democratic socialist failure like the former Soviet Union and all the others.

[alasse-irena]

I'll start by saying that I have similar problems to you with this legislation, however it's managed, but I do want to push back a little bit, because a lot of the information you've given here isn't true.

TLDR: This is a representative democracy working as normal. Contact your MP. Tell them what you think about this legislation. Tell them how social media has helped you. Ask all your friends to do the same thing. Talk to people outside your usual social circle about it if you can. I think one of the big reasons it's not getting the pushback you want is that a lot of people aren't seeing the data safety risk, they're seeing "a better childhood for my kids".

A few things:

With regard to "there was no vote on this, no nothing, they just went ahead and fucking passed this": that's not what's happened. This legislation hasn't been passed yet. It has to pass the upper and lower houses before it becomes law, which means the MPs and senators that we elected to represent us will vote on it. This is the same way that all new legislation is treated. (Maybe you want all Australian citizens to vote on each new piece of legislation. That's fair - but it would be an overhaul of our entire system of government and a move away from representative democracy to direct democracy. There were 170 pieces of legislation introduced in Australian Federal Parliament in 2023. Imagine if we'd had to hold nationwide votes to decide what to do about all of them. I'm not saying this form of democracy is impossible, but it's a huge logistical challenge.)

The government still hasn't figured out who will be responsible for age verification, or how it should be done. They're assessing the options, and will continue to do so into next year. (Social media companies are trying to encourage them to put age verification responsibilities on the app store instead of on each individual service. Given that you can access most social media in your default browser rather than through the app, I don't think anyone involved has really thought through how to do this effectively.)

The legislation actually doesn't have much benefit to the government in terms of your privacy: every way of doing this that's been put out there has your info either going to the social media company, or to a third party company. (Yes, putting all this data in the hands of for-profit companies is also bad; they're incentivised to illegally sell it to advertisers, something which major social media companies have been known to do.) The cybersecurity risks here are large, but the real motive is to appeal to parents and educators as voters. Social media is creating situations that worry a lot of people. It has wide-reaching and well-researched effects on youth: the big ones here are mental health and body image issues, along with right-wing radicalisation. Across Australia, many people believe that handling this problem is both important and urgent, which means that for the government, looking like they're willing to do something drastic about it is a big vote-winner. This is one reason you should be concerned: it's such an uncontroversial move that it has bipartisan support (i.e. both parties believe failing to support it will lose them votes).

In conclusion, yeah this is a bad piece of legislation. I don't like it, I don't think it's going to help, I think it's going to just drive a lot of the problems its trying to solve underground and create cybersecurity risks on the way.

But it hasn't happened yet. The democratic process is still going on and you still get a part in it. Go talk to some people about it.

fucking australia’s trying to get everyone to link their government id to their social media accounts else you cant use them anymore, the actual fuck is wrong with this country

[annagpellegrino]

Politics and Civic Cultures

We now live in a world driven by new technology and primarily social media, so much so our politicians are now jumping on the social media bandwagon. Overall I’d say there is more engagement from American politicians than Australian ones, this is simply evident in their followings on social media. On Instagram, US President Donald Trump has 10.9 million whereas Australian PM Scott Morisson only has 24,000. There's an ongoing joke that Australians don't know who their prime minister is and this could be a result of their interaction with social media. I know that if all our politicians were more active in online communities like Trump is, they would probably be better recognized. 

Online presence, for the most part, can be a great way for politicians to gain followers and voters, however, these social media platforms can bite you back. In 2012 Peter Watson, ALP candidate, was forced to resign as an old homophobic comment of his resurfaced (Jericho 2012). 

Digital Citizenship, What is it?

Digital citizenship can be defined as a person with the skills and knowledge to effectively use digital technologies to participate in society, communicate with others and create and consume digital content (eSafety 2018). It is simply your engagement with political issues and human rights through the use of social media, it is an expression of opinion. When I think of digital citizenship what I find most relevant to me is the same-sex marriage vote we had in the previous year. I saw heaps of people I knew posting about it and creating funny memes to do with the postal vote. A lot of this content was shared across social media bringing attention to the issue. This encouraged the outcome of the vote as the plebiscite passed and same-sex marriage was finally legalised. 

Social media and politics can go well together if taken with care and responsibility. Politicians like to bite back sometimes online which won't get them far. If we look to the future I believe it is those who are more engaged with their younger voters online that will succeed. The younger voters are the future of the country, therefore, should be most important in addressing. As technology is rapidly advancing and new social media platforms are being introduced the possibilities are really endless. My advice to politicians would be to stay on top of it!

References

Jericho, G 2012, 'How many votes are there on Twitter?', in The Rise of the Fifth Estate, Scribe, Victoria, Australia

Esafety Commission Office, 2018, ‘Digital Citizenship’, Australian Government, <https://www.esafety.gov.au/education-resources/classroom-resources/digital-citizenship>

[reading-writing-revolution]

#TrumpismIsTerrorism

"So, here's the thing...

We've arrived at a very unpleasant point in US History. We are at a place where the continued support of the Trump Administration marks you as a bigot, either because you are or that you are guilty by association. I'm not saying Trump voters/supporters are all bigots; it's just not true. The problem is that the man is an openly bigoted nationalist. He openly lies about just about anything that furthers his chequered agenda. His imagination and capacity to spin the hell out of even the most obvious fuckups are legendary. By supporting such actions, you are tacitly saying you agree or at least don't disagree enough to care and/or speak up. That's still complicit.

Everyone, from time to time, buys a bill of goods when they support a candidate or political leader. Obama was a letdown for many liberals by continuing Bush's failed foreign policies, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Persian Gulf. Nixon embarrassed the hell out of the nation by lying through his teeth about Watergate then abdicated to escape impeachment. Clinton cannot take responsibility for where he sticks his dick...I mean just say "yeah, I did it. It's my business so fuck off." That's not what we are experiencing.

What we have in front of us is a man who is pathological. He's dangerous because he actively encourages radicalized whites to "stand up for their rights" against imagined Boogeymen. Put aside Hitler and Stalin because literally NO ONE has committed that level of atrocity with such exacting and surgical precision. However, we have Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, etc who all started from a place of some modicum of legitimacy. They all went somewhere horribly wrong and many people suffered while others just died from or were murdered due to the policies and actions of these "well-intentioned" demagogues.

At some point, you have to understand that we, as a nation, have royally fucked up and we need to fix said bungle. This is no longer about party affiliation: this is about unseating a tyrant that poses an existential threat to the future of the USA, a country so many of you swear to love. People have value; we don't get to demonize folks we don't like just because we find their legal, adult activities "icky."

Religion is no excuse. There's no established religion in the USA and, for that reason, religious exemption to secular law is a non-starter. We can't talk to whatever transcendent deity folks worship. We can, however, hear the cries of those starving, those who have no viable means to resist the oppressive policies they face, those who spend every day in fear for their life because the government they elected has abandoned them.

So if I'm brusquely dismissive of folks who support possibly the worst US president in the last 100 years, please understand that I feel like the continued association with those who either advocate bigotry or stand by silently while the administration they feverently support strips innocent people of inalienable rights is tantamount to consent. I won't consent to such ignorance because of my race, gender, religious background, or political affiliation. Wrong is wrong. Legality and morality are not mutually inextricable.

