That the evangelicals claim the most corrupt and immoral President as one of their own, is really all you need to know about them. Of all the many forms of government humanity has ever dreamed up few are worse than theocracy, and yet the evangelicals seem to be convinced they know how to do theocracy right and should be given the opportunity to do so. They are the last people the overwhelming majority of Americans would want to see running the country.
Do note that their favorite president had to mumble his way thru the Lord's Prayer during Sen. Lindsey Graham's funeral yesterday. The fundies won't squirm even a little bit about his rank ignorance of Christianity when this is pointed out to them (if they tune in at all to any place that might do so).
The regime has been crystal clear from the golden escalator that freedom is on the chopping block. The regime telegraphs every clumsy punch, and our so called leadership just lets them all land. The Republicans are all aiding and abetting the tangerine tyrant, the democratic side is spineless at best, complicit generally and in bed with the right at worst. The judges he installed during his first term knew the assignment, some have been on the right side to instill a sense of trust from us, but they are all part of the corruption. It’s no surprise, the judges he nominated were all provided by The Heritage Foundation. Do you really think they’d side with democracy or freedom on a matter like this? This was their goal. This was their dodge to get conservative Christianity to be the official religion without “congress establishing an official religion”. Nevermind two centuries of jurisprudence.
Vote in the midterms like your life depends on it. It most certainly does no matter your religion, race, gender, or any other metric. If you aren’t a billionaire today, your life is in danger.
And, there were rightwing christian nutjobs in 1964. They all have Authoritarian Personalities and seek to impose their will and control over anyone who differs from them. I guarantee, that that Orthodox Jew would be disappeared if they ever reach the full implementation phase of their theocracy. Not to mention everyone else not a conservative talibangelical christian.
Dear People, this is why it is so important that the Republicans lose the majority in the Senate. If the Democrats get the majority they can stop any new Trump appointed ass kissers from getting appointed to Federal Judge vacancies. Be sure to support candidates running for Senate seats the best you can with donations and volunteer work. Lobby all friends, relatives and neighbors, etc.
Georgia, Michigan, Maine, North Carolina, South Carolina, are critical. There maybe others. Wherever you are support candidates running against Republicans for Senate.
After 40 years of trial and litigation experience I can confidently say, biased judges destroy due process, fairness and justice in all areas. As is so sadly demonstrated with this case.
And don’t forget your local races! School boards are the breeding ground for higher office. I’m donating to and door knocking for local candidates to keep the moms for Liberty types off the board. (Their catchphrase this year is “common sense”). It’s just “common sense” to treat trans kids badly.
Well, Common Sense played an important part in the foundation of the USA, although it seems unlikely many people are familiar with it today. Is it even on reading lists now?
If we can't pull Trump out of the White House right here and now, we MUST disempower him to the farthest extent possible. That means controlling at least one side of the legislature and preferably both the House and the Senate. Further, a confrontational attitude with the president should be established and maintained from the time the new congresspeople are sworn in forward. No quarter should be given Trump whatsoever, and any untoward action he attempts to make should be answered and rebutted in real time.
It is well past time Trump's free ride was CANCELLED.
Hear, hear! My bride and I are financially able and more than willing to contribute to Senate candidates in possibly winnable races. I’m lobbying my friends to contribute as well if they can.
The downside is the 6 text messages I get almost every day from the campaigns I’ve donated to asking for more.
My list includes the states you mentioned plus Texas and Alaska.
I'm struggling with what I'd like to say, so please bear with me. I get the impression (and please bear in mind that I am looking at this from the outside) that the main issue in campaigning is money, how to get it and how to spend it. The request to supporters seems to be entirely limited to asking for money.
Let me offer an example: A few weeks ago, some of the people I subscribe to here on Substack were running in primary (?) elections. And for weeks they were sending me very frequent emails, always focused on asking me to 'rush' (barf!) them some money. Because they needed some money to hit an (arbitrary) goal before an (arbitrary) deadline.
It got really bad and I was glad when those primaries were over. (Since then the frequency of posts/mailings has dropped precipitously)
I got quite disillusioned. I could not donate any money but the campaign(s) did not give me any other options to support the candidate(s). Eg I was looking for maybe some talking points which I could post on social media, but there was nothing of the kind. Or the suggestion that I talk to friends and family with specific points, but nada. Only the requests for money. Really, only the requests for money.
