#maybe some republican senators

[travelingtwentysomething]

Corporate Greed, meet Corporate Justice

[tf2heritageposts]

hello brothers and sisters

you’re probably well aware of what kosa is after this point, but if you don’t, it’s a bill that is going to be reviewed by the senate this monday(february 26th, 2024) to see if it’ll pass and move onto the house.

if it passes, queer people and queer topics will be heavily censored online, as well as topics such as Palestine.

don’t panic quite yet though, as there IS still time to help prevent it passing in the senate, and also if it DOES pass in senate, it will have to also pass the house(which is a clusterfuck right now).

you can help stop it passing by emailing/calling your senate AND house representative and telling them WHY you oppose this bill. it’s important you call both of them

if you don’t know who your senate/house representatives are:

senate: https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member

house: https://ziplook.house.gov/htbin/findrep_house?ZIP=

if you don’t know what to say, use these two scripts

USE THIS IF YOUR SENATOR/REPRESENTATIVE IS REPUBLICAN:

USE THIS IF YOUR SENATOR/REPRESENTATIVE IS DEMOCRAT:

and finally, make sure not to panic and keep yourself informed. the bill still has to pass house before it can be signed by biden(who really wants the bill to pass, so if you’re calling a republican with your script, maybe include that). this can take weeks or months, or it even can die in house if we are able to make it stall long enough

we also need to make a very big stink about kosa and make it trend wherever we possibly can(tumblr, twitter, tiktok, etc), and make sure people KNOW our hatred for the bill. use the hashtag #stopkosa so it can hopefully trend

i’d heavily encourage you to reblog this so the word can be spread, but know you are NOT a bad person if you don’t reblog it. i too have ocd and understand

for more resources:

here is a link to the stop kosa discord so you can get advice and updates on kosa

and here are some links with more information, call scripts, and petitions

good luck men

[qqueenofhades]

oh god is biden dropping out? i don't know what happens then

Jesus effing Christ.

Few thoughts:

The billionaire Democratic donors got their way, apparently. All I saw was that the big-dollar donors were secretly putting pressure on the rank-and-file Democratic elected officials (i.e. House and Senate) to denounce Biden or not get any more money, and other shameful backroom maneuvering to knife Biden. I will refrain (lol, no I won't) from speculating that billionaires of any political stripe feel threatened by Biden's increasingly progressive tax/wealth redistribution policies, and saw their chance after the bad debate performance to knife him. Because until further notice, I'm going to think that was the biggest factor.

I don't know if there's an actual health condition that made Biden agree it was the best time (in fucking July) to step down, but if this was an issue, there needed to be planning last year, at the earliest, to prepare for a new successor. I don't know what's going on. This is a clusterfuck on many, many levels.

However: it is true that this does change things and not necessarily only for the worse, as long as Harris is immediately confirmed as the new nominee and this stupid Democrats In Disarray nonsense, which is giving the media exactly what they want, is put to a fucking end. If Harris is also swept aside and the billionaire donors try to install their preferred "Centrist!!!" candidate (lol Manchin or some shit) with an equally antidemocratic closed-door Star Chamber convention, then yes, we're fucked. Because the Congressional Black Caucus and African American voters saw exactly what the rich white man billionaires were trying to do by torching Biden and then Harris, and they are not going to play ball with some Magical White Man replacement.

If Harris is immediately confirmed as the new nominee (and to the best of my knowledge Biden has endorsed her), then she has a chance of reinvigorating the race. There were a lot of Americans who did not want either Biden or Trump. I suspect they were fucking braindead, but so be it. Harris has apparently polled pretty and increasingly well in recent days (in some cases actually better than Biden) and again, there is no remotely small-d democratic alternative to her. The billionaire donors already trashed the duly elected (by the primary process) Democratic nominee. If they do the same to Harris, then yes. We will have Trump and there won't be any more democracy in this country on either side, because the Republican big-bucks donors will gleefully pick up where the Democratic big-bucks donors left off.

Jesus fucking Christ.

The message needs to be "Harris is Joe's successor, she is younger and already has four years of experience and is the only candidate." Anything else is a fucking gift from god to the Republicans, once more getting trashed after Trump's terrible RNC speech. Maybe she can then pick Whitmer or Shapiro (both popular and effective Democratic governors of swing states, MI and PA respectively) as a running mate, but the nominee has to be Kamala. There is no other fucking choice. This is already enough of a mess.

If that can happen, and the fucking donors can refrain from fucking it up, then... okay. It's not great, but it does change things. It makes the ticket younger. It makes it historic (first Black female president beating Trump would be amazing). It could reach people disenchanted with the current two-old-white-guys setup.

This is an incredible sacrifice on Biden's part and I only wish that I could believe he did it voluntarily, rather than being forced out by a small class of rich people worrying about his policies getting too progressive.

I wish him only the best and I recognize this decision was taken under extreme pressure. If we then lose to Trump, I hope everyone who forced Biden out burns in hell.

I was a diehard Biden supporter not because I loved the guy personally, but because he was the only choice for preserving democracy in America. The essential stakes of the election have not changed, even if the billionaires just knifed us in the fucking back, possibly to nobody's surprise, because R or D, they are not our friends.

Kamala is the only choice. I will now have to defend her as hard as I did for Biden. She needs to beat Trump. There is nothing else to it. If you think she can't, then you need to work at helping her do that. There is already enough calamity and doom. We do not have a choice. We cannot lose sight of what is at stake here.

Kamala Harris/Whitmer and/or Shapiro and/or Buttigieg 2024.

The end.

[potofsoup]

Happy July 4th, everyone, and good luck to the UK voters out there!

