American election integrity is being challenged in court

An important and frightening federal court case is playing out in North Carolina. It has deadly implications for state and federal elections if it turns out the wrong way. Slate reports in an article authored by election law expert and UCLA law school professor Rick Hasen:

We’re Getting Dangerously Close to a Losing 

North Carolina Candidate Being Declared the Winner

In a preliminary order issued over the weekend likely designed to split the baby, a federal district court in North Carolina has told North Carolina election officials that they should follow a state court’s ruling to figure out which of thousands of military and overseas ballots cast by North Carolina voters should be thrown out in a dispute over the winner of a November state Supreme Court election. But the federal court also told election officials not to certify the winner of that election until it can decide if the state court–ordered remedy is unconstitutional.

This is a recipe for disaster. The federal court should have heeded the advice of Justice Antonin Scalia in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case about not allowing a questionable redo of vote totals to be announced before there’s been a ruling on the legality of the redo. The judge’s order in North Carolina could well lead people to believe the state Supreme Court election was stolen no matter what happens.

Incumbent North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs is 734 votes ahead of Judge Jefferson Griffin, a Republican, in November’s race for Riggs’ spot on the state Supreme Court. Griffin contested the election, calling over 60,000 ballots into question. He argued that some of these ballots did not comply with North Carolina law because the registration record of these voters did not contain certain information like a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. He also argued that certain military and overseas ballots were cast without requiring a photocopy of a photo ID. North Carolina election officials never asked voters for the information that Griffin said was required.

This lawsuit needs to be explained for its subtle importance to become apparent. The case is complex and messy.

This case echoes the 2000 Bush v. Gore lawsuit, but with more far-reaching implications for election administration and democratic governance. This case raises fundamental questions about equal protection, due process, and the integrity of American elections. The Republican candidate in NC (North Carolina), Griffin, wants the federal court to change the voter qualification rules in a state election after he found out he lost. In the election, voters followed the state's established voting procedures. NC's administrative regulations explicitly exempted military and overseas voters from needing to provide photocopies of ID when voting absentee. 

The 2000 Bush v. Gore precedent: In that case, the USSC halted a recount in Florida partly because the state court had ordered recounts in only certain counties using inconsistent standards. The USSC majority found that using inconsistent standards to accept or reject votes violated the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment. 

In this NC lawsuit, four Republicans on that state's supreme court said that votes in four Democratic-leaning counties need to be recounted using a different standard than applies to all the Republican-leaning counties. One legal analyst, Ian Millhiser, pointed out the obvious: He says the four Republican NC judges have "ordered the disenfranchisement of voters in just four counties in North Carolina—again, all of which lean Democratic—while leaving voters in other counties unaffected." 

Worse yet, changing the rules for ballot eligibility after an election violates the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment. In state court cases like Roe v. Alabama, federal courts have prevented state supreme courts from retroactively changing election rules so the state court judges' candidate wins despite losing a free and fair election. By altering the rules after an election to try to disenfranchise thousands of the wrong kind of voters, the NC supreme court is openly trying to break the Bush v. Gore precedent and blow off both equal protection and due process. 

Suspiciously, the federal trial judge did not simply say that what the NC supreme court judges did was blatantly unconstitutional. That strongly signals to me that he probably is a political partisan and sympathetic to authoritarianism. But being ignorant, I asked Pxy:

Q4: Therefore, if state court’s rule changes are highly likely to be deemed unconstitutional under Bush v. Gore, then why did the federal court not say so? Is the federal judge a Trump judge sympathetic to MAGA and/or loyal to Trump or authoritarianism? What evidence is there that the federal judge is acting in good faith or bad faith based on the existing applicable rule of law?

A4: .... long analysis .... 

Conclusion
Judge Myers’ conduct reflects a mix of procedural caution and ideological alignment with Republican election-administration priorities. While there is no “smoking gun” evidence of corruption, his procedural choices—deferring to a GOP state court, delaying a constitutional ruling, and enabling targeted disqualification of Democratic-leaning votes—suggest a willingness to tolerate election subversion tactics. This aligns with broader trends among Trump-appointed judges, who have often prioritized partisan outcomes over strict adherence to voting rights precedent 4 17 19.

The federal court’s inaction on the Bush v. Gore issues thus far likely stems from institutional deference rather than explicit bad faith. However, Myers’ failure to halt the state court’s unconstitutional remedy creates a dangerous precedent for post-election manipulation, echoing the anti-democratic strategies seen in Trump’s 2020 efforts.