Which is a long way for me to come to the point I am trying to make, which is that the American political activities are really dominated by money and that the various campaigns have lost sight of how they could use their supporters without constantly asking to 'rush' (barf!) them some donations.
Maybe I am just conditioned by living in a country which has got set limits on how much political campaigns can spend. (Also, TV ads are tightly controlled!)
You’re not wrong! I suspect the focus on money has several reasons. One of them is that it is seen as an indication of viability. A candidate who can’t raise money is regarded as less viable than one who can. So, a vicious cycle.
Second, a candidate with money has the ability to do things that they can control. They can send out mailers or run advertisements. They cannot control the actions of good-hearted people like you. Sure, you say you’ll talk to your friend. But will you really? (Using “you” generically 😀). I can tell you from experience that door-knocking is …. Unrewarding. On a Saturday maybe 10% of people answer the door. Maybe they aren’t home. I don’t know. And the smart doorbells make it even easier for them to screen out who is at the door. Doorbells that ask me to leave a message. Weird.
A campaign could organize phone calling. But no one answers their phones any more.
So, yes, it’s all about money. I live in a county of 300,000 people. It costs about $4000 to mail a postcard to every non-Republican household in the county. And for name recognition, marketing data suggests you need to hit someone at least 7 times. So yard signs can help. I wear a t-shirt with my candidate’s name if I’m out in public. But in the end, you gotta have money.
I did send texts to lots of my friends and acquaintances right before the primary. They started with “not that you asked but here’s who I’m supporting and why” and I kept them brief.
Let me speak up for the other side: There are umpteen suggestions floating around that one of the upcoming priorities us to 'fix' the 'Citizens United' decisions. Which would bring restrictions on political finance. Which seems to be generally accepted as being a good move. We'll see how this will play out.
As I wrote in my note, I live in a country with very strict political finance rules. In your example you say that the cost of a postcard mailer is 4k. If the campaign only had .... let's pick a number, let's say 10k ... if the campaign could only spend 10k, would they still spend 4k on a mailer? Or would they look to find ways to use their available funds in a more creative way, eg put up signs at traffic lights and lampposts, where one sign would be seen by lots of people throughout the campaign?
I don't think you can get money out of politics completely, but surely there could be limits?
Your lament is fully justified and may be laid at the feet of the disastrous Supreme Court decision in the "Citizens United" case that corporations are people and free spending = free speech. This can only be fixed by a constitutional amendment granting the government the power to regulate campaign financing. But guess who has to initiate such an amendment. That's right, the very people who've been successful under the status quo.
That doesn't mean we should just surrender, tho. The Seneca Falls women's conference in 1848 called for women to have the right to vote. They didn't actually GET it until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. (It took effect on Aug. 26 if you'd like to mark your calendar to commemorate the event.) What it took was persistent termination on the part of people determined to do what was right, and we moderns should do no less.
Health issues make phone banking and door-knocking no longer an option for me so a few years ago I upped my letter and postcard writing. Some of the organizations I write for have programs available to provide stamps for volunteers who can’t afford them but that won’t help you if you are mailing from outside the U.S. it does occur to me though that they might have social media of their own you could promote and some of them will have information about specific campaigns on their websites that could give you information to post. One of my favorites is PostcardsToVoters.org because they focus on down ballot races and special elections that don’t get a lot of attention. They partner with the candidate so our writing instructions include both specific messages the campaign has asked us to write and additional options if we have room on the card to write more. I just finished writing for a special election for County Trustee that takes place next week in Knoxville, Tennessee. I’m not sure how much specific info is actually available on their website though. There’s also the Turnout Project which runs Postcards To Swing States which includes News Boosting cards. I know they have an Instagram account and I think Facebook. And Blue Wave Postcards which also has an Instagram account that might have messages you'd like to promote. I used to do a lot of texting but I haven’t in awhile so I’m not up-to-date but I can see what I can track down if anyone would like.
I would also suggest writing to some of those campaigns you want to support and tell them they need to provide you talking points for their supporters to use on social media and with friends, family, and neighbors. Not everyone has spare money these days and not everyone can phone bank, door knock, etc. If they say they really need money to, let’s say get money out of politics, and don’t offer you another way to help with that effort, maybe tell them to remove you from their mailing list.
