Right-wing billionaires have long wanted to shred the safety net. Under Trump, they’re using lies and fears over the deficit to debilitate Social Security.

“We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported,” wrote U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on X on Sunday, linking to The Associated Press’s coverage of Khalil’s arrest.

There is no going back from this point: President Donald Trump’s administration is trying to deport a man solely for his First Amendment-protected activity, without due process. By all existing legal standards, this is illegal and unconstitutional: a violation of First Amendment protections, and the Fifth Amendment-protected right to due process. If Khalil’s green card is revoked and he is deported, no one can have any confidence in legal and constitutional protections as a line of defense against arbitrary state violence and punishment. Khalil’s arrest marks an extraordinary fascist escalation.

It is all the more vile that Khalil has been targeted for engaging in protected protest activity calling for an end to the U.S.-backed slaughter of his people. The Trump administration has consistently framed all pro-Palestine, anti-Zionist activists as Hamas supporters. It is worth stressing, though, that even if a protester did express support or sympathy for Hamas in a public speech, or on social media (and I’m not saying Khalil did), such expression is also protected by the First Amendment, a protection extended to citizens and noncitizens alike. This is settled constitutional law: The Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. Johnson in 1989, for example, reaffirmed the principle that the First Amendment protects even the most controversial and provocative forms of speech.

Khalil’s March 7 email came after an earlier Jan. 31 email he sent, in which he urged the school “to take immediate action to protect international students at Columbia facing severe and pervasive doxing, discriminatory harassment, and very possibly deportation in retaliation for the lawful exercising of their rights to freedom of speech, expression, and association…”

Khalil cited a threatening post by the pro-Israel organization Betar in January. In the post, the group wrote that he said, “Zionists don’t deserve to live” – a statement Khalil “unequivocally” denied making in his email to university officials. Betar also wrote that ICE⁩ “is aware of his home address and whereabouts” and that they “have provided all his information to multiple contacts.”

“He’s on our deport list!“ Betar added.

"We will not accept oligarchy, we will not accept authoritarianism, we will not accept kleptocracy," the democratic socialist senator said. "We're gonna fight back, and we're gonna win."

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN a greedy geezer with the most powerful job in the world cements himself to a greedy grabber who is the richest man in the world? You get Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and a superpower emeritus about ready to be stripped for parts.

Few foresaw this in 2010, when the Supreme Court launched us onto a dark path. The court’s 5–4 Citizens United decision, allowing unlimited corporate, interest-group, and individual spending on elections, did trigger dire predictions from plenty of doomsayers. But even the most pessimistic among them fell short of imagining American reality today.

“We knew that it was going to be really, really destructive for our democracy,” says Tiffany Muller, president of the group End Citizens United, which is dedicated to electing Democrats committed to seeing the ruling overturned. “Fifteen years after that decision, we’re seeing the full culmination of living under a Citizens United world—where it’s not just elections that are for sale, but it’s that our entire government, and the apparatus of our government, is up for sale.”

It’s hard to believe, but once upon a time there was bipartisan common ground on gun safety, health care, voting rights, climate change, and even limits on campaign funding. The Senate in 2006 voted 98–0 to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, and George W. Bush signed the law. He also added a voluntary prescription benefit to Medicare, with help from Democrats in both chambers.

Bipartisan Senate pairs introduced major climate bills in 2003 and 2007, but their prospects faded amid opposition from the fossil-fuel industry. In 2010, a few months after Citizens United, a cap-and-trade tax designed to reduce carbon emissions passed the House in a landmark vote, but it fell short in the Senate. Democrats had 59 seats and needed just one Republican vote to advance the bill—and they couldn’t get it.

The oil and gas sector now floods the election zone with over six times as much cash as it spent in the 2010 cycle. And it has amassed all the clout you’d expect as contributions have skyrocketed—from defeating a carbon tax–friendly House Republican in 2010 to helping to elect Trump last year.

When Citizens United turned ten, in 2020, the political money-tracker Open Secrets reported on what the ruling had wrought. Super PACs—the non-party committees created to legally raise cash in unlimited amounts to independently promote issues and candidates—spent $4.5 billion over the decade (up from $750 million over the previous twenty years).

The major players of the new era, it turned out, were not corporations. They were millionaires and billionaires. “The 10 most generous donors and their spouses injected $1.2 billion into federal elections over the last decade,” Open Secrets found.

Muller wrote then that a new Gilded Age was upon us, one in which wealthy donors—most of them old, white, and male—unleashed their money to manipulate politicians, reward them if they were compliant, and sink them if they were not. “The court’s naïve view of our electoral process set the stage for 10 years of billions of dollars corrupting our politics and dictating national policy on everything from the cost of prescription drugs to climate change to gun violence,” she said in a 2020 USA Today op-ed.