Note the self-contradiction that Pxy asserts. On the on hand what NC did was (1) unconstitutional, and (2)  created a dangerous precedent for post-election manipulation, but OTOH it could be due only to institutional deference rather than explicit bad faith. Explicit bad faith? Gimme a break Pxy.[1] We're never gonna see explicit bad faith from any MAGA judge. It's all gonna be implicit.

The bottom line: Welp, as we all know around here, Germaine resolves any and all plausible, non-trivial doubt against corrupt MAGA authoritarianism and its corrupt authoritarian elites. That is especially true for Trump judges engaging in dangerous, outrageous, legal fuckery like this. In essence, the federal trial court judge here is a MAGA authoritarian because he acts like one. He is begging the USSC to overturn the Bush v. Gore precedent so the Republican can win and Republicans take control of the NC supreme court. He is acting in bad faith. That's the bottom line.

Q: Is the bad faith argument being made here just crackpot conspiracy theory, or something worse, or is it plausible, or likely, in view of the track record of demagoguery, mendacity, slander and crackpot reasoning that authoritarian MAGA elites routinely use to describe reality and justify getting what they want?

I think it is likely.

Footnote:

1. I followed up with Pxy about the matter of explicit vs. implicit bad faith from MAGA judges:

Q: What would lead any rational, evidence-based person to believe that judge Myer or any other MAGA judge would ever act in "explicit" bad faith? All evidence of bad faith would be implicit and circumstantial. That is not different than a MAGA judge gutting national abortion rights on the basis of their religious belief, i.e., God and Christian nationalism, but telling us they based it on a neutral assessment of existing law and the Constitution. Consider the public track record of demagoguery, colossal mendacity, cynical slander and crackpot reasoning that authoritarian MAGA elites routinely use to describe reality and justify getting what they want.

A: The belief that MAGA-aligned judges might act in implicit bad faith—even absent explicit admissions of improper intent—rests on patterns of behavior, institutional incentives, and legal doctrines that allow circumstantial evidence to demonstrate improper motives. While explicit bad faith requires direct proof of intentional misconduct (e.g., a judge admitting partisan bias in emails), implicit bad faith can be inferred from systematic deviations from legal norms, selective application of principles, and alignment with broader anti-democratic strategies. Below is a structured analysis of why rational observers might question MAGA judges’ neutrality:

.... long analysis .... 

Conclusion
While explicit bad faith is rare, systemic patterns and asymmetrical jurisprudence provide rational grounds to question MAGA judges’ neutrality. Their rulings frequently align with GOP electoral strategies, religious nationalism, and Trump’s authoritarian rhetoric—all while invoking legal principles they disregard in other contexts. This selective fidelity to law, combined with the broader GOP’s rejection of democratic norms, sustains credible concerns about implicit bad faith. As Judge Boasberg noted in 6 9, when officials "act with reckless disregard for whether their conduct is lawful," bad faith can be inferred even absent a confession.

I infer bad faith. Period.

MAGA update: djt plans to kill hundreds of regulations (and thousands of people)

As part of the massive shift of power from the federal government and the public interest, NYT reports (not paywalled) about djt's planned repeal or freezing of hundreds of regulations of public health, food, workplace safety, transportation and other critical government functions:

At the Department of Health and Human Services, Trump administration officials want to reverse a regulation that has required nursing homes to have more medical staff on duty.

At the Mine Safety and Health Administration, powerful lobbying groups have asked the administration to eliminate a rule to protect miners from inhaling the dust of crystalline silica, a mineral that is used in concrete, smartphones and cat litter but that can be lethal in the lungs.

And at the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates radio and television broadcasting and satellite communications, President Trump’s appointees published a seemingly exuberant notice asking for suggestions on which rules to get rid of, titled “DELETE, DELETE, DELETE.”

DELETE, DELETE, DELETE

Across the more than 400 federal agencies that regulate almost every aspect of American life, from flying in airplanes to processing poultry, Mr. Trump’s appointees are working with the Department of Government Efficiency, the cost-cutting initiative headed by Elon Musk and also called DOGE, to launch a sweeping new phase in their quest to dismantle much of the federal government: deregulation on a mass scale.

Usually, the legal process of repealing federal regulations takes years — and rules erased by one administration can be restored by another. But after chafing at that system during his first term and watching President Joseph R. Biden Jr. enact scores of new rules pushed by the left, Mr. Trump has marshaled a strategy for a dramatic do-over designed to kill regulations swiftly and permanently.

