🤬🤬🤬

no justice no peace

[David Sirota @davidsirota]

This from @RBReich is a good summary of how the Democrats created the backlash conditions for Trump’s rise:

“Both Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free-trade agreements, for example, but didn’t provide the millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

“They also stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class. Clinton and Obama failed to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violated them, or to enable workers to form unions with a simple up-or-down vote.

“In his 1992 campaign, Clinton promised such reform but once elected didn’t want to buck corporate Democrats by spending political capital on it. In his 2008 campaign, Obama made the same promise but never acted on it.

“Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22 percent of all workers when Clinton was elected president to fewer than 10 percent today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy’s gains.

“The Obama administration also protected Wall Street from the consequences of its gambling addiction through a giant taxpayer-funded bailout but left millions of underwater homeowners to drown.

“Both Clinton and Obama allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify — with the result that large corporations have grown far larger and major industries far more concentrated.

“And they turned their backs on campaign finance reform. In 2008, Obama was the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon to reject public financing in his primary and general election campaigns. And he never followed up on his reelection campaign promise to pursue a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United v. FEC, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates to big money in politics.

“What happens when you combine free trade, shrinking unions, Wall Street bailouts, growing corporate monopoly power, and the abandonment of campaign finance reform? You get an economy favoring the wealthy and a political system favoring the powerful, while workers without college degrees suffer declining real wages and dwindling job security.”

Full piece here — pass it on: https://t.co/iV4gIYLuZU

[Tom Williams @tommyboy0690]

Texas Has Suspended More Than 1 Million Voters Ahead of Senate Race
If you’re one of the people who had their voter registration suspended, there’s still time to fix it. https://t.co/Fvgqt5X7GI via @newrepublic

[Lara Korte @lara_korte]

After being told we were fired for insubordination, my colleagues and I today filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Defense Department, Pete Hegseth, Sean Parnell and Andrew Brey seeking to protect our First Amendment rights.

Everyone deserves the right to a free and independent press, especially our service members. This lawsuit is about safeguarding the mission of Stars and Stripes journalists so they can continue to do their jobs without fear or retaliation.
https://t.co/JahMqsU25v

[hasanabi @hasanthehun]

if democrats defended the working class like they defend israel trump wouldn’t be president

[#TuckFrump @realTuckFrumper]

I’m happy to share this because I don’t care what side of the aisle you sit on, this is a fact.

Speaker Mike Johnson this is for you.
Concerning Social Security payments, my contributions were made for over 50 years on every salary I received. From my first part time job until I retired. I always had a job.

The Social Security check is now (or soon will be) referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment?" I'll be part of the one percent to forward this.I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you. Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it.

The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.

It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.
Congress took our money and used it elsewhere. They forgot (oh yes, they knew) that it was OUR money they were taking.

They didn't have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them. And they didn't pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently they've told us that the money won't support us for very much longer. And now, to add insult to injury, they're calling it a "benefit", as if we never worked to earn every penny of it.

Just because they borrowed the money doesn't mean that our investments were a charity!

Let's take a stand. We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government.

Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it. Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income.
99% of people won't forward this to their timelines…..will you?

Please, for the sake of our country, repost this.

[Pastor Ben @BenjaminPDixon]

Brother, we are at the stage of human history where platitudes are not only unacceptable, but gag inducing.

>what is your specific plan to stop Trump's attack on the midterms

>what are your specific plans to stop Trump's attack on Public Health. (millions of lives are at stake)

>what are you specific plans to stop Trump's poisoning of our food supply?

>what are you specific plans to stop the dismantling of the Republic per project 2025?

>what are you specific plans to dismantle MAGA's misinformation machine?

>what are your specific plans .....

that's what year we are in, Hakeem Jeffries.

Anything short of this is unacceptable and very much giving Weimar Republic vibes.

[Alabama Revolutionary🌹✊🏾 @TerrellLeftist]

“First Black Speaker of the House” sounds like you’re putting a whole lot of weight behind that, and maybe years ago that would’ve been enough to move a lot of us. But people are struggling too damn hard for symbolism to be the selling point anymore.