THE CORRUPTION OF FIVE YEARS AGO is almost trivial compared with the corruption of today. Gridlock and dysfunction are still with us, blocking many priorities supported by voters, but now “there is nothing that isn’t for sale,” Muller told me, and reeled off a few choice outrages: Trump’s personal investment in crypto and public steps that will enrich him, his family, and wealthy friends; an unprecedented thirteen billionaires in Trump’s cabinet, with all the potential that entails for conflicts of interest and insulation from the impact of their policies; and Musk’s “unfettered access” to the government and the private data of tens of millions, as he fires, freezes, and cancels his way through one agency after another, allegedly to slash costs.

At the same time, Musk himself is flush with government grants and contracts, and is aggressively pursuing more of them—from the Federal Aviation Administration (where he has insinuated his Starlink internet system into its operations although the FAA’s existing Verizon contract doesn’t expire until 2038) to the Commerce Department’s $42 billion rural broadband access program (which rewrote its rules last week to make Starlink eligible).

The root of this corruption debacle, of course and alas, is Musk spending nearly $300 million to get Trump elected in the first place. Now he’s trying to purchase a state supreme court seat in Wisconsin, and his fellow billionaires are pouring money into state legislative races in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. What’s next, local school boards?

By the time the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United, it had lost the one justice who had campaigned for office and negotiated political deals: Sandra Day O’Connor, a former Arizona state senator and Republican majority leader, nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1981 as the first woman on the court.

It would be an understatement to say O’Connor’s decision to step down in January 2006 to care for her husband, who had Alzheimer’s, had enormous national consequences. One of them was Citizens United. A few days after that ruling, speaking at Georgetown University, O’Connor joked that “Gosh, I step away for a couple of years, and there’s no telling what’s going to happen.”

I wrote in 2010 that based on that remark and her 2003 opinion upholding campaign donation and spending limits in the McCain–Feingold law, she likely would have been part of a 5–4 majority against opening the cash floodgates. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about O’Connor’s decision and a couple of portentous what-ifs as we endure this disastrous, potentially deadly, anti-democracy Trump-Musk reign of error and terror.

Two of those what-ifs: What if Bush’s first choice to replace O’Connor, Harriet Miers, had not withdrawn amid critiques that she was not sufficiently experienced or conservative? What if Bush had not then nominated Samuel Alito?

AND THE DEEPEST WHAT-IF QUESTION OF ALL:

What if O’Connor had left the Court in 2016 instead of in 2006? Her biographer, Evan Thomas, told NPR’s Nina Totenberg in 2019 that she resigned because “he sacrificed for me, now it’s my turn”—a reference to her husband moving from Phoenix to Washington for her career. “It was tragic because within six months of her leaving the Court, he could barely recognize her,” Thomas said.

The rest of the interview went like this:

TOTENBERG: Did she regret it—leaving?

THOMAS: She said it’s the biggest mistake—dumbest thing I ever did.

TOTENBERG: Indeed, in the years afterwards, she made little secret of her view that the Court, with the addition of Justice Samuel Alito in her place, was systematically dismantling her legacy.

That legacy would have been much different, and maybe more permanent, had she stayed even a few years longer. Just as her political background made her unusual, so did her gender. As I wrote in 2010, “She was a law school graduate who had been offered secretarial jobs. She was a justice who, after listening to her new colleague Antonin Scalia rail against affirmative action, responded: ‘How do you think I got my job?’”

Short of a Supreme Court reversal of Citizens United, lawmakers have repeatedly introduced House and Senate bills proposing a constitutional amendment to overturn it. But that’s a long and arduous route that has yet to get traction. In the meantime, states have made progress on reforms such as disclosure of major donors and closing dark money loopholes, and there are ways for Congress to reduce the influence of money in politics.

The House passed such a bill—the For the People Act—five times, according to Muller, but Senate filibuster holdouts made it impossible to pass with a simple 51-vote majority. The next chance to enact a law like that would be January 2029, the next time there might be a Democratic House, Senate, and president.

Here’s Muller’s checklist of work to be done between now and then: call out corruption and harm, hold the perpetrators accountable, and make sure voters know who they are; win the House in 2026 to check Trump; win as many state races as possible next year for governor, secretary of state, and attorney general—the jobs crucial to running and protecting elections for president and Congress in 2028. Then it might be possible to ride a blue wave to a blue sweep.

It’s not unthinkable. By that point, Trump, Musk, and their billionaires-first, empathy-last philosophy will have inflicted untold pain. There’s a good chance voters will be anxious to leave them, and it, behind.