Wow it's Year 11 of doing these!! Here's the AO3 link to the past 10 years, and here's the tumblr link.

Reminder that this is a long game -- some of the judges making decisions were appointed back in the 80s. Many of the cases that were decided this round were from Trump's term. So it's going to take long-term, consistent voting over a decade to start tipping things in the other direction. (Which I talked about in 2018 re: Trump shenanigans and 2022 re: Dobbs).

A lot has been done by the Biden administration (I'm assuming most folks have seen this post by boreal-sea with their very helpful sources), and much of that will be overturned by Trump, especially if he gets the Senate, and especially now that he would have a blank check for anything "official". So let's make sure that doesn't happen.

And even if Trump does get elected, your decisions down-ballot might effect control of the House or Senate, or might make it easier to vote next time, plus the whole plethora of state and local issues. It's Republican state attorney generals who are challenging climate regulations, for example.

Plus, when you really get down to it, only one of the candidates plans on pardoning himself and all his friends if he wins, and attacking the government if he loses. Maybe that guy shouldn't be the President.

If you're new to voting, remember to check voter registration deadlines! I'm a permanent vote-by-mail voter and it's so nice. :)

Transcript under the readmore

Page 1: Sam and Bucky meet up with Steve for a picnic. Steve: Thought you guys were still in Sudan? Bucky: I’m forcing Sam to take a break.

Sam collapses onto the picnic blanket. Sam: Oof, it just never stops, does it? Steve: Nope.

Bucky hands Sam an orange popsicle. Bucky: Eat and relax for a bit, Sam. Sam: Thanks.

Page 2: Bucky asks Steve: How are things state-side? Steve responds: HORRIBLE. Bucky: I thought you’ve been tentatively hopeful about what Biden has been able to achieve? Steve: I was! Student loans, child care, climate regulations, infrastructure, labor, trans rights … he’s quietly done a lot through regulatory improvements and congress bills. But now all people will talk about is how he’s OLD. And then there’s the Supreme Court’s decisions … Chevron and immunity… Steve puts his head in his hands, while Sam and Bucky look on with some concern.

Page 3: Bucky hands Steve a blue/raspberry popsicle: Steve, take a deep breath, and a popsicle. Sam: Sounds like we missed a lot. What’s going on? How bad is it? Steve: Pretty bad. The Supreme Court has made some decisions that give the Court and the President A LOT of discretionary power. Sam: Yikes, that doesn’t sound good. Steve: Well, the Chevron thing means that judges with life-term appointments can override policies made by government agencies. And now it’ll be harder to hold a President accountable because he will have immunity for any “official” actions.

Page 4: Sam: So if the President tries to, say, overturn a democratic election result, he’ll be allowed to as long as it’s in his job description? Steve: I don’t think threatening state electors is “official” business, but that will be decided by federal judges. Who get their jobs by approval from both the President and the Senate. Bucky: Yeesh. No wonder you’re stressed. Any good news? Steve: Well, thanks the Biden and the razor-thin Senate majority, the newer bills don’t rely on the Chevron deference. Still not great but not catastrophic. Sam, squirting ketchup on his hot dog: So what I’m hearing is that it’s now more important than ever to have a President and a Senate who you can trust to appoint fair judges, pass bills, and not commit crimes.

Page 5: Steve: Plus all of the state level offices, now that more and more deciding power has been thrown back to the states — abortion, LGBTQ rights, voting access… Bucky: Hey, at least this is a big election year so we can actually do something! Steve, with his arms crossed, looking surly: Except that all people want to talk about is how Biden is “too old” and “not doing enough,” as if that is on par with Trump’s desire to dismantle basic rights! As if the candidate who doesn’t embody ALL their ideals is not worth voting for! Bucky interrupts with a smart and a loud “PFFT.”

Page 6: Bucky: Um, Steve. YOU were like that in 1940. Sam, nudging Bucky: “Oh, this I gotta hear. Spill, Barnes.” In sepia, Steve is pacing around their apartment while Bucky is sitting and reading a newspaper. Steve: I can’t believe he’s running for a 3rd term! we need a fresh candidate to vote for! This is hardly a choice at all! AND he refuses to engage in Europe! All of Europe under fascist control and we’re just twiddling our thumbs? He’s letting millions die through his inaction! Bucky: Most people don’t want another war, Steve. If he came out for it, he would lose. Steve, indignant: But Buck, it’s your Polish relative who are in danger! Bucky, closing his newspaper and looking at Steve: Yeah, and between FDR and Willkes, I trust FDR to help if he could.

Page 7: Steve, in sepia, looking away: Should he be encouraged to do more? Maybe I should vote for Browder. The Communists have historically be Anti-Fascist.

Sam interrupts off-screen: Waitaminute! STEVE was going to PROTEST-VOTE? Steve: We were in a Blue State, Sam! Sam: But what about the down ballot races?! Steve: RELAX, I did my due diligence down-ballot. I wanted a senate that’s more progressive than the President.Voted LaGuardia for Mayor, too. Steve hesitates: Then, when I got to the President… I realized that the Best case scenario would be that my vote did nothing, versus if it actually spoiled the election. And when I asked myself who I could trust to work with my Senator… well, FDR had a good record with Labor. (sepia shot of young Steve voting) Bucky interrupts: Hold on, Steve.

Page 8: Bucky, eating a cookie, arching an eyebrow: You didn’t vote for Browder? Why didn’t you tell me? Steve: And have you say “I told you so” for the next century? Bucky: Heh.

Steve, with hand on his chin: What’s weird was that, despite everything, I still felt HORRIBLE when I ticked that box. Sam: Sounds like you built up the meaning of that vote far too much in your head. Logically, we know that a single box can’t represent all of the complexity of a whole system, but the desperately WANT it to. Just look at how people have built up so much around the term “Zionis” that it’s made productive conversations difficult.