The anachronistic Electoral College and Democrats' swing to the left in a mostly conservative/moderate country is going to keep Republicans entrenched in power in the Senate for a long time. Look at the map: it's mostly red. No new judges for the foreseeable future. Democrats screwed it up badly thanks to greedy Ruth Ginsburg clinging to her lifetime seat with stage 4 cancer.
In this regard maps are deceptive: A lot of the 'red' consists of sparsely populated but geographically large areas, while the 'blue' covers smaller areas but more urban i.e. densely populated places.
I have been advocating for a change to the voting system, from FPTP to a PR-style system: Not only does it eliminate gerrymandering, it also provides for more balanced results.
There are also other approaches that aim in the same direction and aren't necessarily incompatible with ranked-choice voting.
I'm active in an organization that's promoting Final Five Voting, which would eliminate PARTISAN primaries (which tend to select the leftmost Democrat and rightmost Republican, leaving the massive moderate middle with a choice in the general election between the lesser of two evils or just not voting at all). Under FFV, there'd be a UNIVERSAL primary, in which everyone would be on a single ballot, and the top 5 finishers, regardless of party (possibly including more than 1 candidate from any given party) would go on to the general election, which would be run with RCV.
There's also the idea of multi-member districting. Right now, let's say a state has 9 congressional districts. Each elects 1 US representative. Suppose the vote in each of them is 55% for the Whigs and 45% for the Tories. Result: 9 Whig representatives. Instead imagine that the state's divided geographically into only 3 districts, each of which gets to elect 3 representatives, based on vote distribution. Now each of those 3 districts ends up sending 2 Whigs and 1 Tory to Congress, more closely resembling the wishes of the electorate.
Ranked choice voting. Instead of having to choose between the lesser of two evils you rank your choices. If no one wins a majority in the first round the candidate with the fewest votes is knocked out and if you ranked them first, now your 2nd choice gets your vote. It continues like this in rounds until someone reaches 50+%. You can vote for someone you like but think can’t win without throwing away your vote. The candidates have to be careful how they campaign (negative campaigning turns off most voters) and encourages alliances among like minded candidates and their supporters.
Good point. Maps are deceptive because Republicans represent acreage; Democrats represent people. So far, acreage isn't able to vote (tho I'm sure the brainiacs at the Heritage Foundation are trying to figure out ways to change that).
Four denominations of far right white evangelicals and a token Jew is definitely the opposite of religious diversity. Did they discuss the difficulties faced by Muslims in rural areas? How about any non-christians in the South? They don't care about the religious freedoms of anyone, they just want to force their views on everyone.
Religuous diversity? They will tell you they have both kinds, Baptist and Pentecostal.
The Constitution doesn’t establish a hierarchy of religions. Government shouldn’t either. Religious liberty means equal protection for every faith—and for those of us with no faith at all. Anything less isn’t religious freedom. It’s government favoritism.
Sadly, you can't tell Trump or the Nat-Cs that. They aren't listening, and they don't give a rotten dump about anyone other than themselves. They mean to dominate the environment, and they will if they're not stopped.
How long before the "commission" sweeps out all but the "right" kind of Christians? First get rid of the non-Christians, then go after xtians whose theology isn't quite straight.
What do you think DHS is buying up the warehouses for? They have way more space than what they need for the “illegals” or even people of color in the USA. At least The Handmaid’s Tale put the riff raff in apartment buildings, Trump wants to warehouse us with no personal space.
Thing is, how does anyone force beliefs onto a person who OWNS THEMSELVES, who understands who they are and where they stand? The answer is, THEY CAN'T. And as it comes to that:
Their goal is to shift the Overton window so that their awful cult beliefs become mainstream, part of a plan since Ronnie Raygun. The wild card they didn’t consider was the creation of the internet.
The internet plays to both sides of this equation, and Google's tendency to give us what it thinks we want only complicates matters. The one saving grace is in those people who see both sides and can discriminate bullshit from actual reality.
It's a slow, torturous process, and any resolution is STILL not a given ... which is why we're still in the fight.
I’m thinking more in terms of organization. Pre-internet was all analog communication, now things can happen in an instant. It helps them as well but it also lets sane people organize much faster to confront their nonsense. The down side is how much of the public is uneducated and unable to discern credible from incredible claims.
Semi on-topic: Christian Post has article about Christians in eastern India suffering from Hindi Nationalism. The failure to recognize the irony is palpable.