Representation matters, but representation does not pay the rent, lower grocery prices, cover medical bills, raise wages, or make life affordable.

Y’all have allowed economic hardship to get so bad that people are past celebrating “the first Black” or “the first” anything while they’re drowning financially. We don’t need another historic milestone used as a substitute for material change. We need Democrats to fix this shit so people can afford to live.

[france owes Haiti $200,000,000,000🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🇭🇹 @leebbees]

they can hunt you down with ring and flock cameras and find you across state lines if you write free Palestine on a street lamp post, but they can't find who's been hanging Black people from trees in the South

[David Sirota @davidsirota]

🚨NEW: Jeffries declared his opposition to Medicare For All 72 hours after a Yale study shows it would save 100,000 lives & $1 trillion

Context: Jeffries raked in $391k from health PACs & faced no primary pressure to hold the line on Dem priorities because a primary was crushed

[Secular Talk ([email protected]) @KyleKulinski]

Between 75% and 88% of Dem voters support a Medicare for All single-payer healthcare system. He needs to step down. Between this and his Israel position he's actively hurting our chances of defeating MAGA fascism. This is completely unacceptable.

[Bill Madden @maddenifico]

This is a brilliant idea.

[FOX 5 Atlanta @FOX5Atlanta]

Georgia's data center boom continues with massive projects proposed or under construction, including OpenAI's Project Camellia and developments in Hampton, Douglas, Bartow, Coweta and DeKalb counties. https://t.co/ijqaX5Y4oI

[A Left-Wing Account ™️ @PushDemsLeft]

We are simply no longer accepting electability takes from Democrats who saw this 2016 polling and drove us straight off the cliff to Trump full steam ahead anyway.

[Katie Halper @kthalps]

Don't for a second think Neera Tanden & the DNC pseudo feminists she represents care at all about Platner's victims or sexual assault. They didn't even ACKNOWLEDGE Tara Reade's accusations against Biden or Juanita Broaddrick's against Clinton. They just don't Platner's politics

[Ashleyy @dontsippy]

They supported Andrew Cuomo just a few months ago. They defended Biden against sexual assault allegations until he was no longer politically useful. They don’t care about women they care about protecting allies and weaponizing accusations against political opponents. They act in bad faith, and their primary objective is to undermine any momentum on the left that challenges the political establishment.

[Ashleyy @dontsippy]

Democrats don’t believe all women, just particular ones that can be politically useful to them.

[DannyKPolitics @DannyKPolitics]

EXCLUSIVE: Dark money conduit behind hit job on Graham Platner campaign, preserves congressional status quo

Reckoning Action, the group that connected Jenny Racicot to Politico, is a 501(c)(4) — a Delaware nonprofit that discloses none of its donors. Its executive director, Cheyenne Hunt, was instrumental in ending Eric Swalwell’s career.

It was launched May 20 on Capitol Hill alongside the Democratic Women’s Caucus, whose chair, Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, personally announced the expulsion resolutions that forced two congressmen out in April.

A sitting congressional caucus chair co-fronting an outside group that hides its funding and ends careers is the structure worth examining, separate from any single accusation.

The group’s donations run through ActBlue, but ActBlue is the payment processor — the merchant of record, passing funds to the recipient and expressly disclaiming endorsement.

The non-disclosure lives in the (c)(4) itself, not the pipe. A 501(c)(4) can raise unlimited undisclosed money and spend it on candidacy-ending operations, provided politics isn’t its “primary” activity — a limit that is loosely policed and rarely enforced.

Reckoning Action’s reach is real and demonstrated. It helped force Swalwell’s resignation, and it can claim a Republican scalp too: Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas resigned within hours of Swalwell in April.

But the mechanics matter more than the box score.

Reporting from the Texas Tribune and PBS shows the two removals were paired to preserve the balance of a narrowly divided House — expelling one member from each party cost neither side a net seat. Gonzales was already finished, having lost his primary runoff with GOP leadership pushing him out.

The bipartisan-looking action was structured around partisan seat math.