And yet, the demise of our democracy is not unthinkable, either. Will the 2028 election be free and fair? Will the voice of the people be heard?

The presence of Justice O’Connor on the Supreme Court for another five or ten years likely would have changed a chunk of the Court’s major 5–4 rulings, and the direction of the country. I once counted four cases with that potential in 2007 alone. Given the frightening territory we’re in, I now see Citizens United as the most ominous result of her absence—even, possibly, the most consequential hinge point of U.S. history in my lifetime. Because no one knows how this ends.

Amid the chaos of the Trump administration’s first few weeks in office, a court case regarding the president’s legal right to stop payment of nearly US$2 billion in U.S. Agency for International Development contracts poses an important legal question whose answer may show just how strong the country’s separation of powers actually is.

Clips of Sam Seder with MAGA supporters. Not sure I agree with the headline but it is the same as the video.

Next up, transatlantic flights.

Creating the Progressive Party in America

Progressives have been largely abandoned by Democratic leadership, and don't have any voice in the GOP. I, and many others, have lost faith in the Democratic Party leadership, and after forty years of watching them betray progressive ideals, believe it's time for a real Progressive Party in America.

As such, I'd like to ask the community, how would a Progressive Party work? What are your goals for its platform? And would you be willing to volunteer your time and energy to get it off the ground?

All responses are welcome, but I'm looking for constructive criticism, because I absolutely believe this is possible in our current political environment. Here's why:

According to my recent research, it would take approximately 1,110,000 registered voters across the 50 states to qualify as a major political party.

That's just .0595% of our 186,500,000 registered voters in 2024. For comparison, there are 14.3 million union members in the US, so if just 5% of them vote Progressive, we've got ourselves a party.

I've detailed the totals and requirements by state below, because these are attainable numbers on a state by state basis (also so you can search and find out what the reqs are for your state). Additionally, the 1,110,000 number above is only to qualify as a major political party - many of these states have much lower ballot requirements.

I know the detail below is a wall of text, and I may break lemmy, but this is posted not with the intent to overwhelm, but with the purpose to point that on a state by state basis, these numbers are more than possible - the bar for getting on the ballot is pretty low in many states.

Ballot and Registration Requirements:

Ballot access signature requirements for each state:

• Alabama: 50,000 signatures
• Alaska: 3,000 signatures (1,500 from each congressional district)
• Arizona: 36,647 valid signatures
• Arkansas: 10,000 signatures
• California: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Colorado: 10,500 signatures (or 1% of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election)
• Connecticut: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Delaware: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 10% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Florida: 76,834 valid signatures (or 1% of registered voters) from each congressional district
• Georgia: 50,000 signatures
• Hawaii: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 20% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Idaho: 18,692 signatures (or 5% of the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election)
• Illinois: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Indiana: 50,000 signatures
• Iowa: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Kansas: 38,947 valid signatures (or 5% of the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election)
• Kentucky: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 20% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Louisiana: 54,689 signatures (or 1% of registered voters) from each congressional district
• Maine: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Maryland: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 20% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Massachusetts: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 10% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Michigan: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Minnesota: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Mississippi: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 18% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Missouri: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 20% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Montana: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Nebraska: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 10% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Nevada: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• New Hampshire: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 10% of the vote in a statewide election.
• New Jersey: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• New Mexico: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 10% of the vote in a statewide election.
• New York: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• North Carolina: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 10% of the vote in a statewide election.
• North Dakota: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Ohio: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Oklahoma: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 10% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Oregon: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Pennsylvania: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Rhode Island: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 10% of the vote in a statewide election.
• South Carolina: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 10% of the vote in a statewide election.
• South Dakota: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Tennessee: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Texas: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 10% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Utah: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Vermont: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 10% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Virginia: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 25% of the vote in a statewide election.
• Washington: No ballot access requirement for political parties; however, to secure major party status, candidates must receive at least 10% of the vote in a statewide election.

Registration Requirements for new political party by state:

• Alabama: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 50 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Alaska: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Division of Elections. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 50 registered voters who support the formation of the party, and a platform.

• Arizona: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 3,000 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Arkansas: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 50 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• California: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 10,000 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least ten proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Colorado: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 2,000 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Connecticut: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 50 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Delaware: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 50 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Florida: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 125 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Georgia: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Hawaii: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 50 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Idaho: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 50 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Illinois: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Indiana: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Iowa: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Kansas: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Kentucky: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Louisiana: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Maine: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Maryland: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Massachusetts: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Michigan: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Minnesota: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Mississippi: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Missouri: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Montana: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• Nebraska: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• Nevada: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• New Hampshire: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state executive committee, and a platform.

