#federal laws mean nothing to trump

[vintageseawitch]

i've been losing it about j donut "okay, good" vance but now learning that RFK "brain worm chainsaw wielding whale skull collector" jr can't get his name removed from swing state ballots because he waited too long has me howling. what a little collection of weirdos they got there. this is such a bizarre timeline omfg.

[hopepunk-humanity]

this is hope-punk to me but i'm not quite sure how this'll fit with the rest of the blog so i'm anon-ing. this is very heavy into the US's situation right now, so anyone that that may make spiral, maybe sit this one out

y'all know about the attempted "buy-out" of govt workers? my parents are govt employees. my mom told me the night before about the mass emails sent out basically saying "hey guysss if you quit now we'll pay your through september pretty pretty please quit"

mass emails don't usually get sent out from the OPM like this. workers receive emails from the individual department heads.

this is a massive fuck-up, because people knew it was fishy immediately. some even thought it was fake. people are confused and angry. my mom said "they're so tech-savvy yet they can't even write a convincing email", and thousands of other workers are saying the same. because this email is the exact same email that Melon Husk sent out to Twitter employees before he cut them

but this isn't Twitter. this is the entire US government workforce that hundreds of millions of people rely on to do their jobs every single day.

mind you, the govt is gonna run out of money March 15th (if the debt ceiling isn't raised). they CANNOT pay any workers who resign through september, if they pay them at all, which senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) is openly highly skeptical of and there is a video of him on the senate floor telling government workers to not take the deal, echoing exactly what federal unions are telling everyone

and now tens of thousands (probably hundreds, if i'm being honest) of govt workers are standing firm. they know what this means. the fed subreddit is just filled with "stand firm! hold the line!" posts and propaganda that i fucking love to see. one post has over 60k upvotes on it. saw dozens of comments that all say something like "i've been begging for a way out for the past few weeks but this email just reignited my passion for public service and upholding the law".

this is a war on the american people and they are ready to stand up to it. they know mass resignations will fuck up so much shit, and that there is NOT enough people wanting to work for the government to fill those holes.

as of 2pm today (1/29/25), a lawsuit has been filed by the AFGE about Trump trying to politicize the civil service, with special emphasis on how he's going about it. this will not go down quietly. add that to the list of every other lawsuit being filed against him

my mom sent out "keep calm and carry on" to her team and offered guidance if anyone was thinking about resigning (mainly, her younger team members who don't have tenure - understandable). this is a tumultuous time that is scary. my mom is never phased but she is so over this bullshit, as is my dad

this administration is trying to scare/threaten people into quitting because they know a gutting is not going to be easy or even possible and to be completely honest, that email was absolutely a threat to people's jobs.

this is a grand stand of solidarity to the american citizens these people took an OATH to work for. they are tired but they are re-fired up to fight this administration with everything.

and do you know what fighting tyranny looks like for government workers? doing their jobs well. making sure people get what they need. standing up for the constitution. because for some goddamn reason, the clown show believes that government workers just sit at a desk all day and do absolutely NOTHING

Donny may be smarter this time 'round and he knows what he wants, but he has no idea how to get any of it.

bottom-line is, a large chunk of federal workers are in republican-lead states in roles that encompass every department. a lot of government work involves blue-collar workers that get paid jack shit and are NOT partisan in any capacity. this is going to fuck people up, REGARDLESS of political affiliation

so stand behind the government workers who do so much. they need us just as much as we need them. and trust, WE NEED THEM.

if you want us to be okay, you have to believe that we CAN be okay first. and i'm believing that we will come out onto the other side of this. because american citizens hold all the power here, and not him, and this (so far failed) government takeover is just proving that even more. he is overconfident.

in the darkness, this is a spark of hope. people know what we have to lose and they are FIGHTING for it

As someone who was trying to get a federal job before this mess forced me to put those efforts on hold for now, I've been watching this situation unfold closely. I'm thrilled with what I've seen from the federal workforce. It makes me all the more confident that this is the career I want, because the people already there have the same mindset about it. It assures me, too, that there a huge swathes of the government (far more people than in congress) who have this country's best interests at heart.

Suffice to say, it's been really difficult to be hopeful about the U.S. government for the past several years. But for me at least, the federal workers are re-writing the narrative.

Hold the line. Don't resign.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dean Obeidallah at The Dean's Report:

On August 20, a little before dawn, 87 year-old Lidia Martinez was abruptly jarred awake by an unexpected knock on her door. The longtime activist who for over 35 years has worked to expand voter registration among seniors and veterans in south Texas, cautiously peered out the door. Standing on her doorstep were nine police officers dressed in tactical gear and carrying firearms. After showing her a search warrant, Martinez’s home was searched as she was forced to stand outside in her nightgown in her driveway in full view of her neighbors. Martinez was later questioned for three hours after which the police seized her phone, computer, personal calendar and more.

[...]

These bad faith searches orchestrated by Paxton were predicated on the claim that the people being investigated were registering non-citizens to vote—despite zero evidence presented of wrongdoing. Very alarmingly, if Donald Trump and House GOP have their way, these types of raids would be happening nationwide with federal law enforcement under a GOP President.  That is why GOP House Speaker Johnson is now demanding the proposed SAVE Act be included in any deal to provide funding to keep the government open.

To be clear, federal and state law already makes it a crime for non-citizens to vote. But this new federal legislation would establish criminal penalties for registering an applicant to vote in a federal election who fails to present documentation proving U.S. citizenship.  That means that what we are seeing in Texas is coming attractions of what the GOP wants to do nationally.