The Platner case strips that cover away. There is no cross-party pairing here — the target is the party’s own Senate nominee, who won Maine’s primary by more than seventy points. Within hours of the Politico story, Schumer and Gillibrand demanded he “immediately withdraw,” the DSCC pledged zero spending, and Khanna, Gallego, and Heinrich pulled endorsements. The mechanism they are racing toward is Maine’s July 13 ballot-substitution deadline, after which the party — not voters — selects the replacement.

The accusation at the center would not survive the standard the party pretends to apply. Racicot’s account has real corroborative structure predating the campaign, including a 2019 therapist email and a November 2024 Facebook warning to other women. But there was no police report in 2021, no physical evidence, and no court has weighed any of it. It is an allegation that would acquit under a criminal standard and merely contest under a civil one — being converted, on a two-week clock, into grounds to overturn a landslide primary.

The transparency question stands regardless of what happened in Racicot’s home. An undisclosed-donor nonprofit, co-launched by a congressional caucus chair, has become an effective apparatus for removing officeholders with no public accounting of who funds it.

Pointed at credibly accused men facing Ethics investigations, it looks like accountability. Pointed at a party’s own primary winner, before any adjudication, on a deadline that hands the seat back to the establishment that never wanted him, it looks like something else. The structure is the same in both cases. Only the target changed.

[DannyKPolitics @DannyKPolitics]

ANALYSIS: The evidence mattered less than whether Graham Platner remained useful to his party

There is no direct physical evidence establishing the accusation against Graham Platner: no contemporaneous police report, rape kit, medical record, or physical corroboration of what occurred inside that room. The public case against him rests on a contested allegation, retrospective statements, political intervention, and character evidence.

The prosecution’s supposed “spine” is largely the accuser corroborating herself. A 2024 Facebook post saying Platner was “not relationship material” and warning others away may show that she disliked him, regretted the relationship, or wanted others to avoid him. It does not independently prove rape.

That is the evidentiary sleight of hand at the center of the case: convert early hostility into corroboration of a later criminal allegation. But “she disliked him before she accused him publicly” is not the same proposition as “therefore the accusation is true.” The same evidence can support animus just as easily as victimization.

The manner in which the accusation emerged should also make any serious observer more skeptical, not less. This did not simply surface on its own. Political operative Cheyenne Hunt assembled multiple exes, legal counsel became involved, and the accusation reached a national outlet during the precise window in which the party still had time to reclaim the nomination.

None of that proves fabrication. But it does destroy the fiction that this was a politically neutral process in which an allegation spontaneously surfaced and party leaders reluctantly reacted. The allegation was developed, organized, routed through political actors, and detonated on a deadline.

The accuser’s own public framing also evolved. She initially described Platner to the New York Times as “reckless” and “unsettling.” Only later, after political organizing and legal involvement, did the public allegation become rape.

That evolution does not make the allegation false. It does, however, make scrutiny mandatory. When a description hardens from condemnation into a criminal classification after lawyers, operatives, and media enter the picture, the public is entitled to distinguish what the accuser said at the time from the legal theory later built around it.

Her present formulation that it was rape “by definition” is itself revealing. “By definition” is a conclusion. The underlying facts remain disputed.

She says she repeatedly resisted before eventually complying. Platner says he believed a previously consensual sexual relationship was continuing. The issue is not whether her account is serious; it is whether the available evidence proves his criminal state of mind. On the present record, that question is unresolved.

The surrounding character evidence does not resolve it. The tattoo, edgy Reddit posts, other exes’ grievances, and disputed relationship behavior are being stacked together to create one overwhelmingly prejudicial impression: he seems like the type.

That is precisely why such evidence is so politically effective and so evidentially dangerous. Once enough unrelated ugliness is piled onto a person, the public stops asking whether this specific act was proved and begins treating personality as proof of conduct.

A pile-on is not corroboration.

Platner is now being subjected to a political proceeding with none of the protections of either criminal or civil adjudication. There is no cross-examination, discovery, neutral factfinder, or clearly allocated burden of proof. Yet the punishment arrived anyway: defunding, withdrawn endorsements, public demands that he quit.

That is not a verdict. It is a risk calculation.

(Continued below) 👇

[🤬🤬🤬 @Ursi1502]

@StephenKing I hope he stays in it!