We are not judged by our missteps as much as we are judged by how we acknowledge and repair the damage we cause. People say only their god can judge them but I assure you that you are all responsible and beholden to human justice. Rob a bank with the intention of giving it to an amazingly good cause, kill someone you think is a threat, let your child die because of religious beliefs, or what have you. It doesn't matter. You have to answer for what you do.

Or, the other option..."

[seewetter]

Maybe a good way of solving this disagreement is to think about other forms of political pressure.

People can also vote at the municipal, the regional, the state level. People can withdraw some form of support from Democrats that hurts enough that they will be forced to consider what voters want ...without necessarily withdrawing the vote in national elections.

This has to be thought out carefully, because:

The idea that you threaten to vote Trump but always vote Biden is terrible. That would only work as a carefully kept secret and if voter research didn't exist. Voter researchers can establish that voters who threaten to vote Trump for example won't actually follow through in relevant numbers. And they can relay that information to the Democrats, who then will not care.

Protest votes (which is what voting for the worse of two evils is) can have disastrous consequences. It's how the Kacynski brothers gained power in Poland, where they institute their anti-queer, anti-voting rights legislation and shut down museums exhibits that portray Polands involvement in the Holocaust.

The hope is that protest votes can be effective. I couldn't find any historical examples of successful protest votes, but we need to be open to the possibility.

It also needs to be thought out carefully because "Trump also would support the genocide" misses the point. Protest voters believe or hope that their choice of the worse of two evils will send a message to the person they aren't voting for: "you work for us, not for yourself. Be sufficiently radical or you may as well quit". I know that thinking is difficult for harm reductionists to swallow. It feels like (and may actually be, judging on the lack of readily available historical examples) threatening victims of genocide with even worse genocide as a method of saving them (maybe) from genocide.

But that is not what protest voters are aiming at. They are aiming at the idea that if all options are genocide but the worse genocide creates a reckoning, then there may be some kind of a better future. This is especially ethically relevant because protest voters can argue that the election isn't even close yet, so there is time for the Democrats to course-correct under the threat of countless new swing voters who will vote for something that (in addition to causing worse genocide) hurts Democrats if they don't get an end to the genocide.

That time span however also means that the arguments are somewhat non-serious. It's not 2024 yet, no one is voting yet, and any Democrat decision makers watching this discussion will not know (and will probably not take serious) a bunch of threats of protest voting if there's no precedent for it. Maybe if there was lots of regional precedent for it, maybe if Democrats lost to Greens or other parties on the municipal level in a big wave, maybe if Democrats lost to a party that promised to do one horrific thing to prove protest voters where willing to do Trumpian levels of monstrosity just to establish their willingness to push the red button on national election day. Maybe then.

But there is no such precedent. Instead, there is precedents like OPs have-your-cake-and-eat-it post where people threaten to vote Trump but publicly proclaim they'll actually vote Biden.

Worse yet, if you actually didn't declare that, if you actually said "I will vote Trump in protest" without winking at your left-of-center audience, then that just normalizes voting Trump. But without the nuance! So you are encouraging people to protest vote until Democrats "get better", but the track record doesn't exactly show political change in America being anything but gradual and creeping, meaning you are basically just recruiting a new type of Republican voter.

Now, I don't think there is one clear answer yet about how people should vote. I'm not even sure that Biden, who claimed he wouldn't run again, will run in 2024 (I'm not American, forgive me if I just missed an announcement of that sort).

But the closest I've ever seen to a historical example for protest voting are communists that voted for Hitler in order to show people why you wouldn't want that guy in power and perhaps the support offered by Julian Assange to Trump in order to revitalize the Left also counts, though that wasn't a direct vote.

The first example is obviously not a good reason to do this. The communists that voted Hitler clearly, in hindsight, got what they wanted and then got even more than what they wanted. Most of them probably died in a concentration camp.

The second example is arguably better: it depends on how you judge the outcome of the 2016 election. Trump's Covid response was abysmal, and his misinformation about Covid protections caused many deaths, in particular in Asian countries, where his status as the US president was taken as a sign that the information he was spouting was reliable. And then of course there is the "rogue" Supreme Court and its lasting effects on human rights. Assange may have swayed crucial voters in the wrong direction here. At the same time, Assange's goals where achieved: the Left was revitalized. Does that matter? Hard to say. But it's worth noting that Assange's reasons for influencing American voters are more modest than stopping a genocide. Have protest votes ever stopped a genocide?

It's not just that we have no historic examples, it's that we don't have a clear roadmap, a clear organizational strategy for these types of protest votes.

A few weeks back, I made the mistake of speaking out in favour of protest voting (mainly because I felt the opponents of protest votes don't even understand the principle behind it and just throw their support behind people like Biden because the lesser of two evils must always win, even if that furthers the evil). But it was a mistake to speak and judge so hastily.

There is a whole lot at stake in the world and it is hard to tell what options the election can provide to do something about it.

This is why its important to organize, to speak openly with others who want to see this genocide end, to seek municipal and regional opportunities and be open for new solutions.

Best of luck to all of us.

something for everyone who is like "you have GOT to vote for biden or else we'll have trump as a president again!!!!", you're basically saying "as long as republicans remain as morally reprehensible and evil as they are, democrats don't need to be held accountable for anything because they're the 'better' option"

[xtruss]

Interview with Mary Trump

"Donald Is a Fascist and the Republicans Are Trying To Destroy Our Democracy"

In an interview, Mary Trump, the only niece of the former American president, talks about an uncle she describes as dangerous, his enduring power and the growing hate in America.

— Interview Conducted By Marc Pitzke | 08.25.2021

— SPIEGEL International

Mary Trump: "He's literally the weakest person I've ever known." Foto: Sara Naomi Lewkowicz / DER SPIEGEL; Michael Reynolds / Zuma Press / action press

Mary Trump, Donald Trump's only niece, has just finished a talk show appearance by video chat from her kitchen. She's sitting in the library of her apartment building, trying to relax. The ceiling-high shelves behind her are filled with carefully curated coffee table books. Through the wall of windows, one can see Manhattan's thick traffic below.

Trump, however, seems irritated. "This was the first time I've been treated badly in an interview," she says.

She had just appeared on "The View," a popular morning chat show, where they discussed politics, the pandemic and racism. Yet one co-host checked out of the conversation without even greeting her: Meghan McCain, daughter of the late senator John McCain, who had been reviled and insulted by Donald Trump even as he went to his grave.

The younger McCain is famous – infamous – for her own conservative tirades. After the show with Mary Trump, she tweeted: "There is no 'good' Trump family member to me."

And there it is, Mary Trump's burden: her last name.

She will be forever linked to her uncle, his lies, is hubris, his incompetence, his autocratic tendencies – and the damaging fallout from his one term as president.

Last year, the psychologist published her memoirs: "Too Much and Never Enough." The book revealed the horrific family history of the Trumps – and made her a target of Trump fanatics, who still worship the former president. For months, she hardly left the house – because of COVID-19, but also out of fear of being recognized and vilified.

Now Trump, 56, has written a second book, "The Reckoning: America's Trauma and Finding a Way To Heal." It addresses the darkest period of U.S. history, with the nation's enduring racism, and, of course, her uncle.