Keep in mind despite Texas AG Paxton’s two year investigation, no charges  have been filed against any of the people whose homes were searched.  Indeed, there may never be charges because even Paxton’s basis for the search is BS. In his press release announcing the investigation, the Texas AG presents no evidence of wrongdoing. Instead, Paxton makes baseless claims like these organizations have set up voter registration booths outside state agencies where people could register inside. Paxton’s press release literally includes this question with no answer: “Why would they need a second opportunity to register with a booth outside?” But nowhere in his press release does he even allege any criminal conduct—only questions.

And Paxton—a close ally of convicted felon Trump—showed his bad faith earlier in August on a radio show when he peddled lies about non-citizens voting. Paxton declared, “There’s a reason Joe Biden brought people here illegally. I’m convinced that that’s how they’re going to do it this time, they’re going to use the illegal vote. Why were they brought in, why did he bring in 14 million people?” adding, “He brought them here to vote.”   That is nothing more than the type of BS you hear on Fox News. But now Paxton has weaponized government by targeting people registering those he believes will vote for Democrats. The backlash to Paxton’s actions have been swift. LULAC requested that the Department of  Justice investigate Paxton's office for Voting Rights Act violations. LULAC CEO Juan Proaño and the group's national president, Roman Palomares, summed up well what is really going in their letter to the DOJ: "These actions echo a troubling history of voter suppression and intimidation that has long targeted both Black and Latino communities, particularly in states like Texas, where demographic changes have increasingly shifted the political landscape.”

The Texas GOPs voter intimidation tactics are based on the faux outrage campaign against noncitizen voting.

[patriottruth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[notwiselybuttoowell]

Let’s start with Oregon – what does this mean for unhoused people in Grants Pass?

It means that Grants Pass can enforce its 24/7 citywide ban on public homelessness. The question was whether cities should be able to jail or fine someone who has no other alternative but to live in public space – the unhoused folks who are considered “involuntarily homeless”. The city was already allowed to arrest people who had declined offers of shelter. Now, Grants Pass will likely be fining people who have no shelter options.

When you fine someone who can’t pay, the fine can eventually turn into a misdemeanor. Studies have shown that it doesn’t help an already poor person to be driven into debt. Fining someone makes them less likely to emerge from homelessness, including by ruining their credit score and making them unable to afford basic needs like food.

Beyond fines, the city of Grants Pass is going to eventually jail more people. This is punishing people who have done nothing more than exist in public space. This case was about whether you can punish people for the unavoidable consequences of being human. The supreme court said yes.

How do you expect the decision will impact other jurisdictions across the west?

This is quite possibly the most consequential decision in history up until this point relating to homeless rights. It’s hard to overstate how important it is.

I think more cities will attempt 24/7 citywide bans on homelessness. I think it will encourage cities to shift away from investments in evidence-based approaches like adequately investing in affordable housing, permanent supportive housing and diversion and shift toward more law-and-order, enforcement-led efforts to essentially jail and banish already marginalized people from public view.

Grants Pass argued it wasn’t criminalizing the status of homelessness, but criminalizing the act of camping in public. The supreme court majority in its ruling on Friday concurred, and said that criminalizing an act does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Presumably cities could in the future go even further than Grants Pass has, as long as they frame their laws as prohibiting public camping, instead of prohibiting homelessness, although I don’t think that issue has been fully resolved by today’s decision.

Donald Trump and others have used increasingly dark rhetoric, threatening to force people into “tent cities”. Will the ruling embolden those kinds of efforts?

I think we could see the forced displacement of unhoused folks into what I would call internment camps out in the middle of nowhere – a mass migration of unhoused people from one place where their existence is banned to other places where the laws don’t ban their existence. Many cities already have authorized camps in far-out locations that are completely invisible to the general public. I learned about one that was bordered by a dump, a recycling center and railroad tracks – the quintessentially least desirable place.

The idea of rounding up unhoused folks and forcing them into camps or out of the jurisdiction entirely is obviously very concerning. And it should be of grave concern, because once something is invisible, you don’t know what’s happening to the already really vulnerable people living there. Trump has publicly contemplated using his federal authority to move people into the middle of the desert where they won’t bother anyone by existing. It’s a very dystopian vision of internment camps and the likely abuses and neglect that would come from that. It’s terrifying.

Prior to this ruling, cities already had quite a lot of latitude to restrict camping, correct?

Yes, cities could already sweep encampments as much as they like. In many cities, they’ve been sweeping tents at record rates. They could also already enforce anti-camping laws if there was something that could be shown to be an urgent public health or safety issue with respect to a particular encampment – for example, if an encampment was blocking a whole sidewalk. Cities could sweep without even giving notice in those circumstances. Under the previous standard, cities weren’t even required to provide adequate shelter. It just said if the city lacks shelter, it can’t jail or fine someone, which to me should be so straightforward, and yet somehow here we are.

How do you expect legal advocates for unhoused people will respond to this ruling?

The dehumanizing message of today’s decision is going to galvanize civil rights attorneys. It has to. Anytime somebody’s basic right to exist is threatened, civil rights activists have to regroup. And cities should not approach this too cavalierly. There will be legal consequences for cities that pursue 24/7 citywide bans on homelessness. All this decision does is remove the protections for unhoused folks under the eighth amendment of the US constitution. States across the country have analogs to the eighth amendment in their state constitutions. States can and often do interpret their state constitutional provisions to be more protective than the federal constitution. The eighth amendment at its core is really about how much we value the humanity of vulnerable people. So it’s crippling from a human standpoint to have that protection removed. But there are other avenues that homeless rights advocates and human rights lawyers can still pursue. They can make arguments under other federal constitutional provisions. There are still due process arguments under the 14th amendment. You can still argue there is selective prosecution. There are arguments that could be made under the fourth amendment [which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures]. There’s the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], and most chronically homeless people would likely qualify as someone with a disability who has protections from state-sanctioned abuse.