The approach, overseen by Russell T. Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, rests on a set of novel legal strategies [e.g., breaking the law] in which the administration intends to simply repeal or just stop enforcing regulations that have historically taken years to undo, according to people familiar with the plans. The White House theory relies on Supreme Court decisions — some recent and at least one from the 1980s — that they believe give them the basis for sweeping change.  

“Many people don’t realize how high the American quality of life is because of the competent and stable enforcement of regulations, and if that goes away a lot of lives are at risk,” said Steve Cicala, co-director of the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Project on the Economic Analysis of Regulation. “This affects airplane safety, baby formula safety, the safety of meat, vegetables and packaged foods, the water that you drink, how you get to work safely and whether you’re safe in your workplace.”

OK ladies 'n germs, prepare for tainted food, nursing home hell, lung cancer, poisoned babies, rotten meat, accelerating global warming, more air pollution, gigatons of MAGA bullshit, lies and slanders from MAGA radio and television broadcasting and satellite communications, and all kinds of fun-fill freedom (and profit) for deregulated special interests. It will be so much fun that some people are going to literally be deregulated to death. 

But not to worry. What could go wrong? As MAGA constantly tells us, paraphrasing, grunt, grunt, government bad, unregulated markets good, stop whining, pull self up by bootstraps, pain is good. 

Note the key dark free speech tactic here: djt and MAGA elites frame deregulation as one thing, namely benefits for industry, and at least by implication its also good for consumers. The propaganda never mentions the costs to the public and public interest. The problem is this:

Also accurately expressed like this:

So, waddabout those never, ever mentioned costs to consumers, workers and the public interest? I asked my friend Pxy to comment:

Q: Analyze this article, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/15/us/politics/trump-doge-regulations.html, and asses it for what impact it will have on the balance of power between the public interest, generally the things the targeted regulations are designed to protect, relative to the special interests that break free of eliminated or unenforced regulations. About how much will this be worth to the deregulated special interests and about how much will it cost consumers and how many people will it kill? On balance is this mostly pro-public interest politics or pro-special interest politics?

A: [Normal persons' reactions --- Pxy isn't a normal person]

 

[Pxy's calm response] This initiative presents "a significant opportunity for businesses and their advocates, who have long lobbied for a reduction in regulations and now find receptive allies within the administration" 4. Major industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Association of Manufacturers have provided lists of regulations they wish eliminated 4.

Costs to consumers and the public 

In stark contrast to industry benefits, the public faces substantial costs: 

• A Public Citizen report estimated that deregulation deprives consumers and the economy of more than $2.1 trillion in benefits 12.

• American households could lose approximately $17,000 over two decades, or about $840 annually 12.

• These figures substantially exceed the average annual costs of the rules to industry, estimated at nearly $21 billion 12.

The dismantling of consumer protections against hidden fees, reduced food safety inspections, and weakened environmental safeguards all represent direct costs to the public that are not captured in administrative savings calculations.

Health and Safety Implications
The health consequences of large-scale deregulation are potentially severe:

• During Trump's first term, The Lancet Commission found that his policies contributed to approximately 461,000 deaths in 2018 alone 16.

• Environmental protection rollbacks specifically resulted in about 22,000 deaths in 2019 16.

• Workplace safety rollbacks disproportionately affect vulnerable populations in hazardous industries 4.

In the context of the current deregulation agenda, experts warn: "Many individuals fail to recognize how high the American quality of life is due to effective and stable regulation enforcement, and if that disappears, numerous lives could be at risk" 4. This affects "the safety of airplanes, baby formula, meat, vegetables, packaged foods, drinking water, commuting safety, and workplace safety."

Balance of Power Analysis
The deregulatory agenda fundamentally shifts power from the public to special interests in several ways:

Procedural Changes Favoring Special Interests

• Bypassing public comment periods eliminates crucial opportunities for citizen input 4.

• Rapid implementation timelines prevent thorough analysis of impacts.

• Sunset provisions create constant uncertainty about regulatory protections 10.

• Direct industry participation in drafting deregulation proposals.

Institutional Power Shifts
The administration has simultaneously weakened the government's capacity to protect public interests:

• Federal worker unions fighting against DOGE have been targeted with executive orders stripping them of representation rights 20.

• Whistleblowers reporting concerns about DOGE's activities have faced intimidation, including one who received "physically taping a threatening note" to his door with sensitive personal information 3.

• Scientists at agencies like the NIH report "chaos and confusion" with restrictions on communications and research 18.

This systematic weakening of institutional safeguards amplifies the power imbalance created by deregulation itself.