DER SPIEGEL: Ms. Trump, last summer you called your uncle the world's most dangerous man. Now that he's out of office, do you still feel that way?

Trump: After the election, I was happy for about a minute. I was very relieved, of course, but the number of people who voted for him was just heartbreaking. Seventy-four million! Yes, Joe Biden won. But the Democrats in general didn't win enough. We needed a total repudiation of Donald and his party, and we didn't get one.

DER SPIEGEL: So, you think he still presents a danger?

Trump: We're not out of the woods. It became clear right after the election that he was going to do everything in his power to undermine the legitimacy of the results and that the Republicans were just going to let him do it. For him, losing is not acceptable and winning doesn't mean legitimately winning, it just means getting the win. He knows he didn't win, but I don't believe he knows he lost, either.

DER SPIEGEL: How so?

Trump: He's been trying for two years to steal this election. I don't believe he can wrap his head around the fact that everything he did, all the stops he pulled out, all the stops the Republican Party pulled out for him, haven't worked. So, he's still trying to steal this election.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you see Jan. 6, when a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol Building, as such an attempt?

Trump: He is very good at finding people weaker than he is, which is shocking because he's literally the weakest person I've ever known. But they're out there obviously, in large numbers. Then, there are people who are much smarter and powerful than he is, who know how to use him. So, it's a very dangerous combination. Were there people around him who knew that it could very possibly lead to that moment? Absolutely. Was he completely willing and comfortable to take advantage of the situation and make it worse for his benefit? Absolutely.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you think he welcomed what he saw on Jan. 6?

Trump: Oh, my gosh, yeah. It was probably one of the best days of his life. The worse it got, the happier he was. It wasn't an accident when he told the mob that if he wasn't granted the victory, it was Mike Pence's fault. So, should we be surprised that people were running around with nooses wanting to string Mike Pence up? It would have been perfectly fine with him. Absolutely. The only thing he probably regrets about that is that there wasn't more violence.

DER SPIEGEL: What went through your mind that day?

Trump: I hadn't listened to his speech beforehand, because I've tried whenever possible not to listen to him or look at him, because I don't care what he has to say. At first, like everybody else, I found it really hard to know what precisely was going on. It just looked like a mess. The first word that came to mind was tawdry. But then it became obvious to me that it was much worse than that. This is our Capitol! This is the center of – well, I don't like to say American democracy, because I don't think America has ever completely been a democracy like we aspire to be.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you think he will run again in 2024?

Trump: I don't know. But because he's being enabled, he sees an opening. He feels the power. He also knows that the only way he stays out of legal trouble is to get back into power.

DER SPIEGEL: Does it weigh on you to be so personally connected to his world? In your new book you reveal that in 2017, a few months after your uncle's inauguration, you went into inpatient treatment for post traumatic stress disorder. What happened?

Trump: I just remember feeling so out of control. I remember spinning out and didn't know how to stop. I lived in a very Republican town then, so I was really isolated. For the first time in my life, I lost friends because of an election, and I knew I needed to do something. But despite the fact that I'm a psychologist, I didn't know there were treatment programs for that. I knew there were for addictions, but I didn't know there was such a thing for post-traumatic stress.

DER SPIEGEL: Your uncle traumatized half the nation.

Trump: Every once in a while, I think about how this country will be forever stained by what he did. That's really hard. We never recover from that. Maybe in 200 years, but not while I'm alive.

DER SPIEGEL: Don't you think his spell is broken? Joe Biden's policies are pretty popular, and Trump's "Big Lie" hasn't amounted to anything.

Trump: The Democrats don't understand the seriousness of the threat. They are playing by rules in a rulebook that the Republicans lit on fire. There are no rules anymore. They need to start fighting like their lives depend on it. But they're just not willing to do that. There is an unwillingness – also in the U.S. media – to use the kind of language that is accurate and necessary to get people to understand the seriousness of the threat.

DER SPIEGEL: How serious is it?

Trump: Donald is a fascist, and the Republicans are an autocratic, anti-democratic, counter-majoritarian party that would be perfectly happy to establish some kind of apartheid in this country. They are actively trying to destroy our democracy. If they win back the House in 2022, it would be fatal to the American experiment. I wouldn't be surprised if they make Donald, two years before the presidential election, speaker of the house. And then there will never be another Democrat allowed to win an election.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you really believe that?

"The Democrats don't understand the seriousness of the threat. They are playing by rules in a rulebook that the Republicans lit on fire. There are no rules anymore."

Trump: We see it happening already. Last year, there were 155 million presidential votes cast in this country. There have been maybe 36 cases of voter fraud, which is a vanishingly small number. And yet, we've got hundreds of voter suppression laws in place or being pushed by the Republicans. If the Democrats lose the House and/or the Senate in the 2022 midterms, it's over. It is over.

DER SPIEGEL: You don't think the U.S. democracy is resilient?

Trump: The way this country is structured is inherently anti-democratic.

DER SPIEGEL: What do you mean?

Trump: The U.S. Constitution is not a democratic document. For example, we currently have a 50-50 split in the Senate, but the 50 Republican senators represent 40 million less people than the 50 Democratic senators – because the constitution gives every state two senate seats, no matter how populous.

Trump supporters in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6: "It was probably one of the best days of his life. The worse it got, the happier he was." Foto: Shay Horse / NurPhoto / Getty Images

DER SPIEGEL: In your new book, you write: "The ugly history of our country is filled with sordid, barbaric and inhuman acts committed by average citizens which were encouraged or at least condoned by the highest levels of government. To deny this history means to deny our national trauma." That's a devastating judgement – how did you come to that conclusion?

Trump: If there's one thing Americans are very good at, it's perpetuating myths about ourselves.

DER SPIEGEL: For instance?

Trump: One of the most astonishing things this country got away with was portraying itself as a beacon of democracy during World War II, while at the same time an entire population of people was being held in what was essentially a closed, fascist state in the South. Black Americans who served their country came home only to be lynched because they had the audacity to wear the uniform. Part of that is also that people think that the North were the good guys. But a large percentage of Northerners were really racist, too, and perfectly happy to have Blacks freed, but did not want them to have any political power, so they decided that it was more expedient to make common cause with the former Confederates than with the freed men and women.

DER SPIEGEL: Isn't the way of looking at U.S. history changing rapidly?

Trump: The right is doing everything to make sure that Americans continue to stay ignorant about their own history. Imagine if post-World War II Germany hadn't taken the steps that it has taken.

DER SPIEGEL: Not all Germans back then were too excited about that, either.

Trump: That's a good point. It requires the political will. We let people off the hook for flying the Confederate flag because they claim it's just about their Southern history. But they know what it means. It means that they are completely on board with white people owning black people.

DER SPIEGEL: Is the U.S. still a racist country?

Trump: If you're a white adult American, it's almost impossible not to be racist because of the media environment we grow up in, our families or our friends' families, the influences of our education. But when you become an adult, you need to take responsibility for that stuff. If we don't acknowledge it, then it's never going to change. But it's very hard to acknowledge that.

DER SPIEGEL: How much do you blame your uncle for that?