[foxgirlmoth]

Okay, lets go through this apparent list of positives that Biden is in favor of.

Trans Rights: There have been multiple laws within states to fully close off especially trans kids rights to medical treatments and more. This is extremely current. Biden puts in minimal effort to look like he's doing anything at all for trans and queer rights, and there haven't really been any efforts aside from doing one or two proposals that immediately get shot down, and he's more than okay with that, hence why there's no longer really any push for this shit still. If you're trans, you can't piss in Utah without the risk of getting a fine right now. Even though these are state laws, the fact that there's been nearly zero effort federally to address this besides the title IX rule, speaks a lot about priorities in this area.

Abortion Access: Are we just forgetting the whole Roe V Wade getting overturned thing that happened in 2022? Are you really trying to say that this is good for abortion access? Abortion access has gotten actively worse.

Environmental Reform: Biden has endorsed extreme oil drilling projects and in general oil companies still love him! Not to mention the train crashes which we'll get to later.

Healthcare Reform: Covid-19 is still around and is sadly predicted to stay around for a long while. Healthcare is still private and a competitive field in the US and that causes major issues as well. If you look this up, you see articles titled along the lines of "Biden has lowered the cost of insurance" and meanwhile it just dropped in 2020 once during the pandemic but has been growing in cost.

Prescription Reform: Reading into this, not much has changed, which isn't surprising under genocide Joe. Drugs in the US are still higher than anywhere else in the world, and with healthcare issues still abundant, this is still a big issue.

Student Loan Forgiveness: Student debt is still extremely high in the US, and while Biden has rolled out some plans for forgiveness, it's a fraction of the debt, and he primarily uses the whole thing to win over swing states. This is a dangling carrot that provides very little overall.

Infrastructure Funding: Train crashes from 2020-present, worldwide, but notice the amount of US crashes! Neat! Quite literally just look up train crashes in the US during his presidency, there's too many to link here. It is also important to remember that Biden signed a bill to prevent rail strikes, preventing a lot of pressure to the government and the economy, which would have been a GOOD THING. Seriously, this guy has fucked up our environment and our rights in multiple ways.

Advocating Racial Equity: Structural racism within the US is still a huge problem, Biden hasn't addressed much. Also people are still in cages on the Mexico/US border (Which has been maintained by every president in office since it was established), with a very recent crackdown on the border.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Just. Look at the racial equity and trans rights sections above. Biden does the bare minimum, loves focusing on swing states, and all around uses the ol' carrot on a stick.

Vaccines and Public Health: Once again look above at sections on healthcare, abortion access, and prescription reform. Its bad. Remember how Covid-19 vaccines aren't being continued for free?

Criminal Justice Reform: This is just structural slavery still. Disproportionate amounts of black people are incarcerated, police are still heavily funded under Biden. He does not care about reforming the justice system, he even supports cops breaking up campus protests! Cool!

Military Support for Israel: Yup! Both sides suck! Biden has a very long history of sure hating Arabic countries though! He's done nothing but ship weapons and participate in the genocide of Palestinian people. Would Trump also do this? Yes. Does this mean this is an issue you should just drop and call a non-issue? No, what the hell are you talking about.

Israel/Hamas Ceasefire: Netanyahu has no plans to accept any actual ceasefire, yet Biden still provides weapons and support. Wow! That sure is weird? I wonder if Biden really cares about a ceasefire or how he just looks publicly.

Biden is not a good president, much less a good human being. You provided such a flimsy chart with zero resources or support behind you, and it just feels like people are just making shit up at this point. Get your heads out of the liberal cesspool you grew up in.

[darkmaga-returns]

If you were wondering how long it would take for Democrats to sue the Trump administration, we have an answer. With the ink barely dry, eighteen Democrat state attorneys general, four additional Democrat state AGs, and a collection of outside groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union all filed federal lawsuits over President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. Their argument, that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship for practically anyone born here, is flatly wrong as a matter of law. The courts should use this opportunity to get it right.

The 14th Amendment — ratified after the Civil War and ensuring that former slaves were U.S. citizens — provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The plaintiffs focus on the first part, but barely glance at the second, arguing that, with few exceptions (such as the children of foreign diplomats in the United States), anyone born in the United States is “subject to its jurisdiction,” simply by virtue of being within its borders.

They do this by relying almost entirely on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that the plaintiffs get hopelessly wrong. In Wong, the court held that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. Omitting some key facts, the plaintiffs argue this means that all children born in the United States of all immigrant parents, with the aforementioned very rare exceptions, automatically are U.S. citizens. Even a cursory read of the opinion, however, shows that the Supreme Court ruled nothing of the sort.

[transfemme-shelterdog]

I know this sentiment is like, rampant, on any subreddit that isn't transmasc specific

But right now especially, it really hurts

And I don't know what to do

https://www.reddit.com/r/trans/s/hZVLpf6qmq

Aw jeez, that's a doozie of a post. Let's go through this line by line, indents are from reddit, italics are from the Executive Order:

The language of Trumps executive orders regarding trans rights have just been revealed. It is beyond disgusting that his approach to transgender rights was to specifically target transfems and transgender women in his language. 

Well, not to be a pedantic bitch, but Trump didn't write the thing. Stephen Miller did. Anyways, the author of this post is wrong. The order is very unilateral and affects both trans men/mascs and trans women/fems

Some examples:

(b) “Women” or “woman” and “girls” or “girl” shall mean adult and juvenile human females, respectively.

(c) “Men” or “man” and “boys” or “boy” shall mean adult and juvenile human males, respectively.