Page 9: Sam and Steve speak in the background while Bucky reaches into the cooler and pulls out a box. Steve: Sigh. And that’s something that goes beyond the election. Sam: Which is why we need to vote, AND do other things. Bucky, looking at Steve and Sam: Like how Steve works to push organizations on the local level? Or like all the work you do as Captain America? Sam: Exactly. Vote AND.

Sam looks at Bucky fondly: Like how you vote AND make me and Steve take breaks. Bucky, looking stern because he can’t handle compliments: Shush, Sam.

Bucky holds up a cake that has the number “107” on it: It’s time for cake. Happy Birthday, Steve.

[batboyblog]

Doing a mail-in vote and for the more local stuff, it does feel a little disheartening to see "No candidate" under the democrat or even independent option, leaving only one unopposed republican option. Is there a way to work towards change for stuff like this, or is it just something we have to sit there and take?

when it comes to politics there's always something you can do.

Any ways, yes this problem has been disheartening Democrats in red areas for many years, but you'll be happy to hear people are working to fix it. For the first time ever the DNC has been able to fund support to every single state party, all of them from Alaska to Wyoming. Much of this will be focused on long term party building goals to break Republican super majorities in Red states to allow Dems to get a voice in states like Idaho, or Missouri where they've been locked out and Republicans have had their own way totally for years.

One part of the problem is just what you're talking about, failure to field any Democratic candidates some times even for close or winnable seats, sometimes for seats where a majority of voters voted Biden but there were no Democrats running for State Rep/Senate.

Florida's Dems have really gotten out in front of this, for the first time in 30 years, there's a Democrat running in EVERY Florida state House seat and other state parties are catching up

everyone should check out the DLCC who's job it is to fight for state level Dems

As for what you can do? well past signing up to volunteer for the DLCC if there isn't any local candidate near you, I'd say check out Run For Something, its an organization that focuses on supporting young first time candidates running for state and local office, they've made a big push on school boards to counter Moms for Liberty. They also like to support candidates who are running where Democrats don't normally run, I've made a lot of calls for them over the years and remember one women who was the first Democrat elected to her city council in 120 years. You might not get to talk to anyone running in your area, but maybe you can help fix the problem for someone else by supporting someone running for local office in a Red area

and finally look up your local Democrats and join. Every local Democratic Party has a "candidate recruitment" Committee or officer who try to talk community leaders into putting themselves out there and running for office. Running for even local office is hard and scary and largely an unknown for most people. If you can help build up a local party that'll have their back, more people will take the risks, and will do better for having a ready to go network of support rather than just winging it on their own. You can be the person in the room insisting that the party find someone to run for every office, if not you who? if not now when? etc.

[deadpresidents]

"Somehow disruption doesn't begin to cover it. Upheaval might be closer. Revolution maybe. In less than two weeks since being elected again, Donald J. Trump has embarked on a new campaign to shatter the institutions of Washington as no incoming President has in his lifetime.

He has rolled a giant grenade into the middle of the nation's capital and watched with mischievous glee to see who runs away and who throws themselves on it. Suffice it to say, so far there have been more of the former than the latter. Mr. Trump has said that 'real power' is the ability to engender fear, and he seems to have achieved that.

Mr. Trump's early transition moves amount to a generational stress test for the system. If Republicans bow to his demand to recess the Senate so that he can install appointees without confirmation, it would rewrite the balance of power established by the Founders more than two centuries ago. And if he gets his way on selections for some of the most important posts in government, he would put in place loyalists intent on blowing up the very departments they would lead.

He has chosen a bomb-throwing backbench congressman who has spent his career attacking fellow Republicans and fending off sex-and-drugs allegations to run the same Justice Department that investigated him, though it did not charge him, on suspicion of trafficking underage girls. He has chosen a conspiracy theorist with no medical training who disparages the foundations of conventional health care to run the Department of Health and Human Services.

He has chosen a weekend morning television host with a history of defending convicted war criminals while sporting a Christian Crusader tattoo that has been adopted as a symbol by the far right to run the most powerful armed forces in the history of the world. He has chosen a former congresswoman who has defended Middle East dictators and echoed positions favored by Russia to oversee the nation's intelligence agencies.

Nine years after Mr. Trump began upsetting political norms, it may be easy to underestimate just how extraordinary all of this is. In the past, none of those selections would have passed muster in Washington, where a failure to pay employment taxes for a nanny used to be enough to disqualify a cabinet nominee. Mr. Trump, by contrast, has bulled past the old red lines, opting for nominees who are so provocative that even fellow Republicans wondered whether he is trolling them.

The message to Washington is simple, according to Roger Stone, the longtime Trump friend who relishes his own reputation as a political dirty trickster. 'Things are going to be different,' he said by text."

-- Peter Baker, "Trump Signals a 'Seismic Shift,' Shocking the Washington Establishment,' The New York Times, November 17, 2024.

Here's another incisive article about President-elect Donald Trump's transition and his frightening Cabinet nominees, who are abnormal even for Trump and the personality cult that has been built around him since 2015. For the past quarter-century, Peter Baker has been one of the very best, most level-headed analysts of the contemporary American Presidency, and he seems be stunned by the direction the incoming Trump Administration is already heading. Once again, all of these links are gift links to bypass the New York Times paywall so that you may read and share these important pieces and remain alert to the very real consequences of the 2024 election which are already taking shape.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Maybe you’ve been asking yourself:

1. “How could Donald Trump have won 51 percent of the popular vote?”