Conclusion: Pro-Public or Pro-Special Interest?
The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the Trump-DOGE deregulation agenda primarily serves special interests rather than the public interest. While portrayed as eliminating "waste" and increasing "efficiency," the targeted regulations predominantly protect public health, safety, consumer rights, and environmental quality. The beneficiaries are clearly industries seeking reduced compliance costs.

The significant economic costs to consumers, projected loss of life, and procedural changes limiting public input all suggest a substantial shift in power away from the public interest. As one expert notes, this initiative is not about eliminating mere bureaucratic inefficiencies, but dismantling "an extensive network of regulations perceived by many as protective measures, but regarded by [the administration] as impediments to industry" 4.

Q: Is that loud sucking sound we all hear the huge flow of wealth and power from the people and the public interest to special interests and corrupt, cruel elite MAGA freaks and djt, whatever he might be?

More opinion on the collapse of the rule of law: Now we're all under threat

CONTEXT: THE MONSTER TELLS US WHAT HE THINKS OF US

djt called American military personnel who died in war "losers" and "suckers." When asked to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in France, reportedly said, "Why should I go to that cemetery? It's filled with losers." He referred to marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as "suckers" for getting killed. And he said that Senator John McCain was "not a war hero" because he'd been captured during the Vietnam War, adding that he likes "people who weren't captured." He said that he didn't want to be seen with wounded veterans because "it doesn't look good for me."

djt said "I don't want to shake hands with those dirty people, those disgusting people," referring to his supporters.

djt told his supporters that they had to send a message to Ms. Harris: “We can’t stand you, you’re a shit vice president.”

Yesterday, djt said to El Salvadore's dictator Bukele, that "the home-growns are next, the home-growns. You gotta build about five more places", referring to US criminals he wants to illegally deport to death camps in El Salvador and the need of El Salvadore to build 5 more death camps to house them.

☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️

The Atlantic writes:

The Constitutional Crisis Is Here

Between the path of outright defiance of the Supreme Court and following its order to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador’s infamous Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), the Trump administration has chosen a third way: pretending it is complying while refusing to do so.

During an on-camera Oval Office meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, whom the Trump administration has paid to imprison immigrants deported from the United States it claims without evidence are gang members, President Donald Trump deferred to Attorney General Pam Bondi, who said the decision was Bukele’s.  

“That’s up to El Salvador if they want to return him. That’s not up to us,” Bondi told reporters. “That’s not up to us. If they want to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.” Bukele, for his part, called Abrego Garcia a “terrorist,” saying to a reporter who asked if he would return him, “I hope you’re not suggesting that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States.” He added, “The question is preposterous.” (emphasis added)

The Trump administration is pretending to comply with the Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador’s infamous Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) while refusing to actually do so, Adam Serwer writes.

During an on-camera Oval Office meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele today, President Donald Trump said the decision to return Abrego Garcia was Bukele’s. Bukele, for his part, called Abrego Garcia a “terrorist,” saying to a reporter who asked whether he would return him, “I hope you’re not suggesting that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States.”

“This rhetorical game the administration is playing, where it pretends it lacks the power to ask for Abrego Garcia to be returned while Bukele pretends he doesn’t have the power to return him, is an expression of obvious contempt for the Supreme Court—and for the rule of law,” Serwer continues. “The administration is maintaining that it has the power to send armed agents of the state to grab someone off the street and then, without a shred of due process, deport them to a gulag in a foreign country and leave them there forever. The crucial point here is that the administration’s logic means that it could do the same to American citizens.”

Trump is already contemplating this possibility. Aside from numerous public statements to that effect, Trump told Bukele, in an exchange posted on Bukele’s X feed, “Homegrowns are next. The homegrowns. You gotta build about five more places.” Loud laughter filled the Oval Office.

“If the Trump administration can defy court orders with impunity, and Congress is unwilling to act, there is no reason for it to respect the constitutional rights of American citizens either,” Serwer continues. “The Roberts Court will now have to decide whether to side with the Constitution or with a lawless president asserting the power to disappear people at will. This is not a power that any person, much less an American president, is meant to have.”