Trump: I blame him for the fact that it's becoming more and more acceptable to be openly racist. What Donald did was prove that racism is a successful platform when you run for office in this country. People like him are out there very openly being racist and white supremacist, and they're getting tens of millions of people to vote for them because either they agree with them or they don't have a problem with it because lower taxes are more important. We're in a really dangerous place.

"The Republicans are an autocratic, anti-democratic, counter-majoritarian party that would be perfectly happy to establish some kind of apartheid in this country."

DER SPIEGEL: Do you also blame him for the disastrous COVID-19 situation here last year?

Trump: That's been one of the worst things for me to deal with. Knowing that your uncle is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is not a good feeling. That many died in exactly the same circumstances my father did, alone, because my uncle, who could have gone to the hospital to be with my dad, rather went to the movies. So, that's been really, really hard. Because of his incompetence and his cruelty we're still struggling with this. Because of his encouragement of the unvaccinated and his failure to model decent behavior, which he is incapable of doing. It's just a kick in the teeth.

DER SPIEGEL: Wasn't he one of the first to get vaccinated?

Trump: Secretly! Everybody in the family got vaccinated. They're all vaccinated. Imagine how people are going to react when they find out that they've all been betrayed and the people they put their faith in lied to them for political expediency.

DER SPIEGEL: Psychologically, how do you get people to admit they've lived a lie for so long?

Trump: It's hard. I don't hold out hope for most of these people. I really don't.

DER SPIEGEL: That sounds rather pessimistic.

Trump: I am bizarrely a quite optimistic person. Maybe that took a hit over the last couple of years. But I am pretty much an optimist. I haven't given up hope.

DER SPIEGEL: Yet the next Trump generation seems ready. Do you expect your cousin, Donald Jr., or your cousin Ivanka, to run for political office?

Trump: No.

DER SPIEGEL: Why not?

Trump: My uncle is such a buffoon, but he does have charisma. If you met him, for the first 10 seconds you would see it. After that, you would realize that he's a total psychopath, but a lot of people are very susceptible to his kind of charisma. Donald Jr. and Ivanka don't have any of that. They don't survive politically without him. They don't survive in business without him. No, I don't see that. Hopefully, they'll all end up in jail.

DER SPIEGEL: What's next for you?

Trump: My next book will not be about my uncle. I'm taking a break. Never write a book about trauma while you're still being actively traumatized.

DER SPIEGEL: Ms. Trump, we thank you for this interview.

— Mary Trump's latest book, "The Reckoning: Our Nation's Trauma and Finding a Way To Heal," was published in August by St. Martin's Press. The book has also been published in German translation by Heyne Verlag.

— Mary Trump, 56, holds a doctorate in psychology and has known the former president since childhood. Her father Fred Trump, Jr., Donald Trump's older brother, died in 1981. Her first book, "Too Much and Never Enough," about her uncle became a bestseller in the United States in 2020.

[talltalestogo]

Adam Jentleson traces the history of the filibuster, which started as a tool of Southern senators upholding slavery and then later became a mechanism to block civil rights legislation.

TERRY GROSS, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. Congress is trying to return to normal after the insurrection. But what is normal? There are more threats of violence surrounding the inauguration. The norm-breaking that became the norm during the Trump presidency is about to change with the Biden administration. Another change will be the new Democratic majority in the Senate. After newly elected Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock are sworn in, the Senate will be evenly divided, 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. But Vice President Kamala Harris will have the tie-breaking vote.

But how much power does that actually give Democrats in the Senate? A majority is not enough to pass legislation anymore and hasn't been for a long time because of the modern use of the filibuster. It takes three-fifths of the Senate to override a filibuster, which means the minority only needs 41 votes to prevent any bill from even coming to a vote. My guest Adam Jentleson says the modern use of the filibuster has crippled American democracy, enabling the minority to systematically block bills favored by the majority. He's the author of the new book, "Kill Switch," about the rise of the modern Senate. He knows the ins and outs of Senate rules because he worked as Harry Reid's deputy chief of staff when Reid was the Democratic leader. Jentleson joined Reid's staff in 2010 and stayed until 2017.

"Kill Switch" is a history of how the filibuster started as a tool of Southern senators upholding slavery, and then later was used as a tool to block civil rights legislation. The book concludes with Senator Mitch McConnell's advances in the use of filibuster as an obstructionist tool. Jentleson is now public affairs director at Democracy Forward, which was founded in 2017 to fight corruption in the executive branch. We recorded our interview yesterday morning.

Adam Jentleson, welcome to FRESH AIR.

ADAM JENTLESON: It's wonderful to be here.

GROSS: It's a pleasure to have you. Let's start with the insurrection. Where were you? And what was your reaction as it was happening?

JENTLESON: I was actually in Georgetown, which is sort of, you know, in the northern part of Washington, D.C., watching it on television. And what was expected to be sort of a routine - well, not routine, but at least an event where we knew what the outcome was going to be turned into something very different and shocking. Even though we knew there were going to be objections and extended debate, it seemed like the outcome was inevitable. And watching what unfolded was just - I don't really - still don't have words to describe it. It was something dangerous and scary and very deeply depressing.

GROSS: Your new book is about how Congress became so polarized. The insurrection was designed to disrupt and punish everyone in Congress voting to certify Joe Biden's win and to prevent him from taking office. What is the larger meaning you take away from the fact that this happened, that this could happen?

JENTLESON: I think that what's clear is that the party itself, its structures, its leaders and the base voters that it responds to, have morphed into something that is much similar to the type of far-right parties that we see in Western Europe. And I think that it's really important for us as a society to confront this fact head on. There are lots of good Republicans. There are good Republican leaders. The problem is that, in politics, the business is winning elections. And what politicians tend to do in almost every case is follow their voters. And I think the danger here is that the voters are the same ones who embraced Donald Trump from the very beginning, who continue to stick with him through all of the outrages of the last four years and will continue to pull the party in this direction.

GROSS: What powers do members of Congress have to censure or remove or in any way address the members of Congress who continued to object to the certification of Joe Biden's victory after it was certified time and time again and after lawsuits upheld it? Knowing now what we know, that they encouraged this mob to - you know, and we see what happened. You know, they invaded Congress. They ransacked part of Congress. Some of them were armed. So what power do members of Congress have?

JENTLESON: They actually have a lot of power here. The courts have given Congress itself a lot of leeway to determine appropriate action for members that they want to punish. And the types of punishments range from censure or reprimands, you know, which are sort of, you know, a finger wag, but much more than that - I mean, it is something that does not happen frequently and would be a massive blemish on the members' records - all the way to expulsion and formally expelling them from the body.

This has not happened very often. But it has happened. And that could be an appropriate remedy here. If the chamber decides to do it - this is true for both the House and Senate - it requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers. So it would require some Republican cooperation. But they can absolutely expel these members if they decide they want to take a hard line and make it very clear that what we've seen in the last few weeks falls outside the boundaries of acceptable behavior in our democracy. They can expel these members. There's nothing stopping them from doing that.

GROSS: House Democrats are now thinking about legislation that will put limits on the president's pardon powers, mandate the release of a president's tax returns, give new enforcement powers to independent agencies and Congress and more prohibitions against financial conflicts of interest in the White House. What do you think the odds are that legislation like that would pass?