• New Jersey: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• New Mexico: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• New York: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• North Dakota: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• Ohio: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must contain the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• Oklahoma: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must include the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• Oregon: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must contain the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• Pennsylvania: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must contain the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• Rhode Island: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must contain the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• South Carolina: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must contain the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• South Dakota: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must contain the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• Tennessee: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must contain the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• Texas: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must contain the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• Utah: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must contain the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• Vermont: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must contain the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• Virginia: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must contain the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• Washington: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must contain the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• West Virginia: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must contain the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

• Wyoming: To form a new political party, one must file an application with the Secretary of State. The application must contain the proposed name of the party, the names and addresses of at least 130 registered voters who support the formation of the party, the names and addresses of at least five proposed members of the state committee, and a platform.

Total registered voters to achieve major party status in each state (approximate):

• Alabama 10,000
• Alaska 3,000
• Arizona 5,000
• Arkansas 3,000
• California 67,000
• Colorado 1,500
• Connecticut 2,500
• Delaware 1,500
• Washington DC 3,000
• Florida 78,000
• Georgia 15,000
• Hawaii 3,000
• Idaho 2,000
• Illinois 25,000
• Indiana 30,000
• Iowa 10,000
• Kansas 5,000
• Kentucky 10,000
• Louisiana 5,000
• Maine 2,000
• Maryland 25,000
• Massachusetts 10,000
• Michigan 50,000
• Minnesota 8,500
• Mississippi 3,000
• Missouri 10,000
• Montana 2,000
• Nebraska 2,500
• Nevada 6,000
• New Hampshire 3,000
• New Jersey 30,000
• New Mexico 2,000
• New York 100,000
• North Carolina 75,000
• North Dakota 1,500
• Ohio 75,000
• Oklahoma 3,000
• Oregon 5,000
• Pennsylvania 25,000
• Rhode Island 2,500
• South Carolina 15,000
• South Dakota 1,500
• Tennessee 30,000
• Texas 100,000
• Utah 10,000
• Vermont 2,500
• Virginia 75,000
• Washington 50,000
• West Virginia 3,000
• Wisconsin 100,000
• Wyoming 2,500

Link above is to full youtube of the CSPAN coverage of the talk with the FIFA president. Trump lays out this banger at 2:25.

Hope begins when Democratic Party leadership gives way to the Left. Unions can make it happen.

I don't know who she is but I'd like to give her credit. Does anybody know?

We really should have two major parties committed to upholding the Constitution. But at the moment we seem to have none. Because not only have the Republicans been captured by the corrupt fascism of Trump but, instead of standing against the grotesque assault on our democracy Trump has been perpetrating non-stop since January 20, Democrats keep trying to join in.

The latest inexcusable abdications of their duty to uphold the Constitution involve conspiring with Trump to tear up what’s left of the First Amendment with the Take It Down Act. Trump and his supporters may pay lip service to how much they hate jawboning, but this bill is a celebration of it, using government pressure on intermediaries as a means of inflicting as much censorship on online speech as their shriveled autocratic hearts desire. They may wrap their craven agenda in the idea that this law would help the most vulnerable, but only the most gormless would be foolish enough to believe that its power would be so limited when the text itself makes clear how rife it is for abuse. Yet there are Democrats—like Senator Amy Klobuchar, who has never met a First Amendment-violating bill she didn’t like—who are for some reason lining up with Melania “I don’t care” Trump to make sure its abusers might soon have that power.

If we are to get through this constitutional crisis it will be only because of the citizen discourse that the Internet enables. While traditional mass media fails us, the Internet allows us to share ideas and information without it. Laws like the Take It Down Act attack our ability to speak online by forcing the platforms we need to do it to turn against our speech in order to protect themselves. As does the dumber than dumb proposal by outgoing-Senator Dick Durbin, who wants his final gift to America to be to destroy the one law that makes discourse on the Internet possible: Section 230.

50501.chat

A new official instance dedicated to the 50501 movement was created recently and is in the works. It has some brainstorming communities, a mirror of r/50501, and all 50 states have a community assigned to them. They are also looking for state organizers for their Lemmy state communities! Come join us!

Got permission from mods to post.

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/33958648

Share this.

The US is resetting, but not how the world expected

In a revealing moment during her recent CPAC speech, Donald Trump’s newly appointed UN ambassador, Elise Stefanik, openly took credit for the ousting of multiple Ivy League university presidents on Israel’s behalf.

“Do you remember that famous Congressional hearing with the anti-Semitic university presidents from Harvard and Penn?” she asked the crowd. “I should say former presidents after my questions. Five down and so many to go.”

Jubilee

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/57598352