The insulting, cynical contempt that djt and his MAGA thug attorney general Bondi show for the rule of law cannot be clearer. The ghastly arrogance of the corrupt dictator-thug Bukele saying he refuses to smuggle a terrorist into the United States, shows an equal level of insulting, cynical contempt. He smuggles no one by letting them get on an airplane the US government knowingly provides to bring a non-terrorist back to the US under US court orders. This is how djt, Bondi, MAGA elites generally and Bukele all see the American people and their democracy:

How djt and MAGA elites respect us 

Well, that's not exactly true. I don't want to exaggerate. Bondi, being the civilized, gentle lady that she is, her expression of affection for all of us and our democracy and rights is more refined and genteel:

How Bondi respects us

Meanwhile as MAGA virtue signals its "respect" for us and our system of government and society, most Americans are standing by and do nothing as their morally rotted, authoritarian and kleptocratic MAGA votes and sympathies threaten us and destroy our democracy, civil liberties and rule of law. The American experiment in self-governance, which admittedly never was close to perfect, is ending with a whimper. But I never expected so many of the American people to (1) ever become so stunningly deceived by demagoguery, lies, slanders, crackpottery and mind manipulation, or (2) complacent about tossing away their precious democracy and powers to self-govern. 

It's no wonder that the overwhelming normal state of affairs for the human condition is living under thug-thief leaders like djt and Bukele with morally rotted, goon enablers like Bondi. Welp, the normal state of affairs what enough of the American people asked for. A plurality of voters (~49.8%) asked for it. Now that's probably what most of them and nearly all the rest of us are gonna get.

Q: Over the top (or worse) commentary by me, or reasonably justified and supported by facts and sound reasoning?

A history bit: Tax cheating in the second century

The papyrus, named Papyrus Cotton

A NYT article reports about what a recently analyzed 1,900 year old papyrus says:

It may not have been the tax-evasion trial of the century — the second century, that is — but it was of such gravity that the defendants faced charges of forgery, fiscal fraud and the sham sale of slaves. Tax dodging is as old as taxation itself, but these particular offenses were considered so serious under Roman law that penalties ranged from heavy fines and permanent exile to hard labor in the salt mines and, in the worst case, damnatio ad bestias, a public execution in which the condemned were devoured by wild animals.

[The papyrus] contains the prosecutor’s prep sheet and the hastily drafted minutes from a judicial hearing. According to the ancient notes, the tax-evasion scheme involved the falsification of documents and the illicit sale and manumission, or freeing, of slaves — all to avoid paying duties in the far-flung Roman provinces of Judea and Arabia, a region roughly corresponding to present-day Israel and Jordan.

This ancient legal drama unfolded during the reign of Hadrian, after the emperor’s tour of the area around A.D. 130 and presumably before A.D. 132. That year, Simon bar Kochba, a messianic guerrilla chief, led a popular uprising — the third and final war between the Jewish people and the empire. The revolt was violently suppressed, with hundreds of thousands killed and most of the surviving Jewish population expelled from Judea, which Hadrian renamed Syria Palestina.

Damnatio ad bestias? Now there's a tax law with literal teeth! I like it a lot!

Tax cheating from long ago. Some things never change.

Update: The collapsing rule of law saga

The USSC has decided something, I'm not exactly sure what, about the case of the guy illegally arrested and sent to a death camp in El Salvador. The wording of the order, if that's what it is, sounds like the six MAGA Repubs on the USSC have let djt and the DoJ off the hook, leaving El Salvador free to murder the guy. Joyce Vance writes at her substack on April 10, 2025:

Late this afternoon, the Supreme Court issued a 9-0 response to the government’s application to vacate federal District Judge Paula Xinis’ order that the Trump administration return Kilmar Abrego Garcia from prison in El Salvador to the United States. Xinis had ordered him returned by the end of the day on Monday. The Supreme Court let him sit for an additional three days before ruling, in the end ordering the government to “facilitate” his return but suggesting they might not need to “effectuate” it.

The difference between those two could determine whether Abrego Garcia spends the rest of his life in prison in El Salvador, charged with no crime and with no prospect or release, or whether he returns to the United States, where he lacks legal status but has filed for asylum based on claims he was being threatened, including with death, by members of the MS-13 gang. It is likely he is now housed in prison with members of that same gang. [hence, my reference to a death camp]  

If the government were acting in good faith here, this order would probably be fine. But the government has made clear that it is not, showing absolutely no concern about the fact that the “removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.” Unless the administration suddenly changes its tune, we can expect to see them claim they tried to facilitate but weren’t able to effectuate Abrego Garcia’s release. “Oopsie … Too late,” as El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele tweeted .... 

In other words, the six conservative Justices on the Supreme Court sent Donald Trump’s administration a message that they’re willing to let him get away with it.