2. “How hard is it to immigrate to New Zealand?”

3. “What the actual fuck?”

Fair questions. Let’s try a thought experiment. Could Tuesday’s election results have been any worse?

Well, what if, instead of 51 percent, the Republican nominee had won 59 percent? Or 61 percent? And what if he had won 49 states?

Those aren’t hypotheticals. Those were the results of the 1972 and 1984 landslides that reelected Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

With thumping victories like those, what could possibly go wrong for the winners?

If history’s any guide, some nasty surprises await Donald Trump.

In 1972, the Democratic presidential nominee, George McGovern, won just 37.5 percent of the vote, carrying only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia for a total of 17 Electoral College votes. He didn’t even win his home state, South Dakota.

In 1984, Democrat Walter Mondale did carry his native Minnesota, but that was as good as it got for him. In the Electoral College, he fared even worse than McGovern, with a whopping 13 votes.

In the aftermath of these thrashings, the Democratic Party lay in smoldering ruins, and Republicans looked like indestructible conquerors.

Now, some might argue that those GOP victories, though statistically more resounding than Trump’s, weren’t nearly as alarming, because he’s a criminal and wannabe autocrat.

But Trump’s heinousness shouldn’t make us nostalgic for Nixon and Reagan. They were also criminals—albeit unindicted ones. And they were up to all manner of autocratic shit—until they got caught.

The Watergate scandal was only one small part of the sprawling criminal enterprise that Nixon directed from the Oval Office in order to subvert democracy. For his part, Reagan’s contribution to the annals of presidential crime, Iran-Contra, broke myriad laws and violated Constitutional norms.

The hubris engendered by both men’s landslides propelled them to reckless behavior in their second terms—behavior that came back to haunt them. Nixon was forced to resign the presidency; Reagan was lucky to escape impeachment.After the Watergate scandal forced Richard Nixon from office, this bumper sticker helped Massachusetts voters brag that they handed him his only Electoral College loss in 1972.

Of course, Trump would be justified in believing that no matter how reckless he becomes, he’ll never pay a price. He’s already been impeached—twice—only to be acquitted by his Republican toadies in the Senate. And now that the right-wing supermajority of the Supreme Court has adorned him with an immunity idol, he’ll likely feel free to commit crimes that Nixon and Reagan could only dream of. Who’ll stop him from using his vast power to persecute his voluminous list of enemies?

Well, the enemy most likely to thwart Trump in his second term might be one who isn’t on his list: himself. The seeds of Trump’s downfall may reside in two promises he made to win this election: the mass deportation of immigrants and the elimination of inflation.

Trump’s concept of a plan to deport 20 million immigrants is as destined for success as were two of his other brainchildren, Trump University and Trump Steaks. The US doesn’t have anything approaching the law-enforcement capacity to realize this xenophobic fever dream.

And as for Trump’s war on inflation, the skyrocketing prices caused by his proposed tariffs will make Americans nostalgic for pandemic-era price-gouging on Charmin.

It's possible that Trump’s 24/7 disinformation machine, led by Batman villains Rupert Murdoch, Tucker Carlson, and Elon Musk, will prevent his MAGA followers from ever discovering that 20 million immigrants didn’t go anywhere. And it’s possible that if inflation spikes, he’ll find a scapegoat for that. (Nancy Pelosi? Dr. Fauci? Taylor Swift?)

And, yes, it’s possible that Trump will somehow accomplish his goal of becoming America’s Kim Jong Un, and our democracy will go belly-up like the Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City.

But I wouldn’t bet on it. I tend to agree with the British politician Enoch Powell (1912-1998), who observed that all political careers end in failure. I doubt that Trump, with his signature blend of inattention, impulsiveness, and incompetence, will avoid that fate.

And when the ketchup hits the fan, the MAGA movement may suddenly appear far more fragmented and fractious than it does this week. You can already see the cracks. Two towering ignoramuses like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert should be BFFs, but they despise each other—the only policy of theirs I agree with.

If things really go south, expect MAGA Republicans to devour each other as hungrily as the worm who feasted on RFK Jr.’s brain—and that, my friends, will be worth binge-watching. I’m stocking up on popcorn now before Trumpflation makes it unaffordable.

One parting thought. Post-election, the mainstream media’s hyperbolic reassessment of Trump—apparently, he’s now a political genius in a league with Talleyrand and Metternich—has been nauseating. It’s also insanely short-sighted. Again, a look at the not-so-distant past is instructive.

In 1984, after Reagan romped to victory with 59 percent of the popular vote and 525 electoral votes, Reaganism was universally declared an unstoppable juggernaut. But only two years later, in the 1986 midterms, Democrats proved the pundits wrong: they regained control of both the House and Senate for the first time since 1980. Those majorities enabled them to slam the brakes on Ronnie’s right-wing agenda, block the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork, and investigate Iran-Contra.

The lesson of the 1986 midterms is clear: the game’s far from over and there’s everything to play for. If we want to stem the tide of autocracy and kleptocracy, restore women’s rights and protect the most vulnerable, we don’t have the luxury of despair. The work starts now.

Andy Borowitz

[mariacallous]

Some prominent conservative lawmakers and commentators are advocating for ending no-fault divorce, laws that exist in all 50 US states and allow a person to end a marriage without having to prove a spouse did something wrong, like commit adultery or domestic violence.

The socially conservative, and often religious, rightwing opponents of such divorce laws are arguing that the practice deprives people – mostly men – of due process and hurt families, and by extension, society. Republican lawmakers in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas have discussed eliminating or increasing restrictions on no-fault marriage laws.

