Anyone who is legally eligible to cast a ballot in an election should be allowed to do so in whatever way is most convenient for them. If that's in-person on election day, great; by mail, great; in-person in the weeks leading up to an election, great.

That is the only acceptable way for a democratic republic to function. Voting should be easy and it should be encouraged. There should be:

- Automatic voter registration.
- No excuses needed to vote absentee.

This is not controversial.
It's telling how people defend more restrictive voting methods. Look at this ridiculous quote from Pete Hegseth about how everyone being able to easily cast a ballot somehow stripping people of the "recourse" of the ballot box.
https://t.co/4AcTPT2HfD
They know there's not widespread fraud. It's not about "fraud." It never was.

They just want to put as many obstacles in the way as humanly possible, to make it more difficult for people to vote.
"We could've voted in person. I can go to Walmart. I can go to a store, I can go to a restaurant, I can go to sports games in some places. You tell me we couldn't have voted? I just don't buy it."

No one stopped you from voting in person, Pete!
If you're a minimum wage worker who doesn't get paid time off, who lives in an area where the number of polling places is limited and always has hours of lines... you're going to be less likely to vote *on* election day.
Only Republicans could look at record turnout and treat it like a problem that needs to be solved.
Efforts to limit early voting, to make it harder to cast votes by mail, to make it easier to reject ballots on technicalities like whether or not it was sent inside a special envelope... those are efforts to disenfranchise people.
Because all of those things are designed to affect the ability of people who work hourly jobs with little flexibility and an inability to take hours off in the middle of the day and live in densely-populated areas to cast votes. It's no coincidence that those are people who
tend to vote for Democrats. It's an attack on people of color. It's an attack on democracy. It's unacceptable.

And it's time the press started treating it as such.
Look at how often mainstream media outlets adopt the conservative framing on these election restrictions: "election security measures," "anti-voter fraud initiatives," etc.

Shameful. It's not a matter of "this side says it's about security, this other side says suppression"
"Both sides" coverage is how we got to this place. A fascist mob tried to overturn the election results. Mainstream media played a role in it.
How often are the people trying to add various "election integrity" measures asked what the ratio of instances of fraud their bills will prevent to the number of disenfranchised voters is? Never?
A lot of the DC media acting shocked and appalled with what happened yesterday are the same outlets that have led us to this point.

And had they, personally, not felt threatened, could they have even mustered up what outrage they did have?
Yesterday needs to be a major wake-up call. This is what endless "in this Trump town, they never stopped saying 'Merry Christmas'" profiles and "Meet the dapper Nazi" pieces have created.
Do better. And that means more than just a single day of acting outraged. That means reevaluating what the role of the press is in a functioning society, and rethinking journalism. It can't be entertainment anymore. It just can't.
The people who make decisions at CNN, NYT, WaPo, CBS, ABC, the AP, NPR, Reuters, USA Today, NBC, etc., won't see this thread. Or if they do, it won't sink in.

I can hope, though.
(I use "in this Trump town, they never stopped saying merry christmas" as an example because, I kid you not, it's something the Washington Post actually published... as if the rest of the country had stopped recognizing Christmas https://t.co/DaO6vPXR5A )

More from Parker Molloy

If you're curious what Trump's defense will look like, all you have to do is turn on Fox News. My latest at @mmfa

The tl;dr is that for years right-wing media have been excusing Trump's violent rhetoric by going, "Yes, but THE DEMOCRATS..." and then bending themselves into knots to pretend that Dems were calling for violence when they very, very clearly weren't.

And in fact, this predates Trump.

In 2008, Obama was talking about not backing down in the face of an ugly campaign. He said "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

https://t.co/i5YaQJsKop


That quote was from the movie The Untouchables. And there's no way anybody reading that quote in good faith could conclude that he was talking about actual guns and knives. But it became a big talking point on the

In 2018, Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder was speaking to a group of Georgia Democrats about GOP voter suppression. He riffed on Michelle Obama's "When they go low, we go high" line from the 2016 DNC.
"Communist Blogger" is my favorite Neutral Milk Hotel song


Anyway, here are some of the "communist" blog posts about the Qongresswoman from Georgia (thread)

In 2018, she agreed with someone who said that 9/11 was an inside job and argued that the school shooting in Parkland, FL was a false flag.

