I’m fucking terrified of what this could mean for me and my family.

This should hopefully ease some concerns over the USPS whistleblower. it shows that Democrats aren’t taking this lightly

The walls are closing in on Old McDonald’s, and he knows it!

We all knew they were cooking up some sort of mess behind the scenes with USPS. Wanted to discuss further. I’m posting as seeking optimism since it’s horrendous that it’s happening but I also have hope that it’ll be blocked long enough not to affect the midterms.

Tried uploading this earlier but I messed up on the headline and link. On the one hand, this sounds a bit worrying but at the same time it doesn’t sound like something that could greatly impact the elections. That’s why I tried tagging this as news but I didn’t know how to so I guess this is the closest thing to it. Here’s one thing I’ll acknowledge: towards the end of the article, it says that the website is currently down. But, the thing I want to know is with all the legal wrangling going on, are states free to not comply with this and is this something to even worry about at the moment?

Let me know y’all’s thoughts on this.

Hello all!

I know that there has been a lot of confusion with mail-in voting recently, especially with all the fuckery that the Republicans have pulled, and the report from a whistleblower today about how USPS is trying to sloppily institute new guidelines, and I know a lot of you are probably worried about what might happen to your mail-in ballot. Because let’s be honest, a lot of us have busy lives and simply can’t find the time to go in person and stand in line to vote.

So, if you’re planning on voting by mail this year, here is what you can do. You can track your ballot online, and, if you see that it hasn’t arrived yet, you can contact your local election office. Below is a link to the website where you can track. It has a ballot tracker for every state, as well as links to contact your local election office, depending on where you live.

It is a very helpful tool, and, if you are voting by mail this year, you should ABSOLUTELY use it!! It is VERY important to make sure your vote gets counted! Remember, you can only vote once, but it’s good to know that there are resources to help you make sure your vote is received, so you should definitely use it!

Good luck, everyone! All hands on deck!

Ballot tracker:
https://www.vote.org/ballot-tracker-tools/

This is a pretty big deal.

- Putin visibly tense - strongman image cracking

- India speaking out - Modi is very right-wing and India has had a fairly close relationship with Russia (BRICS) so him saying something this anti-Russian is quite massive

It matches up with my last post expressing anger at Canadians and other non-Americans claiming that American voters are doing nothing to stop Donald’s bs.

I’m worried he is intentionally destroying one of our nation’s greatest friendships. this won’t leave permanent damage the next president can’t fix will it?

it might not do much, but it's optimistic to know that the epstein files haven't been forgotten

A reminder that no matter what Kegsbreath tries, the military is not the enemy of the people.

While many of my posts have gotten lots of appreciation and honest criticism, I've seen my fare share of people angry and claiming that I make posts that say that nothing is wrong and everything will be fine, which I really don't. I think things can be bad and make seeking optimism posts when I feel anxious about something. My optimistic posts are made to detail why things can be bad, they aren't so apocolyptically bad that voting or protesting wouldn't matter.

Basically, I try to make posts about various sensationalist talking points that only make people feel like the end has come, when usually it's a theory about what could happen and it usually never does. For example claims about martial law or a dictatorship forming where freedom and democracy are lost ideals, when we really aren't there yet.

And I would argue that one of the worst things for doomers to do is taking a normally bad thing, for example acts of voter suppression like removing the VRA, and imagining a much worse and way more unlikely example, such as an election being rigged or voting not mattering. By sensationalizing this it takes most people's attention on some drastically unlikely to succeed scenario while the real and more tangible dangers are still taking place.

I mentioned this in a comment on a post yesterday, but I recently came across a post on Instagram that tried to argue that a stock market crash was going to happen in 6 months, one that "would be worse than any crash we've ever had."

Now the economic impact of everything going on could very well cause some sort of recession scenario, or one that could cause the stock market to be in rough shape, but by implying the exact scale of this sort of thing and a time-frame without any sort of evidence or source, it only makes people more likely to be petrified for this unverified event, but also could make people less likely to believe anyone who might be informed about bad economic conditions if this person is wrong and the stock market doesn't crash in 6 months.

This could also be applied to those who are guessing about the scale of the oil reserves running out and implying that even the worst case scenarios that many have aren't bad or scary enough. I would argue that those who either give out random numbers without any evidence or just imply "You don't know how bad it's gonna get", just to sound scary are making people desensitized to all of this and less likely to hear actual experts on the matter and what they say is most likely to happen when the reserves actually run out.

You could even take it in the opposite direction and look at those implying that a democratic victory in November would always lead to impeachment and removal after taking office, which is just not going to happen. The numbers are simply not there no matter how many wins happen for the necessary numbers in the Senate to fully remove. And I know that there will be many when the time comes arguing that the party isn't doing their jobs by starting a process there wouldn't be any way to actually accomplish.