Defenders of the laws, which states started passing a half-century ago, see legislation and arguments to repeal them as the latest effort to restrict women’s rights – following the overturning of Roe v Wade and passage of abortion bans around the country – and say that without such protections, the country would return to an earlier era when women were often trapped in abusive marriages.

“No-fault divorce is critical to the ability, particularly the ability of women, to be able to exercise autonomy in their own relationships, in their own lives,” said Denise Lieberman, an adjunct professor at the Washington University School of Law in St Louis, who has a specialty in policies concerning gender, sexuality and sexual violence.

Before 1969, when then California Republican governor Ronald Reagan, who had been divorced, approved the country’s first no-fault divorce law, women, who are more likely to experience violence from an intimate partner, were often forced to stay in marriages. If they could not prove that their husband had been abusive or persuade him to grant a divorce, they would not be able to take any assets from the marriage or remarry, according to a study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics.

States around America gradually followed suit and passed similar laws allowing unilateral divorce until 2010, when New York became the last state to approve the practice.

Between 1976 and 1985, states that passed the laws saw their domestic violence rates against men and women fall by about 30%; the number of women murdered by an intimate partner declined by 10%; and female suicide rates declined by 8 to 16%.

Without such laws, “it’s hard to prove anything in court relating to a family because you don’t have any witnesses”, said Kimberly Wehle, professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law. “It’s very difficult to get evidence to show abuse of children. How do you do it? Do you put your kids on the stand?”

Conservative commentators such as Matt Walsh, Steven Crowder and lawmakers such as the Republican senator JD Vance of Ohio have argued that the laws are unfair to men and hurt society because they lead to more divorces.

The divorce rate in the United States increased significantly from 1960, when it was 9.2 per 1,000 married women, to 22.6 in 1980. But by 2022, the rate had fallen to 14.5.

On the increase in divorces, Vance said in 2021: “One of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace” is the idea that “these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy, and so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term”.

Beverly Willett, a writer and attorney, argues that unilateral no-fault divorce is also unconstitutional because it violates a person’s 14th amendment right to due process.

The defendant “has absolutely no recourse to say, ‘Wait a minute. I don’t want to be divorced, and I don’t think that there are grounds for divorce. I would like to be heard. I would like to call witnesses,’” said Willett, who experienced a divorce she didn’t want because she thought her marriage could be saved. “I believed in my vows” and “didn’t want to give up”.

But Willett’s argument relies on the idea that “women are either property or that somehow men’s liberty is restrained by not allowing them to stay in a marriage with someone who does not want to be married”, said Wehle, who also wrote about it in the Atlantic. “I disagree with the idea that women are somehow property interests of their husbands. That is an arcane relic of law that has no place in modern society.”

Willett responded to Wehle’s critique by writing that “nobody has suggested a return to antiquated laws of the 18th and 19th century. Considerable reform that protects women and ensures their equality in family court has been enacted since then.”

On the argument that no-fault divorce reduces domestic violence, Willett points to data that most domestic violence occurs between unmarried couples and says regardless, with “any contract, any lawsuit, you still have to follow the constitution”.

But without such laws, victims of domestic violence would then have to navigate a court system that can be time-consuming, “very adversarial and very costly” because the plaintiff often must then pay for child care and transportation, said Marium Durrani, vice-president of policy for the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

“Any sort of additional barrier that we add to the ease of legal proceeding is, frankly, a nightmare and an enormous burden for survivors,” said Durrani. “I’m not trying to be an alarmist, but it can increase death [if] a survivor of domestic violence has to prove that they are being abused in a divorce proceeding.”

Still, Lieberman does not think Republicans will succeed in their efforts to make it more difficult for people to get divorced.

“I do believe that that train has left the station. I mean, we have had no-fault divorce now for 50 years,” Lieberman said. But “I didn’t think the supreme court would overturn Roe v Wade, which we had for 50 years, so I suppose we will see.”

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

You know what really stings? I think Democratic politicians genuinely believe their Republican colleagues are good people who have mistaken morals and can be reasoned with. I don't think there's any vitriol from left to right in Congress, but from right to left there's nothing but pure, visceral DISGUST AND HATRED.

Say there are two senators; Democrat Dan and Republican Rob. Dan and Rob have worked together for 30 years, they play golf on weekends, they send each other Christmas cards, they invite each other to family birthdays and weddings and funerals and whatever, they have co-authored a hundred bipartisan bills. Dan considers Rob a close personal friend despite their differences. Rob sees Dan as a pathetic dancing monkey that has been trained to shit itself for Rob's amusement. Rob would slaughter Dan's family in front of him and force feed him the corpses if he thought it would help the Republican party.

How do Democrats respect people who will never respect them back? The Republicans aren't laughing WITH you, they're laughing AT you. You can shift as far to the right as you want, you can offer endless concessions, it doesn't matter, it'll never be enough. Nancy Pelosi once said "America needs a strong Republican party." I wanna say this was around 2018 or 2019, at a time when some pundits thought the Republican party was going to collapse under Trump's weight or split into a dozen warring factions (how times change). She was trying to sound magnanimous. Her point was that it's important to have two parties to check and balance each other, to give the American people the freedom to choose the direction they want the country to go in, BLAH DEE FUCKIN BLAH.

What is this, The West Wing? We're not in high school civics class, Nancy. There's not a single Republican who wants anything less than total domination. Ask a Democrat how many seats they IDEALLY want in Congress, they'll say maybe 250 in the House, 55 in the Senate, comfortable and potentially achievable majorities, but Republicans want it all, 435 and 100. Mitch McConnell would never say he wants there to be a strong Democratic party, I guaran-fucking-tee you that.