JENTLESON: I think they're pretty good. You know, these are very narrow majorities we're looking at in both the House and Senate. So you know, a stiff wind in either direction could determine the fate of that legislation. And in the Senate, as we've mentioned here, you'll need 60 votes to pass things like that. So you would absolutely need some Republican cooperation. But I think that if restoring norms and reinforcing our guardrails are a priority that Republicans share, I think these are the sorts of nonpartisan, systemic reforms that are required. So I think there's a decent chance that they'll pass.

GROSS: Do you think that there's a chance that, having seen the consequences of extreme rhetoric and extreme views, that the partisan rhetoric, the polarizing will be toned down?

JENTLESON: I'd really love to say yes. But I have trouble looking at the events of the last four to five years and being confident in saying yes. I think that the pattern we've seen from the day that Trump entered the Republican primary in 2016 is outrage after outrage, which is immediately followed by words of condemnation from elected officials, but then more importantly, is followed by acquiescence among all Republicans in the party. And I think that is the problem that we face. And I'm not sure what evidence there is that that pattern is going to change right now.

GROSS: Let's get to your book, "Kill Switch." So much of it is about the history of the filibuster and how it's become an obstructionist tool. So let's start with a basic refresher of how the filibuster works and how it can be used and has been used as an obstructionist tool.

JENTLESON: Sure. So in the modern Senate, the way the filibuster works is it's essentially silent but deadly. I think the common perception of what it looks like continues to be aligned with Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" holding the Senate floor, giving a long-winded speech. Perhaps people think of famous senators like Huey Long or Strom Thurmond.

But in the modern Senate, the filibuster looks nothing like that. And actually, speaking is not even required. All you have to do when a bill comes to the floor is have a member of your staff send an email to what's called the cloakroom, which is sort of the nerve center of action on the floor, saying that your member, your - the senator you work for, has an objection to this bill. That single email could be a phone call, could be a conversation in the hallway. That single objection raises the threshold from passing a bill from the simple majority, where technically the rules still have the threshold today, to a supermajority of what is now 60 votes.

And that is a filibuster. There's no speaking required. No one has to take the floor. No one has to explain themselves. If a senator raises this objection and increases the threshold from a majority to a supermajority, they never actually have to explain themselves at any point. They just do it. And it's become accepted. And that is why it's become normalized that most bills in the Senate require 60 votes to pass.

But I just want to emphasize that this is not actually a matter of the rules themselves because the rules still state that a simple majority is what's required to pass. This is a matter of a procedural hurdle that's come to be developed over the last few decades and become routinized. The reason bills need 60 votes to pass is that they can't clear that procedural hurdle to get to the final vote. And that is the problem that is paralyzing the Senate today.

GROSS: Why can just one person hold it up?

JENTLESON: Well, the Senate is designed to give an enormous amount of deference to every individual senator. This is - seems a bit outdated right now because so much power has become invested in the partisan leaders of each party. This is something the book discusses as well, how that has developed. This is also a function of the last few decades. But originally, the Senate was supposed to be a small, intimate chamber where every single senator had as much power as the next. And so what we're seeing today is sort of a residue of the fact that each individual senator is supposed to have the power to hold up a bill if they choose to.

GROSS: So if one senator objects, it's basically understood to be a silent filibuster, kicking in the requirement for a three-fifths majority.

JENTLESON: That's exactly right. You know, they can go to the floor and give a speech if they want to. And sometimes they do, you know, to be performative or to try to drive a message. But they don't have to. And I think, you know, we can count on our fingers the number of times we've seen a speech like that happen in the last few years. And yet every single bill that has come to the floor in the Senate, more or less, has had this filibuster applied to it. So, you know, it is a silent filibuster in most cases that instantaneously, with that one objection, raises the threshold to a three-fifths supermajority.

GROSS: So in addition to blocking legislation, what else can the filibuster block?

JENTLESON: It can take up time is what it can do. Every single time the filibuster applies, you're adding about a week of floor time on to the calendar. And when you stack filibusters up one against another with the hundreds of bills that come to the floor in any given session of Congress, that creates an enormous drag. And I think that is a huge reason why we see such gridlock in Washington today. When it becomes routinized that every single bill that comes to the floor must take a week or more just to try to work through these procedural hurdles, it clogs the gears of government to a massive extent.

The filibuster used to be able to block nominations, but Senator Reid in 2013 changed the rules to lower the threshold permanently to a simple majority. When he made his change in 2013, the one category of nominations that it did not apply to was the Supreme Court. But then Senator McConnell changed the rule to lower the threshold for Supreme Court justices in 2017, when the nomination of Neil Gorsuch was before the Senate.

GROSS: So when Republicans were in power, they made it easier for them to confirm their nominees...

JENTLESON: That's right.

GROSS: ...After blocking Merrick Garland.

JENTLESON: That's right. That's right.

GROSS: So give us an example of how you saw the filibuster used during the Obama administration, when you were working for Harry Reid and he was the majority leader.

JENTLESON: So the example that sticks with me is the use of the filibuster to block a bipartisan background checks legislation after the massacre of first-graders in Newtown, Conn. And I still think I have not gotten over this episode. It was just so, so profoundly misaligned with how we think our government is supposed to operate. But it is a good example for showcasing how absurd things have gotten.

So in this case, you had two senators who could not have been more different - Joe Manchin of West Virginia, sort of a rough-edged populist, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, more of a sort of country club, Chamber of Commerce Republican - who came together in exactly the way the process is supposed to work. They formed a bipartisan bill to increase the use of background checks to gun purchases. This was a very reasonable step - some might argue not even enough - to take in response to the murder of 20 first-graders with an AR-15 assault rifle, but it seemed to be the least we could do.

They secured the support of a healthy majority of United States senators, from Republicans and Democrats; about 55 senators who supported it. They secured the support of lots of different interest groups and expert organizations from across the political spectrum. They had gun rights groups, and they had gun control groups behind the bill. And they secured a massive amount of public support. Polling at the time showed this legislation pulling in the 80- to 90% range. So, you know, everything to this point is going the way the process is supposed to work. Senators coming together, crafting a reasonable piece of legislation to a clear problem and bringing it to the floor.

And then this is where it goes off the rails. Somewhere during the debate, a single senator raised an objection, thus increasing the threshold for passage from a majority to a supermajority. And despite all of the support they had behind this bill and despite the clear need for this action, this bill failed. And during the week of debate that this bill was on the floor, almost none of the senators who opposed it had to come to the floor and explain themselves.

Mitch McConnell was the minority leader at the time. Democrats were in the majority. And over the entire week that this bill was on the floor, McConnell spent a total of about two minutes talking about it at all. He spent more time on the floor giving a tribute to Margaret Thatcher and celebrating the wins of the Louisville men's basketball team in the March Madness tournament that year.

So this is an example not just of how the filibuster blocks common-sense legislation from passing the Senate, but also the way in which it's become totally disconnected from the idea of debate, the idea that senators should be out on the floor discussing thoughtful approaches to legislation out in public. There was no debate. The bill was simply blocked. And the United States government went on record with no policy solution whatsoever to the murder of first-graders in Newtown, Conn.