(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

(f)  “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa

(b)  Each agency and all Federal employees shall enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations to protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes.  Each agency should therefore give the terms “sex”, “male”, “female”, “men”, “women”, “boys” and “girls” the meanings set forth in section 2 of this order when interpreting or applying statutes, regulations, or guidance and in all other official agency business, documents, and communications.

(d)  Agencies shall effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.

As you can see, the order talks about both "men" and "women" in it. It's not targeted only at trans women/fems.

Nearly all orders did not mention the existence of transmascs and transgender men, and used dehumanizing terms and phrases to generalize all transgender people, primarily transgender women.

Buddy, did you read the order? It talks about how men are men from birth, which I can assure you, isn't talking about trans women. What do you think "permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa" means?

Us transmascs will not suffer the most- it's clear

Too early to say which will suffer "more" (whatever the fuck that means), but trans men/mascs will suffer

WE HAVE WORK TO DO AND WE HAVE BEEN ELECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF TO STEP UP AS THE MORE PRIVELEDGED PEOPLE WITHIN THE TRANSGENDER COMMUNITY.

Literally what? Babes, honey, of two current elected officials, one is a trans man, James Roesener, and he's a state representative in fucking New Hampshire. The other, Sarah McBride, is a trans woman, and holds a higher position than James. No trans man has been "elected by the government".

Do social work for trans people, participate in campaigns, spread online awareness, stand up for our trans sisters, protest for easier hormone access.

Ah yes, Estrogen, Spiro, and Progesterone, the hard HRT to get. Nothing like those trans men who can just order testosterone off the internet, right? /s

Does that mean that literally anyone can just access feminizing HRT? Nope, but it's definetly a fuck ton easier to get, and actually possible to get, on the grey market, compared to T. If anything, people should be fighting for more access to T, but I guess not.

Even though trans men aren't as targeted as trans women, we WILL NOT STOP FIGHTING for you.

Oh honey, there's still a lot of targeted Trump policy that affects trans men. Have you forgot about the mass protests about the revoking of Roe v Wade? Or how Trump signed another order that revoked Executive Order 14020 which focused partially on access to reproductive rights, 14021 which focused on trans kids rights in school, 14075 which is another bill that gave rights to trans mascs?

Hell, Trump axed a bill that would form an initiative to focus on how to combat the act of corrective rape, which disproportionately affects trans men/mascs, as sexual violence against trans women/fems is usually public/with an audience such as forced genital exposure (Doan-Minh, S. (2019). Corrective rape: An extreme manifestation of discrimination and the state's complicity in sexual violence. Hastings Women's LJ, 30, 167.)

This reads almost like a trans woman pretending to be a trans man, trying to push a narrative that it's the women that are truly affected the most, when in reality, trans men/mascs and trans women/fems are fucked differently, in different ways, with different issues for each.

That whole post gives me the ick, and if the OP is actually transmasc, then I feel bad for his need to prostate himself before trans women and downplay the trauma that his fellow men/mascs undergo daily.

[yourlocalmeta1head]

I hate seeing these fucking videos of people who voted for Donald Trump regretting voting for him. If they had just done more research and didn't vote for him just because then the can "afford gas and groceries" they would've learned that if you are the average American your taxes will be higher and you will have larger bills. Donald Trump's tax plan does include a few cuts for the middle class but 83% of tax cuts that are included in Donald Trumps tax plan go to the people that are making over half a million dollars a year. Kamala Harris's tax plan would've been better because 100% of the tax cuts in her plan would go to members of the middle and low class.

Donald Trump has also reported "not being associated with project 2025" and "having nothing to do with project 2025" which is obviously false seeing that many people who are involved in project 2025 have served Donald Trump in one way or another. For example; Paul Dans, who is a former chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Personal Management under Trump is leading the project. In addition, Trumps campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt has appeared in Project 2025 promotion videos.

Here are ways project 2025 could affect you and your personal life. Project 2025 would stop people from earning overtime pay. He wants to undo recent policy that made over 4 million people newly eligible for overtime. Project 2025 also wants to weaken child labor protections. In quote "The young people should be able to work inherently dangerous jobs" and work in rolls that are not allowed thanks to protections from the department of labor.

Project 2025 also says that they will quote "Secure the border, finish building the wall, and deport illegal aliens" Donald Trump is planing on doing mass deportations. He declared that once he takes office that he will use military to do mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

They want to make it harder for women to get abortions by removing it from laws and taking away approval for abortion pills. They want to stop some services that give out birth control and instead suggest less reliable methods. That might take away funding from clinics that provide abortions which could also affect other services those clinics offer. They want to promote traditional roles for men and women. They will take away protections and programs that help gay people, thus making it harder for them to be treated fairly and get the support they need. They might cut back on programs that help poor people get healthcare and other support meaning it could be harder for poor families to get the help they need.

These are some of the ways project 2025 will affect the climate. Project 2025 would rewrite the most legal tool we have for protecting wildlife in ways that would harm imperilled species. For example, it specifically calls for removing protections from gray wolves and Yellowstone grizzlies. They also propose to repeal the Antiquities Act, which would strip the president of the ability to protect the public land and waters of national monuments. Project 2025 would have agencies that manage the federal lands and waters to maximise corporate oil and gas extraction. Speaking of oil, the agenda directly aims to expand the Willow Project which the largest proposed oil and gas undertaking on the U.S. public land. This also calls for drilling into Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and mining into Minnesota’s Boundary Waters wilderness.

If you go to a public school congratulations. You are now required to take the military entrance exam. Page 134/ 135, "Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery—the military entrance examination—by all students in schools that receive federal funding." "Increase the number of Junior ROTC programs in secondary schools"

If you voted for Trump I promise you will regret it in the next 4 years.