[redbuddi]

why is it that everyone assumes the options are kamala, trump, or not voting? i understand the odds of getting a third party in office are basically null, but everyone seems to assume that bc I'm not voting for kamala that means I'm not voting?? I do not want either party in charge bc both dems and reps chose nominees who want more genocide. I do not think dems deserve my vote "just" because they are not donald trump. if trump wins bc of third party votes then maybe dems will be forced to think for 5 seconds about why so many people didnt want to vote for them, and vice versa if kamala wins. Of course trump is worse than kamala. Of course kamala still supports genocide. That's not a reason to Not vote, but it IS a reason to look outside the douchebag and piece of shit we're being forced to consider?

you said it yourself, "the odds of getting a third party in office are basically null." voting third party just means shaving away the votes that compete against the republican party, its what they want you to do because it's how they'll win. I don't want either party in charge either but they are not the same. Dems can be pressured and persuaded. Conservatives, especially trump, have done and will continue to just do whatever the hell they want regardless of what people say.

Also I wouldn't call this election a Douche vs. a Turd Sandwich as much as I'd call it a Douche Vs. A Nazi, considering all the nazis in Trump's party and all the nazis he hangs out with and the fact that he himself is probably a nazi. Which, y'know. Makes the choice kinda easy.

On top of that, even on the slim chance that the third party candidate wins the electoral college, that doesn't actually mean that they're president. Any third party candidates need to then be voted on by the senate. A senate that is entirely made up of dems and republicans. So, yeah. There's a reason it's never happened, it's set up so that it's basically impossible. This is, obviously, very bad and needs to change, but it's not something that'll be changed through our currently existing system of government. It's something that we need to fight from the ground floor to change, which will be easier to do if we aren't being put in jail for being gay.

And, ngl anon, it's a little suspect you don't even have a third party candidate you're backing here. You have enough conviction to vote third party but not to actually have a third party candidate you're backing? Is there one you know that would actually do the things you want? If so why not name them to garner some support? People will only be even more divided if we just do whichever third party candidate vibes. Either you're a bad actor, or more likely, you're someone who is very understandably frustrated with the current system and wishes things worked differently. But it doesn't, at least for now, and being uninformed about how these things work is only going to make change that much harder.

[carsonjonesfiance]

I feel like I trust leftists from red states far more than leftists from blue states. Maybe I'm biased (I consider myself a left-leaning personand I'm from a red state), but lately, a lot of blue state leftists have been showing their asses far more often

Ever since 2016 I’ve been slightly wary of blue state leftists and I think the best way to explain is to compare AOC to Doug Jones

Alexandria Ocasio Cortes is from a district that leans so heavily Democrat (IIRC it’s something like D+15) that she can say some truly leftist things without fear of losing her seat. This is why she can afford to be the face of things like the Green New Deal, but rather than acknowledging that privilege she’s taken her ability to win in her district as proof her politics can win anywhere. We see this attitude in the way she insists on primarying any and all Democrats with more progressive candidates regardless of their local political viability.

Doug Jones, who narrowly won out against a Republican pedophile and did lose his seat to a Republican football coach who is now holding up military appointments over abortion policy, is a lawyer who put away the KKK members that bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church. He’s been a civil rights lawyer longer than I’ve been alive, and he only won by 20,000 votes because of how deeply red most of Alabama is. Part of that was being pro gun and steering away from anything more harsh than background checks and being very quietly pro choice.

There are risks that blue state Democrats can take that red state Dems can’t and that principle guides us Red Staters to more pragmatic realist politics like Senator Jones. I’m sure there are Blue State Dems that get that what works for their district doesn’t work everywhere but a not insignificant portion of them have not learned that there is a reason Bernie Sanders represents the state of Vermont and not Wyoming.

When you expand that divide to a national level you get Red State Dems much more understanding of Moderate Presidential Candidates and quietly Progressive policies (I.e. literally anything that the Biden administration has done in the past two years) while Blue Staters don’t get why we can’t go further because their idealist, maximalist policies are never challenged in their area. It’s like an IRL version of an internet echo chamber.

[bambamramfan]

What If They Win

Too much has been written about the horse race of this election, but not nearly enough analysis about how either administration will govern. There's some fearmongering about Project 2025 or courtpacking, but that's propaganda not actual predictions.

(FWIW, I think Trump has this race in the bag, but can understand people who still hope think this is a coin flip.)

If Harris Wins...

Harris has held together a remarkable coalition of people against Trump. Mainstream Democratic politicians, YIMBY pundit technocrats, far lefters holding their nose, and Republican neoconservatives. This is no criticism, it's pretty impressive how they are coming together to defeat a common enemy, and I really really would like them to win.

But what happens to a coalition defined by a common enemy, after they win? Let's assume the best case scenario and she gets a Democratic Senate who confirms her cabinet and some SCOTUS judges.

Who supports Harris in the press, or is vote-corraling for her in Congress? Not those Republicans who hope to turn a page on the Trump era. Not a far left who has decided to hate her as a centrist sell out. Not moderate dems who will run away from any hint of weakness. Maybe a few of those YIMBY pundits who hope she's actually committed to more houses and nuclear power. But that's no political hyperpower.

What would her first major bill be? Who would support it? It will be just one scandal plagued administration with little support from any quarter that makes its ground breaking "first" for subaltern identities a disappointing token. The David Dinkens of the White House.

I predict that President Harris would have the lowest approval rating in her first year of any President we have polling for. It's gonna be brutal, and an easy 2028 win for Republicans (who hopefully won't be running 82 year old Trump.)

If Trump Wins...

This is the interesting one. I've heard a lot of people say that a second Trump term will be even worse than the first because he's fully unleased now and no one can stop him from doing what he really wants. And I think this is partly true.