GROSS: Let me reintroduce you. If you're just joining us, my guest is Adam Jentleson, author of the new book "Kill Switch: The Rise Of The Modern Senate And The Crippling Of American Democracy." Jentleson worked as Senator Harry Reid's deputy chief of staff when Reid was the Democratic leader in the Senate. We'll be right back. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF WES MONTGOMERY'S "FOUR ON SIX")

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let's get back to the interview I recorded yesterday with Adam Jentleson, author of the new book "Kill Switch: The Rise Of The Modern Senate And The Crippling Of American Democracy." It's about how the Senate became as polarized as it is today and how the filibuster became a tool enabling the minority to systematically block the majority. He writes about the filibuster's roots in Southern senators upholding slavery and later in blocking civil rights legislation. The filibuster was not part of the Founding Fathers' plan. They wanted simple majorities to pass legislation. How was the filibuster initiated and why?

JENTLESON: Slowly, over the course of time, but primarily to serve the interests of slave states and try to preserve slavery against the march of progress and a growing majority of both states and Americans who wanted to abolish slavery. The filibuster did not exist in name or practice until about the middle of the 19th century. So this was well after all of the Founding Fathers had passed away. James Madison was one of the longest lived and an ardent opponent of the filibuster to the extent that it sort of was coming into existence in the 1830s. And he passed away in the early 1830s.

So the progenitor of the filibuster, its main innovator, was John C. Calhoun, the great nullifier, the leader, father of the Confederacy. And Calhoun innovated the filibuster for the specific purpose of empowering the planter class. He was a senator from South Carolina. His main patrons were the powerful planters. And he was seeking to create a regional constituency to empower himself against the march of progress and against - what was becoming clear was a superior economic model in the North. So Calhoun started to innovate forms of obstruction that came to be known as the filibuster.

GROSS: So you describe John Calhoun as, like, basically, the father of the filibuster. Let's be clear who he was. I mean, he not only wanted to protect slave owners, he argued that slavery created racial harmony and improved the lives of slaves. You quote him in the book. He said, never before has the Black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually. Amazing that he could justify that slavery was improving the lives of enslaved people.

JENTLESON: That's right. And it's important to note at this time, you know - not to give people of that era too much credit for being enlightened. But, you know, there was a shift in public opinion going on regarding slavery in the United States. The abolitionist movement was beginning to gain traction. And, you know, while folks weren't exactly at the enlightened state of believing in full equality, they recognized that slavery had - was, at best, a necessary evil, emphasis on the evil.

And so Calhoun took it upon himself to argue that there was nothing evil about it. In that same speech that you quoted, he went on to explain that slavery was not a necessary evil, but, quote, "a positive good." He was such an ardent defender and such a vehement racist that he couldn't even accept the sort of antebellum acknowledgement that there were parts of the institution that were evil. So it was very clear what his motivations were. He wanted to preserve slavery. And the filibuster was what he deployed to achieve that goal.

GROSS: Let's take a break here, and then we'll talk some more. If you're just joining us, my guest is Adam Jentleson, author of the new book "Kill Switch: The Rise Of The Modern Senate And The Crippling Of American Democracy." He worked on Harry Reid's staff from 2010 to 2017, first as communications director, then his deputy chief of staff. We'll be right back after we take a short break. I'm Terry Gross. And this is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF BOOKER ERVIN'S "THE BLUE BOOK")

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. Let's get back to my interview with Adam Jentleson, author of the new book "Kill Switch: The Rise Of The Modern Senate And The Crippling Of American Democracy." It's about how the Senate became the polarized institution it is today and how the filibuster became a tool of the minority to systematically block the majority in the Senate. Jentleson worked as the deputy chief of staff for Democratic Senator Harry Reid when Reid was the Democratic leader in the Senate. We recorded our interview yesterday.

So we've established that needing a supermajority to pass legislation was not what the founders wanted. They wanted simple majorities. You've talked about how the filibuster was initiated in the mid-19th century and the ways it was used to enable slave owners and to keep the institution of slavery. But you write that the only time the filibuster was used during Jim Crow with any consistency was to block any form of civil rights legislation and that this happened through the 1960s.

So give us an example of that - like, of the systematic use of the filibuster to block civil rights legislation.

JENTLESON: So what Southern senators faced starting in the 1920s was majority support for civil rights bills. These were rudimentary civil rights bills. These were anti-lynching bills and anti-poll tax bills, but they were civil rights bills nonetheless. These bills started passing the House with big majorities. They had presidents of both parties in the White House ready to sign them, and they actually had enormous public support. Gallup polled the public on anti-lynching bills in 1937 and found 70% of Americans supporting federal anti-lynching laws. And they polled anti-poll tax laws in the 1940s and found 60% support. So Southern senators started to block these bills in the name of minority rights, deploying the supermajority threshold and talking about it as a vaunted, lofty defense of minority rights, just as John Calhoun had done in his time.

This continued to be the case against every single civil rights bill that came before Congress from the time that Reconstruction ended all the way up until 1964, when President Lyndon Johnson finally was able to rally a supermajority of senators of both parties together to break a Southern filibuster against civil rights. But from the 87 years between when Reconstruction ended until 1964, the only category of legislation against which the filibuster was deployed to actively stop bills in their tracks was civil rights legislation.

GROSS: So the senator who was blocking the civil rights bill and leading the filibuster was Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. He had been LBJ's mentor, but LBJ had become more progressive in his views and turned against Russell and defeated Russell's filibuster. Richard Russell, that Southern senator who led the filibuster against the civil rights bill, that is the Russell that the Russell Office Building, where many senators have their office, is named after. I'm wondering if there's any kind of movement to change the name of that building.

JENTLESON: I wish there was. There have been murmurings, but so far, not a real organized movement. And I just want to underscore how disturbing this is. And I think it points to the sort of self-mythologizing that the Senate tends to engage in. Richard Russell was, in his time, by far the most powerful senator of either party. He was never a formal leader of either party, but he wielded more power than the leaders of either party. But he was an avowed white supremacist. And I'm - this was not subtext. This was clear statements that he himself made. At one point, he declared that any Southern white man worth a pinch of salt would give his all to defend white supremacy.

And as you mentioned, Russell was the leading filibuster of civil rights bills. He came to the Senate in the 1930s and led more filibusters than any other senator against civil rights in those 30 years. Today, thousands of Senate staffers go to work every day in a building named after this avowed white supremacist. When Senator John McCain passed away, there was a brief movement to rename the building after him that was quashed by Mitch McConnell. Today, there are murmurings of trying to change the name, but so far, no organized movement.

GROSS: So you say McConnell did not want the Russell Building named after John McCain. Why not? And how did he block that?

JENTLESON: So this is interesting and something I get into in the book. There was actually a decades-long rivalry between Senator McCain and Senator McConnell that revolved around McCain's advocacy for campaign finance reform and his passage of the famous McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act. McConnell was the Senate's leading opponent of campaign finance reform. He was the leading advocate for loosening restrictions and getting more money into politics. This is actually sort of how he made his bones when he first got to the Senate. He learned to filibuster in the 1980s by blocking campaign finance reform efforts.