Edit from after the election: Donald Trump is not lowering gas prices and adding tariffs to companys that import goods and to make up for that he will be increasing the price of these goods.

Trump has aslo started mass deportations and ICE has been spoted waiting at schools, breaking down doors, and there have even been reports of ICE deporting people who are AMERICAN CITIZENS. People should not be scared to do basic things in fear of being deported by ICE.

edit: here is a link to the project 2025 document where I got my sources from

[aibidil]

Trump administration not following court orders—what now?

If you're not paying too close attention to what's happening in the US government right now (good for you, we all need to protect our mental states), the important thing to know right now is:

Federal courts are working overtime to halt Trump's illegal executive orders and the actions of Trump/Musk. There have been multiple court orders to stop him.

This is how the system is supposed to work. Check out these updates from the NC Attorney General Jeff Jackson, one of the democratic attorneys general doing god's work right now:

But now we come to the fun (not fun) part: the Trump admin isn't following the court orders. This is simply not something presidents do. One article I read said it hasn't happened since the Civil War. So what happens now?

Example: Trump ordered a spending freeze on federal grants. A federal judge ruled on January 29 that Trump can't simply stop the dispursal of funds that Congress has already authorized. (In the US, Congress has the sole constitutional authority to authorize spending, and these funds have already been approved.) In the ruling, the judge ordered Trump to release the funds. Weeks have passed and the funds haven't been released. Yesterday (Feb 10, 2025), the judge issued a follow-up ruling ordering Trump to comply with his previous ruling. The judge didn't find the administration in contempt of court—which is likely the next step—but stated unequivocally that they were not following his order of January 29 despite it being within their power to do so.

Even before this ruling, Vice President Vance (ew I can't believe I just typed that) ominously posted on Twitter:

The fact that he's wrong (it's the basic checks and balances American kids learn in civics, and it's Marbury v Madison) is unimportant. What's important is that he's setting the stage for the Trump admin to deny that the courts can constrain their actions.

This is the "constitutional crisis" people keep referring to. The law/Constitution means nothing if it's ignored. And when it's ignored, it's the job of the courts to call that out and issue orders to stop the unlawful/unconstitutional action. But if they don't listen to the orders..... What next? There's no clear answer. It doesn't seem likely that the military will enforce the federal courts' orders against Trump, does it?

This is such a breakdown of the rule of law that the American Bar Association issued this statement yesterday:

[contemplatingoutlander]

Apocalyptic rhetoric is just as dangerous as the violent kind

Paul Waldman is absolutely correct about how the Republican's "apocalyptic rhetoric" about the Democrats could ultimately lead to violence just as much as the violent rhetoric. The GOP frames Democrats now as deliberately wanting to "destroy" America. (Ironically, it is the GOP who have turned toward autocracy and seem determined on establishing one party rule at all costs. This suggests that once again, Republicans are projecting onto Democrats.)

“I cannot stand these people that are destroying our country,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to a crowd of Donald Trump’s supporters at the Iowa State Fair this past weekend while the former president looked on approvingly. Gaetz then added: “Only through force do we make any change in a corrupt town like Washington, D.C.” The second part of that statement made headlines, as it’s not every day that a member of Congress advocates “force” to achieve political goals. But the first part ought to be just as troubling, because the two parts operate together. The idea that our opponents are purposely attempting to lay waste to America is often the justification for all kinds of radical action — violence very much included. Barely a day goes by without prominent Republicans repeating that claim. Trump regularly says his political opponents will “destroy the country,” or have already nearly destroyed it. It’s a staple of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s rhetoric. “If woke ideology takes over, it will destroy this country,” DeSantis says. If President Biden is reelected, the governor insists, “the left is gonna absolutely destroy this country.” [...] Yes, liberals have made dire warnings about a second Trump presidency. But that’s unique to Trump, who actually tried to overturn a lawful election and retain power, and last year called for the “termination” of the Constitution. So the assertion that if he became president it could mean the end of democracy is at least not too far-fetched.* The talk of the United States ending its run some time in the next few years because Democrats passed some modest expansion of health coverage or kept pushing for a transition to green energy, on the other hand, is bonkers. Yet, unlike other kinds of rhetorical calls to extremism, we don’t police it at all. Journalists tend to be very attuned to hints of political violence. When a candidate says he wants to start “slitting throats” in the federal government, as DeSantis recently did, we condemn it and explore its troubling implications. We press Republican contenders to admit that Biden fairly won the 2020 election and to repudiate the violent insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021. In contrast, we treat partisan apocalyptic rhetoric as mere hyperbole. But it’s the premise that turns anger into action. If you actually believed your opponents were literally trying to destroy your country, what wouldn’t be justified? Threatening election officials? Storming the Capitol? Assassinations? You might protest that Republican politicians don���t really believe this talk. But clearly, many of their supporters do. Which is no surprise given how often they’re told that it’s true. [...] Any rational Republican knows the truth about the next election: If Biden wins, it will mean nothing more than four years of policies they don’t like. That will be deeply unpleasant for them. But it won’t mean the end of America, and they shouldn’t be allowed to say so without challenge. We ought to treat apocalyptic rhetoric just like we treat violent rhetoric: Take note of it, condemn it, challenge candidates to defend it, and explain the threat it poses. Why? Because many of the voters who are listening think the Republicans spinning out wild tales of America’s imminent destruction mean what they say. [emphasis added]

____________ *In my opinion it isn't just Trump, many on the left have legitimate concerns about extreme right-wing Republicans like DeSantis and white Christian nationalists who seem to want autocracy/ one-party rule because they have either said and/or shown that they do.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

ANNA BONESTEEL AND EVAN GREER at Them:

Pride Month is over. As the “LOVE IS LOVE” banners come down and companies lose the rainbow gradients from their logos, we’re faced with a painful truth: LGBTQ+ people, especially the most marginalized among us, are in the crosshairs of a queerphobic backlash that is targeting our health, our histories, and especially our youth. And things are getting worse, not better. According to NPR, half of all US states now ban gender-affirming care for people under 18. Eight states now censor LGBTQ+ issues from school curricula via “Don’t Say Gay” laws, and two more states are considering similar legislation this year. The number-one book targeted for censorship is a graphic novel memoir about gender identity.