A couple days ago, I participated in a substack conversation regarding Neil Gorsuch's assertion that the US is, indeed, NOT a Christian nation. Not too surprisingly, it drew a LOT of Christian apologist types who wanted to insist that the US IS a Christian nation, while failing to recognize that NOWHERE in the Constitution is Christianity mentioned. I got my shots in, but ultimately, it's just tiresome when they want to lean on supposed intent without acknowledging the actual WORDS which defined the United States.
State / Church separation and freedom of speech is why no one has gotten in their face and told them to shut up. They just can't see it.
They mistake pervasiveness for governance. They think that because the majority has been Christian for most of our history, that must mean that our history is BECAUSE of Christianity. They cannot wrap their minds around the fact that Christianity has only flourished as it has because of Separation of Church and State.
How do they respond if you tell them that if the country were officially Christian, that their sect would most likely not be the one in charge, and that some of their specific beliefs would be declared heretical and punishable by law? My bet is a blank stare as their brains short circuit trying to imagine a world where they are not in charge.
Christians in India should have a Pride Month! They could have a Christian Pride parade. They could wave their colorful flag. They could show that they are just people who are somewhat different in some way from the majority but no less deserving of equality.
If anyone needed ANY PROOF that the Trump administration's attitude toward religion is badly skewed toward Christian Nationalism, this whole incident amounts to prima facie evidence to that effect. If you're a VERY conservative Christian, you're in. If you're anything else, you MIGHT get a nod as a token participant, but you'll have damned little if any influence on anything Trump's Religious Liberty Commission decides on or publishes.
This was tiresome 10 squares back, and it damned well deserves to be called on its obvious bias.
When the regime falls this subset of Theocratic traitors needs exclusion on a level they cannot begin to comprehend. These enemies of humanity need to reap the full reward for their evil.
To save what is left of our democracy we must not vote for or support in any way Republicans for any office. They all bend the knee and follow Trump’s idiotic, narcissistic, pro billionaire plans.
“ And he said the commission has “adherents of at least five different religions” — by citing the one Jewish member and then members of various Christian denominations and identities.”
Ok, I think it’s a (very small) win that a federal judge has ruled that there are multiple Christian religions. I’ll be citing that at CP, just like I do the SCOTUS says “in god we trust” is okay because it isn’t religious.
"More importantly, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972—passed to counter corruption—said that any commission like this one had to be transparent, balanced in terms of ideological makeup, and structured to avoid inappropriate influence by special interests."
Which reminded me of an early Babylon 5 episode. Its the scene where Jeffery Sinclair demonstrates the "dominant" faith system of the Earth to the alien ambassadors.
That the evangelicals claim the most corrupt and immoral President as one of their own, is really all you need to know about them. Of all the many forms of government humanity has ever dreamed up few are worse than theocracy, and yet the evangelicals seem to be convinced they know how to do theocracy right and should be given the opportunity to do so. They are the last people the overwhelming majority of Americans would want to see running the country.
I don't think they care about doing theocracy "right". They see the power wielded by the Ayatollahs and want that for themselves.
I think they saw Donald Trump as a path to the power they crave. Trump played them for the fools they are.
The relationship was/is purely transactional.
A pox on both of them.
Apparently not because the majority chose Trump and Project 2025 (which by the way Trump claims he knows nothing about).
Murica.
That's strange; he seems to claim he knows everything about everything.
Do note that their favorite president had to mumble his way thru the Lord's Prayer during Sen. Lindsey Graham's funeral yesterday. The fundies won't squirm even a little bit about his rank ignorance of Christianity when this is pointed out to them (if they tune in at all to any place that might do so).
The regime has been crystal clear from the golden escalator that freedom is on the chopping block. The regime telegraphs every clumsy punch, and our so called leadership just lets them all land. The Republicans are all aiding and abetting the tangerine tyrant, the democratic side is spineless at best, complicit generally and in bed with the right at worst. The judges he installed during his first term knew the assignment, some have been on the right side to instill a sense of trust from us, but they are all part of the corruption. It’s no surprise, the judges he nominated were all provided by The Heritage Foundation. Do you really think they’d side with democracy or freedom on a matter like this? This was their goal. This was their dodge to get conservative Christianity to be the official religion without “congress establishing an official religion”. Nevermind two centuries of jurisprudence.
