usernamesAreTricky @ usernamesAreTricky @lemmy.ml

Posts

710

Comments

1,234

Joined

2 yr. ago

If you want something more hands on, work on local races this year. They are how we can fight back

Elections are run at the state level in the US. Even for federal offices

Many states have elections this year even despise it being an off year

There are special elections today in Virginia thay will determine who controls the state legislature. If dems remain control, they can block a lot of the Republicans governors attempts to disenfranchise

There are special elections in Minnesota on Jan 28th to determine control of one house of the state legislature

There is an election that will determine control of the Wisconsin state supreme court on April 1st. The more recent Progressive control has lead to Wisconsin getting fair maps as the gerrymandered maps were overturned. We are going to want to keep it that way and build further

There are special elections for various US house members like to replace Matt Gatez on April 1st. Should we win any suprise flips, it will be even harder for Republicans to get things through congresss with their already tight 3 seat majority

And so on

Here's a frequently updated spreadsheet with various at home volunteering options

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jxO8g7q9VO3ZMAABcrvR7PMyX4Yl6dgIYhD3eRTKk1M/htmlview

EDIT: also on another note, consider running for election yourself. There are various small local positions around you that often go uncontested. Here's one group that helps progressives run for local office https://runforsomething.net/

Him and Ken Martin (current Minnesota-DFL party chair) are both the two main front runners. Both are generally more progressive and are already getting backing of many state party members

It's not a given but it's definitely not a zero percent chance at all

There have been no public forums yet where the candidates have met and taken questions from members of their party, but those meetings are slated to start in the new year. The official election for the next DNC chair will be held on Feb. 1.

This is actually incorrect. There was one hosted by the Young Democrats of America on December 7th with four candidates there answering questions. Is literally listed on the Wikipedia article for the DNC Chair election and the video is linked

Direct link to the video (and cut to the timestamp when it starts): https://youtu.be/Z1sip1hofdk?t=840

I've actually hardly heard democrats ever speak like they did in that setting (in a good way). Way more conviction behind what they are saying (as it goes along at least), generally more progressive, and overall more populist

Edit: This story is over a year old. Come on

I added [2023] to the title like 30 seconds to a minute after posting but it seems it was very slow to federate for some reason

Did my earlier edit not federate? I added that to the title almost immediately after posting

Gotta love President Musk's brave defence of free speech just make sure you don't want to share a link, mention any competitors, use the word cisgender, or track his private jets

Truly the freest of platforms

What do they expect to accomplish over the next 30 days

?

I think you misunderstand what I am referring to. I am referring to the second Johnson speaker vote which was in March and filed by MTG. They didn't know the results of the election nor did they want to get unfairly blamed for republican dysfunction in said election as often happens

In what world would you even trust Johnson to keep his word

The rules that republicans agreed on let all house members, including dems, call for a motion to vacate the speaker. Only needed a singular representative to do so and given that there were plenty of republicans willing to get rid of him, so they had some leverage over him

And to clarify the House Dems in the original article are talking about his next speaker vote come the start of next year

Don't post NYPost articles. They are often highly misleading, outright wrong, and generally right-wing garbage

I believe I read somewhere that they got some political concessions out of it and also wanted to actually get stuff done while a dem was the president. Now they have no incentive to help get unless they get something quite good back in return since republicans have a trifecta

They didn't help on his initial vote in nor did they help McCarthy

That's not what they are doing right now

I'm also going be real that this is also the least of my concerns for a platform. If they make some people change their handle that don't need to, it really isn't a massive deal in the grand scheme of things. Especially since when handles are changed on Bluesky, all the references to that handle also change because they have a constant ID for all accounts. Impersonations leading people to scams is a much larger issue

? Did you read what the article? The change here is pretty minor and just reserving the @name.bsk.social if they verify with a domain to something like @domain.tld

Now, users that verify their account by linking their domain name get to automatically keep the default @username.bsky.social username

The breakup won't happen instantly and this has already stolen some of his air of infallibility going into his term which I'd argue is rather important. He now looks weak so you are more likely to see more people willing to stand up to him on day 1

Not exactly the same comparison. This would be far more blatant capture for the Supreme Court. The natural born citizen requirement is much more cut and dry. There were still some non-partisan legal people who genuinely thought Trump shouldn't be disqualified (though many many disagreed with them)

The Supreme Court does pass on insane legal ideas sometimes even if they allow plenty of horrible stuff too. Like in 2023 in Moore v. Harper, they ruled 6-3 against the Independent state legislature theory. Though on the flip side their presidential immunity ruling was indeed insane

Not constitutionally no. He doesn't meet the requirement to be president which requires you to be born as a US citizen

Edit: also it seems like Johnson was moreso making a jab at musk in his comments about the difficulty of the job - rather than actually making him a genuine offer

Amending the constitutional is a much higher bar than people think it is. You'd need way more than just a fetterman here or there. Keep in mind still had 38 republicans vote against his and Trump's second version of the bill

It requires 2/3 of congress, and 3/4 of state legislatures

Assuming he loses zero republicans, this you would need:

67 in the senate meaning you'd need 14 dem senators

290 in the house of representatives meaning you need 70 dem reps

And in state legislatures, he'd need 38 of them to ratify. Republicans only have a trifecta in 23 (it’s unclear if governors can veto ratification or not), they have both state legislatures in 28, and it’s split in Alaska, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and we'll see about Minnesota with some legal challenges.

If we assume no governor vetos nor any republicans going against it, that's 28. Then let's imagine in those split states you convince them all, that's 33. Keep in mind each state has its own list of people you'd need to convince, not just one person here

Then in the other 5 you'd have to be talking about states with dem trifectas where it's hardly going to be politically popular to bend to Musk

You would need on the order of at minimum of 100+ dems in congress and state legislatures to pull that off assuming governors don't veto / ruled that they aren't able to. And also assuming that all republicans go for it at all levels of government, and that dems in other states with republican legislatures don't use procedural tactics to slow down ratification, etc.

He's been appointing judges this whole time, it just doesn't make headlines. 235 judges didn't get appointed overnight. Biden has his very real problems, don't make new ones up that just create apathy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Joe_Biden

Direct popular vote judge elections have their own set of issues - at the very least for lower courts

For instance, they tend to lead towards judges issuing out harsher penalties when campaigning than they normally would to appear "'tough on crime"

Good news on that from is that this wasn't accidental

The “President Musk” messaging is by design, at least partially. This week, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter and another person briefed on it, at senior levels of different Democratic congressional offices, and also within the Democratic National Committee, discussions have been had about having party leaders and elected officials actively portray Musk as effectively Trump’s boss, and to do so during television appearances that the president-elect is likely to see. The idea is that it’s a cost-free opportunity to potentially drive a petty wedge between the notably mercurial and ego-obsessed Trump and his similarly emotive pal Musk, and to sow some chaos in the upper ranks of the Republican Party.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/president-musk-dems-troll-trump-elon-1235211922/

Have to ask Musk first

On a more serious note: The constitution requires you to be born a US citizen to be President which Ted Cruz was, but Musk was not

Shame that president-elect musk wants to try to break that