And so there was one episode in the '90s where McConnell was so angry at McCain for his advocacy for campaign finance reform, where he led an unprecedented three-hour verbal assault against Senator McCain on the Senate floor. It was really something to behold. So they were not exactly the best of friends. I can't say definitively that that contributed. But, you know, McCain was a maverick, and he ended his career by defying McConnell and refusing to vote for Republicans' effort to repeal Obamacare. McCain cast the decisive vote that defeated that effort. It was a dramatic moment on the floor. He came to the floor, looked McConnell straight in the face and turned his thumb down, signaling a no vote, and walked away.

So they were not - this - and that was just a few weeks before McCain passed away. So suffice to say, they had never been the closest of friends, and they were certainly not on great terms when Senator McCain passed. I can't say definitively that that's the reason. But when there started to be an effort and a movement to rename the Russell Building after McCain, McConnell quickly let it known that it would never see the light of day in the Senate that he controlled, once again deploying the power of the majority leader to make clear that this bill would never come to the floor.

GROSS: Let me reintroduce you here. If you're just joining us, my guest is Adam Jentleson, author of the new book "Kill Switch: The Rise Of The Modern Senate And The Crippling Of American Democracy." We'll be right back. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF HOLT VAUGHN'S "BITTER SUITE (FEAT. PHIL KEAGGY)")

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let's get back to the interview I recorded yesterday with Adam Jentleson, author of the new book "Kill Switch: The Rise Of The Modern Senate And The Crippling Of American Democracy." It's about how the Senate became as polarized as it is today and how the filibuster became a tool enabling the minority to systematically block the majority. He writes about the filibuster's roots in Southern senators upholding slavery and later in blocking civil rights legislation.

Who is the innovator of making that supermajority routine, enabling the minority to block any legislation it wants to?

JENTLESON: More than any other single senator, Mitch McConnell is responsible for the overuse of the filibuster. This is simply a fact. It was - it came into frequent use. And I don't want to downplay the role the Democrats played here. From the 1970s through the 1980s and into the 2000s, leaders of both parties began to use it more frequently. Senator Harry Reid, my former boss, used it under President George W. Bush a good deal.

But when Mitch McConnell became leader - the first minority leader in 2007, he began using the filibuster at a rate that had never been seen before in the Senate. And his key innovation was to use it not just with the intent of making it harder to pass individual bills but of deploying it as a weapon of mass obstruction against every single thing that moved in the Senate, which had the net effect of grinding the gears of the Senate to a halt and creating what appeared to any casual observer to be a completely gridlocked Washington.

GROSS: The Senate is now going to be split 50-50, with Kamala Harris as vice president having the ability to break the tie if there is a tie. So it's not enough to pass the threshold of filibuster and cloture. So what does this narrow margin get the Democrats in the Senate?

JENTLESON: Well, a majority, even the slimmest majority possible, gives you a ton of power in the Senate. It puts you in control of all the committees. It doesn't matter if your majority is one seat or even hinging on the vice presidency or if it's 10 seats. You have control of all of the committees.

It also makes Chuck Schumer the majority leader and Mitch McConnell the minority leader, and that means that Schumer, not McConnell, can determine what bills come to the floor. That is a huge difference. We saw how important this is just last month with the fight over direct payment checks, where the bill that passed the House was denied a vote because Mitch McConnell simply refused to bring it up for a vote in the Senate. So even having the ability to determine what bills come to the floor can be very important in the Senate. It means that whether they pass or fail, all or most of President Biden's major legislative agenda items will get a vote in the Senate.

GROSS: Are we about to see a strategic war between Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer?

JENTLESON: I think we are. And I think that what happens is going to have massive and very important ramifications not just for the Senate as an institution but for the everyday lives of American people. My personal view is the inevitable outcome of this war is going to be some kind of Senate reform that lowers the threshold from 60 votes to somewhere closer to a majority. I would prefer that it go all the way to a majority, but we'll see what happens.

I think that the simple fact of the matter is that even if President Biden tries to secure bipartisan cooperation with Republicans, it's simply not going to be forthcoming to the extent that he needs it to be. And that is going to force the question of whether Democrats simply want to give up on their agenda or reform the Senate so that they can pass bills on a majority basis.

GROSS: Every Senate has the right to make its own rules. But what does it take to pass those rules? Do you need a supermajority?

JENTLESON: You need a simple - you only need a simple majority to change the rules. This has evolved as a precedent starting in the 1970s but has really been set in concrete first by Reid when he deployed the nuclear option to change the rules in 2013 and then was affirmed by McConnell when he used a simple majority to change the rules in 2017 to confirm Justice Gorsuch. So that means that while reform is complicated, it only takes 51 votes to do it. And I think Democrats might find themselves quickly facing the choice of reforming the rules or getting nothing done.

GROSS: What's held the rules back from being reformed in the past is that when Democrats are in the majority and they have a chance to reform the rules - and ditto for Republicans. When they're in the majority and have the chance to reform their rules, they're afraid of how it will be used against them the next time they're in the minority.

JENTLESON: Yes, and that's a legitimate fear. And I don't want to downplay it. But the simple fact of the matter is that the ability of the minority to block the majority from taking action benefits conservatives far more than it benefits liberals. I think this has misaligned sort of the gyroscope of American politics. I think our system works well when progressive politicians pass legislation that helps improve people's lives, that expands the social safety net and that fixes some of the fundamental imbalances of our democracy. And then, you know, if Republicans take back power, they can trim away at those excesses - maybe, you know, cut spending, et cetera, et cetera.

What we have now is a system where nothing gets done. We have major crises that we are facing from climate change to income inequality to democracy reform. And the supermajority threshold simply allows a minority of conservatives to block anything from getting done, and I think that's an unsustainable dynamic for a democracy.

GROSS: You've written that you think whatever Biden accomplishes is basically going to have to be through executive action. Do you think that's true even if the threshold to override a filibuster is lowered from three-fifths to something else?

JENTLESON: I think lowering the threshold opens up a world of possibilities. I think that it's still going to be difficult. You know, getting to 50, 51 votes requires securing the votes of Democratic senators like Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who tend to be pretty conservative. But this was Madison's whole point. This is why he set the threshold at a majority. It's hard to secure majorities for legislation in the House and the Senate and get a president to sign them. It's a big challenge. It doesn't lead to untrammeled majority rule, but it does lead to things getting done. And I think the Senate will be better off as an institution, and America in general will be better off if the Senate can once again pass thoughtful policy solutions to the challenges America faces.

GROSS: Let me reintroduce you. If you're just joining us, my guest is Adam Jentleson, author of the new book "Kill Switch: The Rise Of The Modern Senate And The Crippling Of American Democracy." We'll be right back after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF THE WESTERLIES' "HOME")

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let's get back to the interview I recorded yesterday with Adam Jentleson, author of the new book "Kill Switch: The Rise Of The Modern Senate And The Crippling Of American Democracy." It's about how the Senate became as polarized as it is today and how the filibuster became a tool enabling the minority to systematically block the majority. Jentleson worked for Harry Reid when Harry Reid was the Democratic leader of the Senate. And the positions he held with Harry Reid were communications director and deputy chief of staff.

What reforms would you like to see in the Senate to make it less polarized and to end some of the gridlock?