Vote in the midterms like your life depends on it. It most certainly does no matter your religion, race, gender, or any other metric. If you aren’t a billionaire today, your life is in danger.
It's the 'flexible' yardstick - a mile for mee, a centimetre for thee.
Barry Goldwater warned us about this shit way back in 1964.
And it seems as though no one (or at least no one with influence) actually listened.
They listened, they just walked away with the wrong message.
And, there were rightwing christian nutjobs in 1964. They all have Authoritarian Personalities and seek to impose their will and control over anyone who differs from them. I guarantee, that that Orthodox Jew would be disappeared if they ever reach the full implementation phase of their theocracy. Not to mention everyone else not a conservative talibangelical christian.
Dear People, this is why it is so important that the Republicans lose the majority in the Senate. If the Democrats get the majority they can stop any new Trump appointed ass kissers from getting appointed to Federal Judge vacancies. Be sure to support candidates running for Senate seats the best you can with donations and volunteer work. Lobby all friends, relatives and neighbors, etc.
Georgia, Michigan, Maine, North Carolina, South Carolina, are critical. There maybe others. Wherever you are support candidates running against Republicans for Senate.
After 40 years of trial and litigation experience I can confidently say, biased judges destroy due process, fairness and justice in all areas. As is so sadly demonstrated with this case.
And don’t forget your local races! School boards are the breeding ground for higher office. I’m donating to and door knocking for local candidates to keep the moms for Liberty types off the board. (Their catchphrase this year is “common sense”). It’s just “common sense” to treat trans kids badly.
Well, Common Sense played an important part in the foundation of the USA, although it seems unlikely many people are familiar with it today. Is it even on reading lists now?
If we can't pull Trump out of the White House right here and now, we MUST disempower him to the farthest extent possible. That means controlling at least one side of the legislature and preferably both the House and the Senate. Further, a confrontational attitude with the president should be established and maintained from the time the new congresspeople are sworn in forward. No quarter should be given Trump whatsoever, and any untoward action he attempts to make should be answered and rebutted in real time.
It is well past time Trump's free ride was CANCELLED.
Hear, hear! My bride and I are financially able and more than willing to contribute to Senate candidates in possibly winnable races. I’m lobbying my friends to contribute as well if they can.
The downside is the 6 text messages I get almost every day from the campaigns I’ve donated to asking for more.
My list includes the states you mentioned plus Texas and Alaska.
I'm struggling with what I'd like to say, so please bear with me. I get the impression (and please bear in mind that I am looking at this from the outside) that the main issue in campaigning is money, how to get it and how to spend it. The request to supporters seems to be entirely limited to asking for money.
Let me offer an example: A few weeks ago, some of the people I subscribe to here on Substack were running in primary (?) elections. And for weeks they were sending me very frequent emails, always focused on asking me to 'rush' (barf!) them some money. Because they needed some money to hit an (arbitrary) goal before an (arbitrary) deadline.
It got really bad and I was glad when those primaries were over. (Since then the frequency of posts/mailings has dropped precipitously)
I got quite disillusioned. I could not donate any money but the campaign(s) did not give me any other options to support the candidate(s). Eg I was looking for maybe some talking points which I could post on social media, but there was nothing of the kind. Or the suggestion that I talk to friends and family with specific points, but nada. Only the requests for money. Really, only the requests for money.
Which is a long way for me to come to the point I am trying to make, which is that the American political activities are really dominated by money and that the various campaigns have lost sight of how they could use their supporters without constantly asking to 'rush' (barf!) them some donations.
Maybe I am just conditioned by living in a country which has got set limits on how much political campaigns can spend. (Also, TV ads are tightly controlled!)
You’re not wrong! I suspect the focus on money has several reasons. One of them is that it is seen as an indication of viability. A candidate who can’t raise money is regarded as less viable than one who can. So, a vicious cycle.
Second, a candidate with money has the ability to do things that they can control. They can send out mailers or run advertisements. They cannot control the actions of good-hearted people like you. Sure, you say you’ll talk to your friend. But will you really? (Using “you” generically 😀). I can tell you from experience that door-knocking is …. Unrewarding. On a Saturday maybe 10% of people answer the door. Maybe they aren’t home. I don’t know. And the smart doorbells make it even easier for them to screen out who is at the door. Doorbells that ask me to leave a message. Weird.
A campaign could organize phone calling. But no one answers their phones any more.