And then there's another time she said that the Parkland shooting was fake

She claimed that there was "never any evidence" that a plane was flown into the Pentagon on 9/11
2017 https://t.co/kiqQoWR57e


https://t.co/W18nqFlLru


The GOP got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster so they could jam through three fringy right-wing Alito clones, including one right before the election, but sure thing, bud.

“Uh, actually, they got rid of the SCOTUS filibuster because Harry Reid did it first for something totally different! I am very smart!”

No. Knock it off.

Here’s the thing about the “But Harry Reid...” excuse:

1. McConnell was holding up Obama nominees, some *for literal years* without a vote.

2. Had he *not* done that, Trump would have inherited *even more* vacant seats.
When Biden talked about unity, he was very specific about what he meant, and the insistence of right-wing tools like @Kredo0 to try to frame stuff like this as “betraying his own ‘unity agenda’” (what is that even a quote from?) shows how pointless it is to try to work with Rs.


Guys like @Kredo0 want to a.) put the onus of unifying the country entirely on Biden and Dems, b.) pretend that “unity” is the same as capitulation, while c.) not giving an inch on their end.

No. No, no, no. Nice try.

Really, get all the way the fuck out of here with that take. “Biden didn’t keep Trump’s POLITICAL APPOINTEES in their position, therefore Biden isn’t unifying the country.” Fuuuuuuck off with that bullshit.

When Biden said “unity,” he was talking about trying to help ALL Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. This, sadly, needed to be said after the Trump administration repeatedly tried to screw over people who didn’t support him.

Remember when the Trump administration INTENTIONALLY let the virus rage out of control (really should have been a bigger scandal, but 🤷🏻‍♀️) because it was mostly hitting states that voted for Dems?
This is what happens when the Trump cultists refuse to acknowledge anything outside their extremely insular bubble: they can’t grasp that the majority of the country thinks he sucks and voted him out.


Not once in 4 years of Gallup’s 3-day tracking of Trump’s approval rating was it ever higher than 49%.

He was the least popular incumbent since Carter to run for re-election. It’s not shocking that he got his ass kicked in the election. https://t.co/7BSCQR2vI2


But if you do nothing other than consume conservative media, you’d be under the false impression that he’s popular, that his ideas are popular, and that the people who oppose him are a small group of haters.

In Gallup’s last update before the election, Trump had a -6 net approval rating. The last time it was a net positive was in May when it was +1.


And here’s how you get numbers like that: you do absolutely nothing to try to win over people who aren’t already part of your base. Look at those numbers among independents.

More from Legal

Without jumping to conclusions, this is a strange coincident. Is someone trying to kill two birds with one stone?


If you don't get caught up in the noise of the media, you'll notice a few more things. The far-right Oath Keepers has been patrolling major cities with heavy weapons for weeks. They were present in numbers at the Capitol, but without weapons.


https://t.co/t7M1svIIMe


You find photos of the arrested vandals but strangely enough not of the one 70-year-old who allegedly had a truck full of weapons. And at least I couldn't find an image of that truck. But the old man was apparently very talkative to the police.


The most questionable aspect, however, is the FBI's search for a person who was apparently caught on a surveillance camera the previous night.
At that time, it was possible to predict a mass gathering, but not the riot.

You May Also Like

🌿𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓 : 𝑫𝒉𝒓𝒖𝒗𝒂 & 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒏𝒖

Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W


Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.
#KrishnaLeela


The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.


One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.


Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"
This is NONSENSE. The people who take photos with their books on instagram are known to be voracious readers who graciously take time to review books and recommend them to their followers. Part of their medium is to take elaborate, beautiful photos of books. Die mad, Guardian.


THEY DO READ THEM, YOU JUDGY, RACOON-PICKED TRASH BIN


If you come for Bookstagram, i will fight you.

In appreciation, here are some of my favourite bookstagrams of my books: (photos by lit_nerd37, mybookacademy, bookswrotemystory, and scorpio_books)