This June, Democratic lawmakers marched in Pride parades and spoke on stages, vowing to protect our community and fight back against legislative attacks on queer youth. But some of these same lawmakers are actively pushing federal legislation that would cut LGBTQ+ youth off from resources, information, and communities that can save their lives. Currently, 38 Democratic senators support the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a bill that is vocally opposed by many queer and trans youth, along with a coalition of human rights and LGBTQ+ groups. As a queer- and trans-led advocacy group focused on the ways technology impacts human rights, our organization, Fight for the Future, has seen bills like KOSA before: misguided internet bills that try to solve real problems, but ultimately throw marginalized people under the bus by expanding censorship and surveillance rather than addressing corporate abuses. KOSA’s most obvious predecessor is SESTA/FOSTA, a Trump-era bill that its supporters claimed would clamp down on online sex trafficking. Instead, the bill did almost nothing to accomplish its goal, and has actively harmed LGBTQ+ people and sex workers whose harm-reduction resources were decimated by the subsequent crackdown on online speech.

Like SESTA/FOSTA, some of KOSA’s supporters have positive intent. Many lawmakers and organizations support KOSA because they are concerned about real harms caused by Big Tech, like addictive design features and manipulative algorithms. But, also like SESTA/FOSTA, KOSA doesn’t touch the core issues with Big Tech’s extractive, exploitative business model. Instead, KOSA relies on a “duty of care” model that will pressure social platforms to suppress any speech the government is willing to argue makes kids “depressed” or “anxious.”

Under KOSA, platforms could be sued for recommending a potentially depression- or anxiety-inducing video to anyone under 18. We know from past experience that in order to protect their bottom line, social media companies will overcompensate and actively suppress posts and groups about gender identity, sexuality, abortion — anything they’re worried the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could be willing to argue “harms” kids. How do you think a potential Trump administration’s FTC would use that kind of authority?

Other features of the bill stretch its censorship potential further. Despite language claiming that the bill does not require platforms to conduct “age verification,” to meaningfully comply with the law, platforms will have to know who is under 18. This means they’ll institute invasive age verification systems or age-gating, which can completely cut off access for LGBTQ+ youth who have unsupportive parents, and/or make it unsafe for queer people to access online resources anonymously. KOSA creates powerful new ways for the government to interfere with online speech. For this reason, the bill is like catnip to extreme right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation, the coordinators of Project 2025, who have explicitly said they want to use it to target LGBTQ+ content. KOSA’s lead Republican sponsor, Marsha Blackburn, has also said in an interview she wants to use KOSA to protect minors “from the transgender.”

The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) purports to protect children, but in reality, it’s a censorship bill that would impact LGBTQ+ youth. #StopKOSA #KOSA

[patriottruth]

This is an hourly reminder that on March 4th, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered donald j. trump to have 87 Democrats in both houses of Congress remove his insurrectionist disqualification from ever holding any federal office again. He failed to do so prior to November 5, 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

Rachel Maddow: Why was donald trump's campaign telling his supporters not to vote, they don't need any votes, and to skip the polls?

[collapsedsquid]

But that actually means they’re nowhere. Unless Democrats intend to cave, they can’t provide votes for a law Trump doesn’t intend to follow, and funding the government on a short-term basis is a key element of ensuring his compliance. To make the legislation worth the paper it’s printed on, Democrats need real assurance that they aren’t falling for a bait and switch. They can wrangle as many promises and caveats and carefully worded clauses into the law as they want, but if there’s nothing stopping Trump from violating it, he will almost surely do so. So as to the legislative text, and the conditions Democrats place on their votes, the goal of the negotiations needs to be to make the law stick. I would go about this two ways: First, as a demonstration of good faith, I’d insist Trump get right with the law that’s already on the books before the March 14 funding deadline. The government is operating on the basis of an appropriation that Congress passed last year. Trump is breaking that law, among others, by impounding funds and instructing agencies to ignore their charters. Stipulating that Trump has already broken certain agencies so badly that they can’t be quickly reconstituted, and that he may not be able to simply rehire many of the people he fired, Democrats could nevertheless insist that he turn all funding spigots back on now. That food and medicine resume flowing to starving children in the developing world, and federally funded medical research is allowed to resume. Organizations that Elon Musk stole money from must be made whole. Etc. Condition: Before we vote for anything, honor the law we already passed. But the main idea, which first dawned on me several weeks ago, is that Democrats should only agree to fund the government in short bursts, or (similarly) to stack a longer agreement with multiple expiration points, so that every two or three months, Congress has an opportunity to certify that Trump is still in compliance. There are clever lawyers in the Democratic Party who may have other, better ideas. But right now, the plan seems to be: Write clauses into the appropriations that more or less say, “we really mean it, though!” Hope for the best until the end of September. That’s nowhere near good enough. Give him that, and he’ll resume disregarding the law on March 15.