So, yes, it’s all about money. I live in a county of 300,000 people. It costs about $4000 to mail a postcard to every non-Republican household in the county. And for name recognition, marketing data suggests you need to hit someone at least 7 times. So yard signs can help. I wear a t-shirt with my candidate’s name if I’m out in public. But in the end, you gotta have money.
I did send texts to lots of my friends and acquaintances right before the primary. They started with “not that you asked but here’s who I’m supporting and why” and I kept them brief.
I appreciate your answer.
Let me speak up for the other side: There are umpteen suggestions floating around that one of the upcoming priorities us to 'fix' the 'Citizens United' decisions. Which would bring restrictions on political finance. Which seems to be generally accepted as being a good move. We'll see how this will play out.
As I wrote in my note, I live in a country with very strict political finance rules. In your example you say that the cost of a postcard mailer is 4k. If the campaign only had .... let's pick a number, let's say 10k ... if the campaign could only spend 10k, would they still spend 4k on a mailer? Or would they look to find ways to use their available funds in a more creative way, eg put up signs at traffic lights and lampposts, where one sign would be seen by lots of people throughout the campaign?
I don't think you can get money out of politics completely, but surely there could be limits?
No, American politics is completely about money now. The farce of the Citizens United case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) sealed our fate in the US.
I hope that the US can correct its course through a peaceful political process. I fear that it will really take a second civil war in this country.
Your lament is fully justified and may be laid at the feet of the disastrous Supreme Court decision in the "Citizens United" case that corporations are people and free spending = free speech. This can only be fixed by a constitutional amendment granting the government the power to regulate campaign financing. But guess who has to initiate such an amendment. That's right, the very people who've been successful under the status quo.
That doesn't mean we should just surrender, tho. The Seneca Falls women's conference in 1848 called for women to have the right to vote. They didn't actually GET it until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. (It took effect on Aug. 26 if you'd like to mark your calendar to commemorate the event.) What it took was persistent termination on the part of people determined to do what was right, and we moderns should do no less.
I will only send small donations to authentic (hopefully) progressive candidates who are not corporate and AIPAC backed.
Health issues make phone banking and door-knocking no longer an option for me so a few years ago I upped my letter and postcard writing. Some of the organizations I write for have programs available to provide stamps for volunteers who can’t afford them but that won’t help you if you are mailing from outside the U.S. it does occur to me though that they might have social media of their own you could promote and some of them will have information about specific campaigns on their websites that could give you information to post. One of my favorites is PostcardsToVoters.org because they focus on down ballot races and special elections that don’t get a lot of attention. They partner with the candidate so our writing instructions include both specific messages the campaign has asked us to write and additional options if we have room on the card to write more. I just finished writing for a special election for County Trustee that takes place next week in Knoxville, Tennessee. I’m not sure how much specific info is actually available on their website though. There’s also the Turnout Project which runs Postcards To Swing States which includes News Boosting cards. I know they have an Instagram account and I think Facebook. And Blue Wave Postcards which also has an Instagram account that might have messages you'd like to promote. I used to do a lot of texting but I haven’t in awhile so I’m not up-to-date but I can see what I can track down if anyone would like.
I would also suggest writing to some of those campaigns you want to support and tell them they need to provide you talking points for their supporters to use on social media and with friends, family, and neighbors. Not everyone has spare money these days and not everyone can phone bank, door knock, etc. If they say they really need money to, let’s say get money out of politics, and don’t offer you another way to help with that effort, maybe tell them to remove you from their mailing list.
The anachronistic Electoral College and Democrats' swing to the left in a mostly conservative/moderate country is going to keep Republicans entrenched in power in the Senate for a long time. Look at the map: it's mostly red. No new judges for the foreseeable future. Democrats screwed it up badly thanks to greedy Ruth Ginsburg clinging to her lifetime seat with stage 4 cancer.
In this regard maps are deceptive: A lot of the 'red' consists of sparsely populated but geographically large areas, while the 'blue' covers smaller areas but more urban i.e. densely populated places.
I have been advocating for a change to the voting system, from FPTP to a PR-style system: Not only does it eliminate gerrymandering, it also provides for more balanced results.
Also RCV. Check out Fairvote.org
There are also other approaches that aim in the same direction and aren't necessarily incompatible with ranked-choice voting.