Vance points out that the three Dems could not get to six MAGA Repubs to agree to include three painfully obvious but important points in defense of the rule of law: ‘’

• The US had no basis to arrest or deport Garcia and El Salvador is unable or unwilling to protect him.

• “Instead of hastening to correct its egregious error, the Government dismissed it as an ‘oversight.’”

• “The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong.”

That the six MAGA Repubs could not even agree to those basic points is evidence of how corrupt, morally rotted and subverted they are. They truly are kleptocratic, authoritarian Trump judges. Vance is OK with this order, but “just barely.” In my opinion, the USSC did not get it right. Unless I misunderstand something here, the three Dems failed by not dissenting. What were they thinking, or were they? Are the Dems on the USSC so scared of djt that they are complicit?

Q: In view of how ineffective this “order” appears to be, should the three Dem judges have dissented because the MAGA judges refused to state the obvious? 

Election 2026 update: Chaos and subversion are on the MAGA menu

Before a plurality of mostly deceived voters re-elected djt in 2024, assuming the election wasn’t rigged by MAGA, it was clear that the 2026 election would be pivotal for the radical, corrupt, authoritarian MAGA wealth and power movement. Project 2025 was crystal clear in its cynical intent to subvert elections and disenfranchise opposition voters while pretending to be concerned with “election integrity.” MAGA claims it wants to stop all the massive, but non-existent, voter fraud and prevent it in future elections. The WaPo reports (not paywalled) about a MAGA initiative to inject vast amounts of chaos into the 2026 elections: 

Trump’s order could force states to buy costly new voting machines

The edict could hurl elections into tumult, though lawsuits challenging the order mean it probably won’t be implemented anytime soon

President Donald Trump’s plan to overhaul elections could hurl 2026 into turmoil by forcing states to hand-count ballots or scramble to spend millions of dollars on voting systems that aren’t yet on the market, according to election officials and voting experts.

If put into effect, his recent executive order attempting to transform elections could make it impossible for some states to use voting machines, election experts said. No voting systems are commercially available that meet the standards the president put forward in his executive order. Election officials broadly oppose hand-counting ballots as an alternative because the practice is time-consuming and prone to errors.

If Trump’s plan ever comes to fruition, it could hit taxpayers hard. Outfitting every state with new machines could cost $1 billion or more.

“It will create chaos in the states, and it seems almost designed to create chaos,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research.

As usual, is there evidence that MAGA elites want to get rid of meaningful elections starting in 2026 while pretending they are protecting meaningful elections? As equally usual, yes there is.

Q: What does Project 2025 say about election integrity and is that a stalking hose for subverting elections and disenfranchising voters opposed to MAGA and Trump?

A: Project 2025, a comprehensive 900+ page policy blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation and over 100 conservative and authoritarian organizations, outlines significant changes to how elections would be administered under an authoritarian administration. While its authors frame these changes as protecting election integrity, multiple analyses suggest these proposals could fundamentally alter democratic participation in America.

Shifting Enforcement from Civil Rights to Criminal Prosecution
One of the most consequential proposals in Project 2025 involves transferring responsibility for investigating and prosecuting election-related offenses from the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division to its Criminal Division 2 4 5. This represents more than a bureaucratic reshuffling—it signals a fundamental change in approach.

Weakening Election Security Infrastructure
Project 2025 proposes significant cuts to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) 1 4, an agency created during the Trump administration in 2018 that provides essential cyber and physical security support to election offices across the country 1.

The plan would strip CISA of most of its ability to assist local election offices with security matters and bar it from any role in countering election-related conspiracies—even those originating from hostile foreign actors 4. For many local election administrators with limited IT resources, CISA has been a critical partner in navigating evolving security threats and providing accurate information about elections 4.

Undermining the Fight Against Misinformation
Project 2025 proposes eliminating Department of Homeland Security efforts to counter election disinformation 1 2 4, which has been central to addressing rising threats against election workers 1. The document argues that CISA's and the FBI's work to identify potentially false information about elections violates the First Amendment 1.

.... very long analysis ....

Conclusion
While framed as enhancing election integrity, these proposals shifts focus from protecting voting rights to criminalizing voting, reduces critical security resources for election offices, enables the spread of misinformation, and creates mechanisms for federal interference in state voter rolls.

The evidence suggests these changes collectively serve as a means to selectively disenfranchise voters opposed to MAGA and Trump by creating an environment of fear and intimidation for both voters and election officials, enabling targeted voter purges, and weaponizing federal agencies against political opponents. Despite Trump's public attempts to distance himself from Project 2025 during the campaign, his appointment of one of its creators [Russell Vought, OMB director] to a significant administration position indicates major alignment with its goals.