All of this is to say that people who create incredibly sensationalist dialogue online are only enabling their audiences to ignore and tune out experts, ignoring real and tangible problems going on instead of impossibilities, and only setting expectations that aren't going to be fulfilled. I know that it's probably known to many of you, but for those who might be new here, people who make the most wild claims are the most likely to be making it up. And I can't wait for the day that the algorithms change course and don't reward this type of content.

“One year after Gov. Greg Abbott signed the “One Big Beautiful Map,” Democrats lead in three targeted South Texas races.”

This article is suggesting that Trump is starting to walk back the whole third term BS.

This is pretty low on my list of concerns, but it is still on the list. I know this has been posted about before and that construction most likely won't finish before his term is up, but I would appreciate some optimism on this all the same.

what can be done to stop this? like those trees were a gift from Japan.

I've seen Robert Hubbell's review of the NYT post Postal Service Rule Could Bar Millions From Voting by Mail. He said:

"The NYT’s analysis is fair in that its factual assertions are grounded in reality and avoid hyperbole. Good for the Times, which refused to follow the lead of many outlets in predicting disaster. But the Times’ article discusses the mail ballot rule at a level of generality that glosses over some important points necessary for context.

First, before I get to the substance of the Times’ article, it is important to note that the headline contains the most important word in the entire analysis: “could.” Yes, the mail ballot rule “could” bar millions from voting, but “could” is used in the headline to indicate a hypothetical or conditional outcome. The impact of the rule, if any, is wholly contingent on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the merits. But even if the Supreme Court upholds the rule, there are several factors that “could” result in a relatively modest impact. I discuss those below.

Second, let’s be honest: If the states lose their battle to invalidate the rule, they will comply with it rather than withhold ballots from tens of millions of voters. Critical to the Times’ analysis is this sentence: “Mail voting may not happen at all in states that resist the Trump administration’s demands for voter data.” That’s hypothetically true, but the states and the administration are engaged in a very high-stakes game of “chicken.” If the choice facing the states is between “standing on principle” by refusing to comply with the rule--potentially disenfranchising millions of voters--and complying with the rule, they will do what is necessary to ensure that their citizens receive mail ballots. The states’ lawyers don’t want to acknowledge that fact because it runs counter to the showing of “irreparable harm” necessary to obtain an injunction against the rule. The ability of the states to comply if they lose in the Supreme Court is a fail-safe against the hypothetical outcome of “barring millions of voters from voting by mail.”

Third, the difficulty of compliance is real but probably overstated. Red states will implement without resistance if they can. Large blue states have sophisticated mail operations that can easily make coding changes to add the USPS barcodes to envelopes. Indeed, a large majority of states already imprint ballots with “intelligent barcodes” so that voters can track the progress of their ballots from mailing to delivery. Many states already consult closely with the USPS to ensure that their mailings meet Postal Service standards. See, e.g., California’s FAQs re Voting by Mail: “County elections officials work closely with the USPS to review and approve the design of vote-by-mail envelopes and other election mail pieces to ensure machine compatibility and the seamless delivery and return of ballots.”

Finally, voter suppression is a blunt instrument that will affect Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike. The conventional wisdom is that because Democrats use mail ballots at a higher rate than Republicans, the proposed rule will disproportionately affect Democrats. That assertion is often made without support or analysis. Upon a closer look, it is less clear that Democrats will be disproportionately affected, for the following reasons:

Per the Times, the burden of the rule (if implemented) will disproportionately fall on “people in rural areas and older voters, who tend to cast ballots by mail in greater numbers.” Older rural voters strongly favor Republicans. Pew Research: How voting patterns changed in the 2024 election: A detailed analysis. (“Nearly seven-in-ten validated voters who describe their communities as rural (69%) voted for Trump in 2024,” and “younger voters tended to favor the Democratic candidate while older voters tended to favor the Republican.”)

Again, per the Times,

“In Wisconsin, throwing a wrench into mail voting would cause far more chaos in the state’s rural communities than in its more liberal cities,” said Ann Jacobs, a Democratic member of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

I have gone on too long as it is, but the point is that facile conclusions that the rule will disproportionately hurt Democrats sound good at a high level of generality but fall apart when examined in detail.

But let’s return to where we started. The rule is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court should uphold Judge Talwani’s temporary restraining order. If the Supreme Court does not, then Democrats are better positioned to comply with the rule in blue urban oases in red states than are small rural jurisdictions in red states. The notion that Democrats are automatically disadvantaged is a questionable assumption, at best.

Finally, Democrats have been the target of voter suppression for decades and have developed the infrastructure to fight back. Republicans have not. We must have the confidence and determination to adapt to any change in circumstance—without panic or fear, both of which will interfere with our ability to execute our game plan. We are winning, and we can win the midterms so long as we do not quit!"

So no matter what happens, we'd better use it to OUR advantage. We've got to OVERWHELM the doomposters and ensure to SCOTUS that their potential decision to benefit Trump can't hide from our anger. We must get them scared just like how we've so far been getting the GOP Senate scared of passing the SAVE Act.