I just don't think what he wants is "Republican authoritarian rule." Sure, he will probably let the Fed Society still pick the judges (which he never cared about besides thinking they should be loyal to him) and there will almost certainly be a tax cut/extension. But besides that?

In the first Trump term, he had VP Pence, Jeff Sessions as AG, governors like Chris Christie, and three establishment figures at State, Defense, and Treasury making a pact that if Trump fires one they all resign. It was an actual coalition of Republicans and Trumpists who need each other. Even Jared Kushner was pretty establishment friendly (he's the one who approved Pence.)

Jared and Ivanka are gone now, replaced by Eric and Donjr. The VP is a Thiel-acolyte who isn't anti-Republican but sure is "from the blogs." And the endorsers Trump touts are RFK Jr, Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk (while more and more mod Republicans endorse Harris.)

This isn't a Trump face over a body of Republicans - this is a Trump leader over all the fringe outsiders of American weirdo culture. I think Trump *actually does* want to appoint RFK to Secretary of Health, and indulge in every conspiracy, organic hippie, crunchy nonsense - which actually has a lot of believers across the country, but extremely little following in DC itself.

I think this will be hilarious beyond our wildest dreams of entertainment. It will not be a functional fascism - it will be closer to Jill Stein and Richard Branson and Andrew Tate. He'll try to pass laws that every kid in America needs to eat healthy and also work in a McDonalds.

[marvelstars]

Padme & Anakin anger &flaws

I may be in the minority but I do think Padme is principled and brave a lot, she has been that way since she was a kid, she was bassically trained to be that way so she could become a strong/good leader for Naboo and guess what Anakin is/was very principled and brave as well, the fact both of them share this about the other is one of the biggest reasons why they became involved and fell in love but Padme also is flawed, I don´t believe she was without flaws and one those flaws involve being almost as angry as Anakin.

We already saw Anakin´s reaction over Shmi´s death, Padme is almost as angry over Corde´s murder in AOTC, in the novel of Attack of the Clones Padmé has a moment in which she wishes she could murder the trade federation leaders and Count Dooku over Corde´s death and she wonders if that was how Anakin felt with the tusken raiders after they tortured and killed his mother, the main difference between them is that Padme would have to use considerable effort to do that which would lead to her thinking things over better, while Anakin could kill a lot of people just using his mind in the rush of the moment, he didn´t even needs his lightsaber to do that, so his control over himself has to be more constant.

Both Padme and Anakin share a perspective of justice being something that not neccesarily can be always tackled by a system, in fact Padme´s words after leaving the Senate to go rescue her planet was that there wasn´t probably any hope for the republican system, a concept like justice isn´t easily tackled by a system, especially one as flawed as the republic, Padme simply thoguht the republic could be fixed when she grew up and Anakin shared this sentiment as well but he wasn´t as hopeful as her.

So both have this rightheous anger in them and in Padme´s case that included her helping Anakin hide what happened to the tusken raiders, maybe she thought him being expelled from the Jedi Order and going to jail wasn´t the best way to deal with that, I personally think maybe that could have protected him from Palpatine but he surely would have found a way to become Anakin´s guardian and lawyer if that happened but my guess is that Padme simply had compassion for Anakin´s circunstances, because the origin of Anakin´s reaction was precisely being taken away from his mother, leaving her a slave which lead to her death and Padme knew as well as Anakin did that the dead of Shmi Skywalker would not garner justice from Jabba, the Republic or any other system or government body in the galaxy, literally nobody cared she died, only Anakin and the Lars family did which made Padme sympathetic to Anakin.

Padme also is very principled but imo she seems used to have a pov particular to her station which also leads to ignore some things people who had not been in her place experiment daily, she shares this flaw with Bail Organa as well. Slavery for Padme seemed a very horrible and sad reality but it wasn´t one of her priorities to end it, her priority was to help turn the republic into a more equal and fuctional body that could better deal with those situations and many others around the galaxy and she actually came close to discovering many of Palpatine´s schemes for this reason, which was why he and Dooku wanted her dead and she never semed to quite make the connection between slavery and the clones but then again nobody else did except for maybe Anakin and ironically Palpatine and Count Dooku.

Both Padme and Anakin were children forced into adult situations and both were told or were forced to, since a young age, to reppress their emotions, Padme as Amidala, Anakin as a slave who had to control his emotions so he would not bring trouble to his mother or himself and later as a Jedi. Imo this made both of them develop a kind of double life, Anakin in particular hated the Amidala persona, because Padme seemed so emotionless when she was that way but curiously enugh as Vader, one of his main go to presentation cards is to act almost as emotionless as Queen Amidala.

What I don´t view and never will see as part of Padme´s flaws is her love for Anakin or her wish to save him from himself in ROTS.

Those are not flaws, those are part of her strenght as a character imo because while she certainly wasn´t of the oppinion that eveything would be alright after what Anakin did, in fact Lucas commented she would not have stayed his wife had she lived, she definitely could see he wasn´t in his right mind on Mustafar, so their marriage may have been over if Anakin followed her but she still cared enough for him to try to help him get back to his own senses, because she knew if she gave Anakin that opportunity, his own horror over what he did would be as strong as anything she could tell him and he would have directly taken matters into his own hands even if they meant his death and this opportunity is precisely what Luke presented to Vader in ROTJ, which lead to the biggest victory over the darkside in the series, so no Padme´s love and compassion for Anakin will never be flaws from my pov, just like Anakin only could find himself again because he was able to feel compassion again as Vader. Both are connected that way.

[adragonsfriend]

The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good, Dooku Style

Finally reading Supreme Chancellor Obi-Wan Kenobi by @stonefreeak and it got me thinking about what Dooku could’ve chosen to do with his position on Serenno.