Welp ladies 'n germs, there we have it. djt and MAGA want to subvert the 2026 election. They’re doing their darnedest to git 'er done before it’s too late and voters toss enough of MAGA out of congress to shift some power back to the Dems.

MAGA bits: The DoJ says F.O. to the court; MAGAfying AI; MAGA in congress votes to screw consumers

Two days ago, federal trial court judge Paulina Xinis ordered djt's corrupted, morally rotted DoJ to explain what steps had been taken to return a person the US illegally deported to an El Salvadore death camp. The judge issued this 2 page order.

The judge’s order includes these comments: Second, the Defendants’ [the DoJ] suggestion that they need time to meaningfully review a four-page Order that reaffirms this basic principle blinks at reality. Third, the Defendants misconstrue the Supreme Court’s Order stating that the original deadline at ECF No. 21 is “no longer effective,” as 1 Case 8:25-cv-00951-PX Document 57 Filed 04/11/25 Page 2 of 2 somehow suggesting that the Court’s amended Order requiring prompt attention to this matter is “inconsistent” with the Supreme Court’s directive. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

An article The Guardian published points out that the DoJ’s response basically tells the federal court to fuck off. djt’s DoJ still refuses to comply with court orders by specifying what, if anything the US government has done to get the illegally deported person back to the US. The DoJ’s response framed the USSC’s ruling as a validation of executive authority over foreign affairs, which is contemptuous, insulting and beside the point. The USSC’s order explicitly required the government to “facilitate [Abrego Garcia’s] release from custody in El Salvador” and provide updates on its efforts in this ongoing illegal deportation affair. The DoJ had previously conceded in court that Abrego Garcia’s deportation was unlawful. Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence criticized the government’s position as enabling unchecked executive overreach, stating it would allow deporting even U.S. citizens “without legal consequence.”

djt and MAGA elites in power are inching ever closer to bull-blown, open rebellion against federal courts and rule of law. Our democracy and rule of law are on a knife’s edge.

Peanut 1: When someone is kidnapped and sold into slavery, there’s not really a refund policy.

Peanut 2: Unless, of course, the express goal was to make the person go away and slavery just facilitates the transaction. Art of the Deal!

Peanut 3: Their arguments for ignoring the judge just don't hold water. Just get on the phone and find out where he is and order him moved to a room in a hotel with guards. WTF, Noem went down there for a photo op for Christ's sake. It's not like he is on the dark side of the moon.

Peanut 4: Better yet, just yank Trump off his golf cart, take him to an unknown facility, strip him of all his rights and send him to a prison in say… Iran? I’m sure we wouldn’t even have to pay for them to hold him! It’s a win-win!

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Several sources are reporting that Meta (Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg) have polluted Llama 4 with MAGA propaganda, deceptively claiming to be searching for more balance and fact accuracy between left and right content. 404 Media reports:

Bias in artificial intelligence systems, or the fact that large language models, facial recognition, and AI image generators can only remix and regurgitate the information in data those technologies are trained on, is a well established fact that researchers and academics have been warning about since their inception.

In a blog post about the release of Llama 4, Meta’s open weights AI model, the company clearly states that bias is a problem it’s trying to address, but unlike mountains of research which established AI systems are more likely to discriminate against minorities based on race, gender, and nationality, Meta is specifically concerned with Llama 4 having a left-leaning political bias.

“It’s well-known that all leading LLMs have had issues with bias—specifically, they historically have leaned left when it comes to debated political and social topics,” Meta said in its blog. “This is due to the types of training data available on the internet.”

So, as usual, the question is what is the empirical basis for trust in Zuckerberg’s or Meta’s asserted concern to wipe out liberal bias in the name of neutrality and fact accuracy? Apparently none. What was done, was in secret. 

Q4: How much truth is there in this assertion by 404 Media (link given above): "In a blog post about the release of Llama 4, Meta’s open weights AI model, the company clearly states that bias is a problem it’s trying to address, but unlike mountains of research which established AI systems are more likely to discriminate against minorities based on race, gender, and nationality, Meta is specifically concerned with Llama 4 having a left-leaning political bias." Are there "mountains of research" showing that AI systems are more likely to discriminate against minorities?

A4: The assertion by 404 Media that Meta’s Llama 4 prioritizes correcting perceived left-leaning political bias over addressing well-documented discrimination against marginalized groups aligns with extensive independent research. A synthesis of recent studies reveals systemic AI biases harming racial, ethnic, and gender minorities across critical domains—a reality largely absent from Meta’s public framing of Llama 4’s objectives.