I'm active in an organization that's promoting Final Five Voting, which would eliminate PARTISAN primaries (which tend to select the leftmost Democrat and rightmost Republican, leaving the massive moderate middle with a choice in the general election between the lesser of two evils or just not voting at all). Under FFV, there'd be a UNIVERSAL primary, in which everyone would be on a single ballot, and the top 5 finishers, regardless of party (possibly including more than 1 candidate from any given party) would go on to the general election, which would be run with RCV.
There's also the idea of multi-member districting. Right now, let's say a state has 9 congressional districts. Each elects 1 US representative. Suppose the vote in each of them is 55% for the Whigs and 45% for the Tories. Result: 9 Whig representatives. Instead imagine that the state's divided geographically into only 3 districts, each of which gets to elect 3 representatives, based on vote distribution. Now each of those 3 districts ends up sending 2 Whigs and 1 Tory to Congress, more closely resembling the wishes of the electorate.
RCV? I'm not familiar with that TLA, could you explain please?
Ranked choice voting. Instead of having to choose between the lesser of two evils you rank your choices. If no one wins a majority in the first round the candidate with the fewest votes is knocked out and if you ranked them first, now your 2nd choice gets your vote. It continues like this in rounds until someone reaches 50+%. You can vote for someone you like but think can’t win without throwing away your vote. The candidates have to be careful how they campaign (negative campaigning turns off most voters) and encourages alliances among like minded candidates and their supporters.
Addendum - I live in Scotland. We use a hybrid PR-style to elect our parliament which I think works really well.
If you're interested have a look at the 'Holyrood' voting system. The Wiki page is good, the BBC Bitesize is even better.
Thankyou. I am familiar with ranked choice voting, I just did not recognise this abbreviation.
Good point. Maps are deceptive because Republicans represent acreage; Democrats represent people. So far, acreage isn't able to vote (tho I'm sure the brainiacs at the Heritage Foundation are trying to figure out ways to change that).
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦’𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 “𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑜-𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑓𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑓𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠” 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ/𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛.
Four denominations of far right white evangelicals and a token Jew is definitely the opposite of religious diversity. Did they discuss the difficulties faced by Muslims in rural areas? How about any non-christians in the South? They don't care about the religious freedoms of anyone, they just want to force their views on everyone.
Religuous diversity? They will tell you they have both kinds, Baptist and Pentecostal.
https://youtu.be/_hb2EItHEH4?is=nt1gBcZoLZvaRzN_
> "both kinds"
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 and Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912
Note: Len got sent to jail for providing the punch line. Nannybot has no sense of humor.
I was going to write that I hadn't posted that punch line yet, then I checked Nannybot Prison and saw it was the other Len.
Let's try the "safe" option I've seen online: Unalive, heretic!
The Constitution doesn’t establish a hierarchy of religions. Government shouldn’t either. Religious liberty means equal protection for every faith—and for those of us with no faith at all. Anything less isn’t religious freedom. It’s government favoritism.
Sadly, you can't tell Trump or the Nat-Cs that. They aren't listening, and they don't give a rotten dump about anyone other than themselves. They mean to dominate the environment, and they will if they're not stopped.
How long before the "commission" sweeps out all but the "right" kind of Christians? First get rid of the non-Christians, then go after xtians whose theology isn't quite straight.
Eventually only “The Donald” will be left - as a super prime example of the right kind of christian.
ETA: Let’s see: adulterous, amoral, arrogant, cheating, childish, conceited, lying, pompous, selfish, supercilious.
Anyone else?
That sounds like most Christians I know.
Racist. Xenophobic. Homophobic, Transphobic.
He’s just phobic.
(Is that a word?)
What do you think DHS is buying up the warehouses for? They have way more space than what they need for the “illegals” or even people of color in the USA. At least The Handmaid’s Tale put the riff raff in apartment buildings, Trump wants to warehouse us with no personal space.
Why waste apartment buildings that you can charge exorbitant rent for?
When your ‘beliefs’ must be forced upon others, then your cult is bereft of any merit or value.
Thing is, how does anyone force beliefs onto a person who OWNS THEMSELVES, who understands who they are and where they stand? The answer is, THEY CAN'T. And as it comes to that:
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑔𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡, 𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑐ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑎𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠, "𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑, 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑒, 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤," 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑡𝑦𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑛𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑤 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠. 𝑀𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑦 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑑; 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒, 𝑛𝑜 𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 𝑎 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑛, 𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒. 𝑁𝑜, 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘, 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑓𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑠, 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑦𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 — 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑐𝑎𝑛'𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑟 𝑎 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑛; 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑑𝑜 𝑖𝑠 𝑘𝑖𝑙𝑙 ℎ𝑖𝑚.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Their goal is to shift the Overton window so that their awful cult beliefs become mainstream, part of a plan since Ronnie Raygun. The wild card they didn’t consider was the creation of the internet.