[voltaspistol]

Summary of this week's insanity in the USA

Connie Willis 2/1/2025

"Dear Everybody:

Two horror stories today from the Trump administration. The first is that Trump, who has been promising to "turn on the big faucet" and get California plenty of water to fight the fires (and turn tumbleweeds green) did just that. Sort of. He ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to completely

empty two reservoirs in California’s Central Valley, a completely insane act:

--Trump ordered the release of massive amounts of water from Kaweah and Success lakes. The water from the reservoirs do not drain into rivers that go to Los Angeles. The water would have to be pumped at great expense across the valley to the California Aqueduct and then many, many more miles to get to Southern California.

--Trump tweeted a photo of "beautiful water flow that I just opened in California. Today 1.6 billion gallons and in 3 days it will be 5.2 billionh gallons. Everybody should be happy about this long-fought Victory! I only wish they’d listened to me 6 years ago--there would have been no fire."

--The only problem is Trump has NO idea what he’s talking about. The release will do nothing to help the fires or release fire danger, and it will result in "channel capacity" in all the rivers in the area (water right up to the brims of all of them) and major flooding downstream. The last time "channel capacity" was seen (during the 2023 floods, when they had no choice but to release the water) the water destroyed dozens of homes and businesses and caused significant damage to infrastructure.

--Safety managers were not notified. Even worse, Trump didn’t give farmers any notice that he was doing this. They only heard it through the grapevine, and it caused them to scramble to move machinery and animals out of the resultant flooded areas.

--River Water Master Victor Hernandez: "In 25 years I’ve never seen anything like this. I was given no explanation at all."

--There are agreements about how releases should be made and how affected populations should be notified, none of which were observed here.

--And worst of all, the water in the reservoirs is there to provide water for irrigation during the dry summer months. Releasing it now means there won’t be any left when it’s needed for crops. Farmers are scrambling to preserve fresh water resources.

--And the water doesn’t belong to the federal government. The reservoirs do, but the water belongs to the farmers and others through an incredibly complex system of water laws.

--Tulare City Water Manager Dan Vink: "This decision was clearly made by someone with no understanding of the system or the impacts that come fromn knne-jerk political actions."

--The Army Corps of Engineers eventually convinced Trump to release only a fraction of the water (one-sixth) but even so it caused major problems downstream. And was insane. Which means if you’re counting on various government entities like, say, the military, to refuse to do what he orders them to do even if it’s crazy, you can forget that.

--The irony here is that the Central Valley is Republican (which I’m sure Trump doesn’t know--he thinks the entire state is "leftist") and all these farmers who are now screwed voted for Trump. Talk about FAFO.

In other FAFO news:

--Liley Gaines, a pro-deportation conservative activist, is melting down because her immigrant husband is facing deportation.

--Florida Republican Rep Maria Salazar is very upset that Cubans are being deported.

--The chair of the Arab election campaign for Trump blasted the President’s "wild" call to relocate Palestinians.

--The head of Gays for Trump is upset about Trump’s remark about there being only two genders. "He’s talking to the wrong people," he said, and added that Trump needs to get away from social conservatives.

--A Latina tweeted: "This is so crazy that we voted for Trump. We trusted in the word that he promised, as Latinos. This is crazy, that starting next week multiple cities will be hit be immigration raids...I hate that I voted for him, now I am so scared for my family."

--(You’ll notice that none of these people are screaming at Trump. They’re just unhappy about his policies, all of which he said he would implement MULTIPLE TIMES during his campaign. Many of them think he’s being influenced by bad advisers or that he doesn’t know what is happening.)

--In another kind of FAFO, Kansas City is reporting 70 cases of tuberculosis.

The second horror story of the day is that Trump has launched his global trade war:

--Trump announced yesterday that he is imposing tariffs on Canada, Mexico, the EU, and China starting today. The U.S. is now in a massive trade war.

--The stock market promptly dropped 338 points before the stock market closed (with more to come.)

--All of these countries are going to have 25% tariffs put on them except China, which will get 10%. This is a perfect example of the corruption of this administration--they were supposed to get 25% tariffs but Elon Musk has big companies in China, so Trump dropped the tariff. Ron Filipkowski: "Trump promised much higher tariffs than this on China repeatedly during the campaign, but it appears Elon Musk was successful in negotiating those down for his largest business partner--the Chinese Communist Party.

--Trump is also threatening 100% tariffs against Brazil, India, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE for no discernable reason except I guess he thinks it will make us even richer.

--The problem is Trump has NO idea how tariffs work. He thinks the tariffs are paid by the countries he imposes them on when really they’re paid by the Americans who buy stuff, which drives prices up. Trump said yesterday,: "Tariffs don’t cause inflation. Tariffs cause success. There could be some temporary short term disruption. And people understand that." He also said nothing anyone could do at this point would stop the tariffs.

--This will no doubt "concern" Susan Collins, who’s from Maine, which will take a huge hit from the Canadian tariffs. She wrote a long tweet today, explaining that 95% of Maine’s heating oil comes from Canada and so does the jet fuel and diesel oil the Air National Guard Base in Bangor depends on completely. "From fisheries to potato farmers to paper mills, these tariffs will have a significant impact on Maine’s economy and risk increasing costs for our residents." She said she was working with the Trump administration trying to convince them not to do it, but Trump is obviously not listening.

--Even some Republicans are alarmed. Rand Paul: "Taxing trade will mean less trade and higher prices."

--Hedge funds are betting the stock market is going to suffer a devastaing crash due to Trump’s tariffs. Goldman Sachs data reveals a dramatic surge in "shorting." (Remember the last big crash?) The bond market is indicating an economic disaster ahead and expects rising inflation.