Instead of delivering hundreds of worlds into the power of corporate interests to accumulate the power necessary to start a galactic war, he could’ve set about unionising those dissatisfied worlds for greater voting power in the Senate. Attempted to organise a peaceful exodus from the Republic. He could’ve just focused on helping out Serenno. He could’ve used Serenno as a platform for advocacy or as a humanitarian (sentiantarian?) outpost in the outer rim—in maybe conjunction with the Jedi or with other charitable groups, whichever.

Nobody cries over Sidious doing bad things, because he’s not narratively presented as a person (in the movies at least)—he’s more symbolic than anything. But Dooku shares Anakin’s fate. He’s a person, a good person with values, relationships to other people, and a desire to help others, who does unspeakable things because he becomes attached to his own ideas of perfection. It’s not an individual he can’t face grieving (well. it is a little bit about Qui-Gon too), but his inability to build a perfect society (anakin has some of this too) that makes him unable to accept his own limitations or ask for help.

All the suggestions above—unions, allies, charities, etc—they all require working with others, trusting that other people want what you want, that hope and compassion are not relics of a dying age, but powerful things which persist regardless of whatever victories which cruelty thinks it has achieved (through Power I gain Victory).

Dooku’s perfectionism—with a little help from Sidious—convinces him he is alone in wanting to change things (Peace is a lie, there is only Passion), and that suffering, his own and others, is the only way to make the rest of the world understand how it needs to act (through Passion I gain Strength). It is an incredibly individualist, not to mention lonely, set of beliefs (through Victory my chains are Broken, the Force shall free me).

It all leads neatly to the propositions:

If i can just tear down enough of society, then i will finally have enough control I need—and deserve—to build something perfect in its place;

I—or the decisive, pragmatic leader i put all my faith in—am the only person who can exercise this power to fix everything;

Any goal less than fixing everything is unworthy, and people who claim otherwise are unworthy of being included in the perfection I will create.

He’s (parts of) both Anakin and the Republic Senate’s arcs a decade early and in a single character. Fascism in a bottle.

In conclusion, a show about Dooku’s radicalisation over time could say some incredibly insightful things about US politics—by which I mean the Republican Party in general, Trumpism, the struggle of Democrats to unify, etc. Such a show probably shouldn’t be made because it would get twisted into a “and that’s why poor baby Dooku is sad and deserves everyone’s bowing-and-scraping-sympathy,” thing (which is not to say radicalized people do not deserve compassion—in fact they require it, lest we circle back to make our own little fascism), but if it was made it should feature Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan narrating and heckling Dooku as time traveling force ghosts (in between seeking genuine understanding of the past through Dooku’s decisions) because calling him weird would I think have the about the same effect as calling US republicans weird is having right now.

[mydaddywiki]

Mike Rounds

Physique: Husky Build Height: 5' 8" (173 cm)

Marion Michael “Mike” Rounds (born October 24, 1954) is an American businessman and politician serving as the junior United States senator from South Dakota since 2015. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 31st governor of South Dakota from 2003 to 2011.

Born in Huron, SD, Rounds was raised in Pierre, SD. After graduating from South Dakota State University with a degree in political science (B.S., 1977), he worked in insurance and real estate. He was elected to the South Dakota Senate in 1990, representing the 24th district until 2001. Rounds ran for governor of South Dakota in 2002, defeating Democrat Jim Abbott. He was reelected in 2006, but was term limited from running for a third term in 2010.

In 2014, Rounds was elected to the United States Senate, succeeding retiring Democrat Tim Johnson. He was reelected in 2020 over Democratic nominee Dan Ahlers.

Sen. Rounds, who I affectionally call “Mike Pounds,” has four grown children and 11 grandchildren with wife, Jean Rounds who died at age 65 in 2021 two years after she was diagnosed with cancer. And now that he's single, maybe he'd like to try cock and pound some ass. I am more than willing to help make that dream a reality for him. What? He's a Republican. My chances are good.

[batboyblog]

See I kind of get the idea of wanting her to at least say “I’ll comply but I’m not happy about it” even if that does t fix anything it feels like more self respect?

But as it’s been said Sarah McBride is in a bad situation, perhaps her coming across as “weak” will let the republicans underestimate her and allow her to slip some good in under her radar.

my thought is, Sarah McBride is the first trans person elected to a State Senate seat, she's the first trans person elected to Congress and the first trans person to win a statewide election anywhere in the United States.

SO! I'm going to say that she knows best how to deal with politically motivated transphobia.

people might say "well I would have said..." but in this case maybe just maybe defer to the expert, she's broken so many barriers, overcome so much, opened the way for everyone who might want to follow her. You do not live her life if you are weak, it takes unspeakable strength and will power to do what she has done. She's a very strong person and I think everyone owes her the respect to allow her to handle her business how she thinks is best and again since she's the first trans person to win a statewide election, I'm just gonna guess here, she's right, whatever she chooses to do is likely the smartest best move a trans politician could make because spoiler she's the greatest trans politician in American history.

I was gonna end there, but I am again reminded of the words of the legendary Ann Richards

"I think of all the political fights I’ve fought, and all the compromises I’ve had to accept as part payment. And I think of all the small victories that have added up to national triumphs and all the things that would never have happened and all the people who would’ve been left behind if we had not reasoned and fought and won those battles together. And I will tell Lily that those triumphs were Democratic Party triumphs."

Thats politics, all the compromises, often painful, she doesn't say the set backs up yes the set backs, but you stay in the field you keep fighting even when they humiliate you, because if you give up and go away, like they want you to, all the people who get left behind, so you tough it out, for them if not yourself.