The internet plays to both sides of this equation, and Google's tendency to give us what it thinks we want only complicates matters. The one saving grace is in those people who see both sides and can discriminate bullshit from actual reality.
It's a slow, torturous process, and any resolution is STILL not a given ... which is why we're still in the fight.
I’m thinking more in terms of organization. Pre-internet was all analog communication, now things can happen in an instant. It helps them as well but it also lets sane people organize much faster to confront their nonsense. The down side is how much of the public is uneducated and unable to discern credible from incredible claims.
Well put!
"He also wrote that the commission is diverse in other ways"
They're like Country AND Western.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UVNvoU_Qp8
More like they can both Sieg AND Heil.
Joe King beat you to it by over 40 minutes. :)
GMTA and all that.
Semi on-topic: Christian Post has article about Christians in eastern India suffering from Hindi Nationalism. The failure to recognize the irony is palpable.
https://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-in-bengal-plan-rallies-against-rising-attacks.html
A couple days ago, I participated in a substack conversation regarding Neil Gorsuch's assertion that the US is, indeed, NOT a Christian nation. Not too surprisingly, it drew a LOT of Christian apologist types who wanted to insist that the US IS a Christian nation, while failing to recognize that NOWHERE in the Constitution is Christianity mentioned. I got my shots in, but ultimately, it's just tiresome when they want to lean on supposed intent without acknowledging the actual WORDS which defined the United States.
State / Church separation and freedom of speech is why no one has gotten in their face and told them to shut up. They just can't see it.
They mistake pervasiveness for governance. They think that because the majority has been Christian for most of our history, that must mean that our history is BECAUSE of Christianity. They cannot wrap their minds around the fact that Christianity has only flourished as it has because of Separation of Church and State.
How do they respond if you tell them that if the country were officially Christian, that their sect would most likely not be the one in charge, and that some of their specific beliefs would be declared heretical and punishable by law? My bet is a blank stare as their brains short circuit trying to imagine a world where they are not in charge.
It wouldn’t matter if they focused on the words because they would just redefine them anyway. It’s what they do. “Nature’s god” means……Jesus!
"Hey! You can't persecute us! That's OUR SOP!"
Christians in India should have a Pride Month! They could have a Christian Pride parade. They could wave their colorful flag. They could show that they are just people who are somewhat different in some way from the majority but no less deserving of equality.
Oh, the irony. :)
"But it's different! We have the TROO religion!"
If anyone needed ANY PROOF that the Trump administration's attitude toward religion is badly skewed toward Christian Nationalism, this whole incident amounts to prima facie evidence to that effect. If you're a VERY conservative Christian, you're in. If you're anything else, you MIGHT get a nod as a token participant, but you'll have damned little if any influence on anything Trump's Religious Liberty Commission decides on or publishes.
This was tiresome 10 squares back, and it damned well deserves to be called on its obvious bias.
May as well change the name to The Christian + 1 Token Commission. Far more honest.
Christain Traitor Conclave.
When the regime falls this subset of Theocratic traitors needs exclusion on a level they cannot begin to comprehend. These enemies of humanity need to reap the full reward for their evil.
To save what is left of our democracy we must not vote for or support in any way Republicans for any office. They all bend the knee and follow Trump’s idiotic, narcissistic, pro billionaire plans.
“ And he said the commission has “adherents of at least five different religions” — by citing the one Jewish member and then members of various Christian denominations and identities.”
Ok, I think it’s a (very small) win that a federal judge has ruled that there are multiple Christian religions. I’ll be citing that at CP, just like I do the SCOTUS says “in god we trust” is okay because it isn’t religious.
"More importantly, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972—passed to counter corruption—said that any commission like this one had to be transparent, balanced in terms of ideological makeup, and structured to avoid inappropriate influence by special interests."
Which reminded me of an early Babylon 5 episode. Its the scene where Jeffery Sinclair demonstrates the "dominant" faith system of the Earth to the alien ambassadors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hg_TRynRIs