--ByTor: "What the Trumpists are doing to the economy is like if a nuclear power plant operator said, ‘Let’s pull out all the control rods and see what happens. It won’t melt down immediately, but it will shortly. And at some point you can’t just put those rods back in."

In good news:

--The Mexican president is sending a letter of protest to Google over their renaming of the Gulf of Mexico.

--Elon Musk is really mad that his cars are being called "Swasticars" and he is being called "Muskolini."

--The LA school police will not comply with ICE raids on the schools.

--The Quakers are suing over ICE raids in churches on the grounds that it is a violation of the free exercise of religion.

--All of the Latin Anerican heads of state are holding an emergency summit to discuss immigration, the environment, and regional unity.

In really interesting news:

--Trump’s new press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, has ties to convicted fraudster Guo Wengui.

Best insight of the day, from David Michigan: "Trump is a historically weak president. He was elected with less than majority support and by a threadbare margin. His party ‘controls’ Congress only by a hair. He issues blustery executive ‘orders’ because he can’t get anything substantive passed through the legislature, and most of those ‘orders’ collapse under he most cursory scrutiny. When Democrats unite to oppose him--and I hope and pray they finally will come out of their foolish defensive crouch and do so (looking at you, Michigan delegation)--they will be able to stop almost his entire program. All is NOT lost. There will be elections this year, and next year, and the year after that, each one a means for throwing the bums out, and the sooner the better."

Most ironic and un-self-aware line of the day, from Trump’s "I’d rather be pretty than smart" lawyer, Alina Habba: "We cannot have sloppy, lazy, and inappropriate hires because American people are going to suffer and die."

Best line of the day, from alally: "If the deaths of almost 70 people due to a plane crash makes you joke sarcastically, you might be a psychopath."

Keep calm and carry on,

Connie Willis"

[boreal-sea]

Something I don’t see people discussing properly on tumblr is how progress happens. I don’t mean the mechanics, I mean the overall momentum.

I’m going to use geology here for a moment. For a long time there were two schools of thought about geologic processes: catastrophism and uniformitarianism. The first posits that all major geologic change happens in sudden and catastrophic moments. Volcanoes suddenly appear, landslides occur, earthquakes tear apart the ground. Uniformitarianism instead states that all geologic change is slow and constant. Mountains erode over millions of years, tectonic plates move only centimeters per year, rivers carve out a course over thousands of years.

Now, even a non-geologist can look at this and correctly observe that in fact BOTH of these types events happen. Volcanoes and erosion exist side by side. And geologists agree. Today it’s accepted that much of geologic history is typified by long slow processes interspersed with rare moments of catastrophe.

And social change is a lot like geology. It feels like a lot of people fall into catastrophism or uniformitarianism and these two groups are at odds with one another. Catastrophists in particular are extremely frustrated with the slow periods of social change. Uniformitarianists tend to be wary of the "burn it all down" crowd, citing the harm that would do to vulnerable groups.

But social change does in fact move at two paces. It tends to plod along, with groups slowly gaining rights over decades. One small law here, another there. When you look back over the course of 50 years you can see significant change! But in the moment, it feels like nothing is happening at all. However, there are moments where there is significant and sudden change. The Civil War is one example. Brown v. Board of Education is another example.

And like nature, these watershed moments, these leaps forward for human rights, are usually the result of a culmination of social pressure, of the slow incremental change that happened in the decades prior. The Civil War didn't come out of nowhere. Neither did Brown v. Board of Education. These moments of upheaval need the work of the slow and steady folks.

Again, to use geology, I think about it like how earthquakes work. An earthquake does not (usually) come out of nowhere. It is instead the result of pressure building up between two tectonic plates. This pressure finally becomes too much, the friction between the plates is overcome by the shear force, and the plates violently lurch. In some places, there are lots of little earthquakes: it doesn't take much force to cause the plates to slip, and the resulting earthquakes aren't very big. In other locations though, pressure has been building for a very long time. When that pressure is released the earthquake is massive.

A lot of people who comment angrily on my posts begging them to vote for the Democrats are catastrophists. They want change NOW. They are tired of the slow and steady work. But I think Roe v. Wade being overturned is an important lesson in how sometimes, those catastrophic moments don't always have staying power, especially if other slow behind-the-scenes progress is not done to enshrine those rights -- and with regards to abortion, the blame is entire on the Democrats. They failed to enshrine those protections into federal law, and instead simply assumed Roe v. Wade would never be overturned.

I'm not against sudden progress, but I do not think it's something you can artificially manufacture. You cannot intentionally make this volcano explode, you cannot trigger an earthquake on purpose. To borrow something from a Folding Ideas video (In Search of a Flat Earth), it seems as though some of these people are attempting to manufacture the circumstances needed to bring about catastrophic change through any means necessary, including allowing Trump to become president again. The harm this may cause is irrelevant; the ends justify the means to these people.

So when I propose we stay the course, vote Democrat, and continue to push for ranked-choice voting, the catastrophists see this as paramount to agreeing to everything the current system is doing. I don't want everything to change right now, so clearly that means I must completely agree with, enjoy, and benefit from the system as-is. This of course could not be further from the truth. I actually want society to change almost completely. I want election reform, I want us to stop being capitalists, I want bigotry to fade into a distant memory, I want us to do everything we can to fix global warming and pollution. The idea world I imagine is very different from the world we currently live in.

I do think another catastrophic lurch forward will happen. I don't know what it will look like. It will probably be the culmination of many years of effort. Maybe it will be an election many years from now in which every state uses ranked-choice voting and a 3rd party candidate actually wins. Maybe it will be something that happens tomorrow. Biden could pass away, leaving Harris to take his place as the nominee. That might seem like it's not the result of decades of effort, but Harris even being in the White House is a result of slow effort.