JENTLESON: I think reforms need to be very clear-eyed about the larger context in which the Senate is operating. We're not going to fix our polarized country with Senate reform. We're not going to fix forces of negative partisanship. What we have to do is be very focused on restoring the Senate's fundamental purpose, which is not the filibuster. It is not any of the rules that have cropped up over the last 200 years. The Senate's fundamental purpose is to produce thoughtful policy solutions to the challenges America faces today. I think that begins with restoring the ability of bills to pass on a majority threshold. And I think all other reforms stem from there.

You have to make it possible to pass things again, period. I hope and believe that once the gears start turning, this will facilitate bipartisanship. One thing that's interesting is that, for all of the decades when the Senate operated as a majority rule body, there was plenty of bipartisanship. The other side might fight as hard as it could to stop a piece of legislation. But once it became clear that the legislation had the votes it needed to pass, you would often see the side that opposed it jump on board and start participating in the process. And that's what's healthy about it. We need to see bills moving.

Hopefully, that will produce bipartisanship. Hopefully, Senate Republicans will decide that working with Democrats is better than simply sitting on the sidelines. But even if they don't, we will actually be passing bills again. And I think that is a healthy thing for America, especially given the scope of the challenges that we face right now.

GROSS: You're a Democrat. And you're saying that now that Democrats will be in power in the Senate. Would you be saying that if Mitch McConnell was the majority leader?

JENTLESON: Well, I would. And I can say that because I started writing this book when Mitch McConnell was the majority leader. And so I think that there's no question that Republicans will use this power when they regain the Senate majority. But I think that, on balance, progressives and liberals benefit far more than conservatives by the ability to pass legislation. This is - stems from the fundamental fact that conservatives are the party that wants to stop things. They're the party, in William F. Buckley's famous phrase, that stands athwart history, yelling, stop.

They achieve much of what they want to achieve by stopping things. They can roll back regulation without passing bills on the floor. They can do this through executive actions and other means. Fundamentally, the way that progressives advance their agenda is by passing big legislation. None of the other tools available to them, whether it's executive actions or anything of that nature, come anywhere close to the scope and power of passing legislation. It's simply necessary for our government to function to be able to pass legislation. I would also note that most of the damage that Trump did during his time in power - for the first two years of his administration, Republicans had a trifecta control in Washington. They controlled the White House, House and Senate.

They sought to repeal Obamacare on a simple majority vote. They used an end run around the filibuster to do this. They were unable to secure a majority vote to repeal Obamacare. It is much harder to pass things, even at a majority threshold, than people generally assume. I think you simply have to restore the Senate's power to pass things. You can hope that bipartisanship stems from that. I certainly hope that it will. But we simply need to have a functioning Senate and a functioning federal government that can meet the challenges we face with thoughtful solutions again.

GROSS: So Joe Biden was a senator for years before becoming vice president. Mitch McConnell has been in the Senate a long time. How did they get along before the Obama presidency, before Biden became vice president?

JENTLESON: I would describe their relationship as professional, but not much more than that. I mean, Senator McConnell is sort of a business-only type senator. He doesn't have a lot of friends even within his own conference. I'm not saying that to be mean. It's simply a statement of fact. And so they had a cordial, businesslike and professional relationship. But I wouldn't describe it as particularly warm beyond that.

GROSS: One of the things that President Trump was able to do is roll back a lot of regulations, including in the Environmental Protection Agency, through executive action. When Biden becomes president, can he reinstate regulations through executive action? Or can you only roll them back through executive action?

JENTLESON: He can reinstate some of them. There are important things you can do through executive action on environmental regulations. You can also roll back the rollbacks in a lot of cases. So I think it's fair to say that he can do enough to sort of get you back to even, you know, back to about where we were before President Trump. And then there are some things he can do to go a little bit further. I know that student loan debt forgiveness is a big topic of conversation. That's one example on that. There are things he can do on the environment and climate front. But the simple matter is that there's no substitute for passing legislation. It is simply the most powerful tool the federal government has. And if you are unable to use that tool, then President Biden is going to leave office with most of his agenda unfulfilled.

And then there are structural reforms, things like D.C. statehood, that I think are essential - automatic voter registration, restoring many of the imbalances that have led to the chaos and feeling of unrepresentation (ph) that have really crippled our democracy recently. Things like D.C. statehood, civil rights reforms, automatic voter registration - these can only be done by passing legislation. So it is really essential that this tool be restored.

GROSS: If Washington, D.C. became a state, it would have two senators representing it in Congress. That has the potential of being somewhat of a game changer. What would it take for D.C. to get recognized as a state?

JENTLESON: Well, I think it will pass the House. And so it's simply a matter of securing 51 votes in the Senate if the Senate chooses to lower the threshold. It will never get 60 votes. I think that's simply a fantasy. So to make D.C. a state, you're going to have to reform the filibuster and lower the threshold to a simple majority. And let's be clear - D.C. deserves to be a state. It's made clear it wants to be a state. I think with the - its inability to quickly send in the National Guard last week to meet the violence, we've seen many of the reasons why this district deserves to be a state and have the power that comes with that.

It would be the same size as Wyoming and about the same size as several other states. It simply deserves that power. This goes back to the basic principle of taxation without representation, right? It is governed by federal laws, and it deserves the right and the representation to help shape those laws.

GROSS: What power would D.C. have had that it didn't have during the insurrection?

JENTLESON: Governors are able to call up the National Guard, and D.C.'s mayor was unable to do that. It had to rely on Maryland and Virginia to send help. And I think that the response could have been quicker if D.C. had been a state and had more power over self-government.

GROSS: Finally, President Trump will be out of office in days. No matter what route he takes to leave office, certainly by Inauguration Day, he will leave office. How much Trumpism do you think will be left in the Republican Party when Trump is no longer president?

JENTLESON: I have a pretty bearish view on this. I unfortunately think that Trumpism is here to stay and reflects the modern Republican Party. I think that Republican voters have stuck with Trump north of 80, 90% through all the outrages of the past four years. I think that barring some major action to expel his enablers from this party, to expel those who enabled the violence in the Capitol last week, a clear demonstration that these types of people are not welcome in their party - unfortunately, I think we're going to see the Republican Party continue to move in a Trumpist direction.

GROSS: Adam Jentleson, I want to thank you so much for talking with us today. I really learned a lot from your book.

JENTLESON: It was so great to be here, Terry. Thank you.

GROSS: Adam Jentleson is the author of the new book "Kill Switch: The Rise Of the Modern Senate And The Crippling Of American Democracy." We recorded our interview yesterday morning.

Tomorrow on FRESH AIR, historian Kerri Greenidge, author of "Black Radical," will tell the story of William Morris (ph) Trotter, an African American newspaper editor who led mass protests for civil rights in the 20th century. Trotter gained a national following and challenged leaders like Booker T. Washington, who took a more cautious approach to Black empowerment. I hope you'll join us.

(SOUNDBITE OF THELONIOUS MONK'S "WELL, YOU NEEDN'T")

GROSS: FRESH AIR's executive producer is Danny Miller. Our senior producer today is Roberta Shorrock. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Amy Salit, Phyllis Myers, Sam Briger, Lauren Krenzel, Heidi Saman, Therese Madden, Ann Marie Baldonado, Thea Chaloner, and Kayla Lattimore. Our associate producer of digital media is Molly Seavy-Nesper. Seth Kelley directed today's show. I'm Terry Gross.