.... long analysis .... 

[From A5] Political Appeasement: The Substack analysis, 2A, ties Llama 4’s development to Meta’s apparent post-2024 election pivot toward conservative U.S. politics, mirroring Elon Musk’s "anti-woke" Grok. This aligns with Mark Zuckerberg’s recent lobbying efforts and Meta’s historical algorithmic boosts to conservative content.

Conclusion: A Misdirected Priority (a misdirection or false equivalence propaganda tactic)
The "mountains of research" referenced by 404 Media—encompassing healthcare 1, employment 2 8, finance 7, and linguistics 4—demonstrate that AI’s most damaging biases disproportionately harm marginalized groups. Meta’s singular focus on political neutrality risks weaponizing false equivalence under the guise of balance, particularly given the current climate of eroded institutional trust. Until LLM developers prioritize transparency 5 and demographic equity 3 over ideological appeasement, claims of "reduced bias" will remain dangerously incomplete.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

The American Prospect reports about MAGA congressional support for banks and Big Tech Cos. screwing consumers:

Congress Stops CFPB From Capping Overdraft Fees, Monitoring Big Tech

The two Congressional Review Act resolutions now go to President Trump

The House of Representatives passed resolutions Wednesday that will nullify two Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rules. As a result, low-income customers will pay an estimated $5 billion more annually in overdraft fees, and Big Tech will get to pursue its ambitions to make payment apps and other financial services products with little regulatory oversight.

All House Republicans decided to reveal themselves as objectively pro-junk fee in supporting blocking the overdraft fee rule; only Rep. Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA) voted against the larger participant rule. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) voted against both resolutions in the Senate, but no other Senate Republican did.

Republicans have justified overturning the overdraft fee rule by saying they want to protect consumer choice, an old fallacy that banks have to rip off their customers or they cannot survive. Yet former CFPB director Rohit Chopra’s pressure on larger banks led to many dropping their overdraft fees entirely. (emphasis added)

So, once again djt and his elite MAGA thugs in power are out to screw and screw and screw the consumer in any and all ways possible. There is nothing and no one standing in the way of MAGA’s rape of the American people by endlessly greedy banks, greedy billionaire plutocrats and greedy, corrupt politicians, all of whom are always in desperate need of more wealth and power, and in the case of politicians, in desperate need of more free speech from donors.** 

** Free speech from donors = campaign contributions in federal offices and "gratuities" in state offices  

Q: How was that last paragraph for a principled, fact-based emotional appeal, bad, mediocre or good?

 

He got the fees lowered,

MAGA is going to raise them

with a vengeance

Is Christian nationalism a significant influence on some USSC decisions?

A Christian statement of opposition 

to Christian nationalism 

Me and some others have been arguing that CN (Christian nationalism) is a significant bad influence on American politics and society. In my opinion, some recent USSC decisions by the Roberts court evince the influence of CN ideology or dogma. However as far as I know, none of those decisions mentions Christianity or CN as an influencing factor or source of authority. Many people believe that unless USSC judges explicitly mention God, the CN movement or CN dogma as a source of influence or authority, it is irrational and unreasonable to ascribe any religious influence on MAGA judges on the USSC. That is an argument I strongly disagree with.

In the following analysis, keep in mind that for human beings it is very hard, probably impossible, for a judge to completely separate their moral values and beliefs from their perceptions of reality and reasoning, both conscious and unconscious. This is a complicating factor that cannot be avoided or denied. We just have to work with it.

What CN is

One source comments: There is no clean and tidy definition of Christian nationalism since it is not a formal religious denomination or sect with a stated doctrine of beliefs; nor is there any single person or council leading Christian nationalism that oversees followers.  

CN thus lacks a formal doctrine or centralized leadership. It generally represents a belief system that advocates for the fusion of Christian identity with American national identity. Religious scholars and sociologists describe it as the belief that the United States is fundamentally defined by Christianity and should maintain this character through government action and policy. CN's core beliefs are (1) the government should preserve America's Christian roots and identity, (2) laws and policies should explicitly reflect Christian values**, (3) the separation of church and state is not a binding principle, and (4) God has a divine plan for America as a Christian nation.

** I thought that our laws already reflected Christian values because our laws, law enforcement and courts are overwhelmingly dominated by Christians and that has always been the case. What CN means here is CN values, not other Christian values that CN dogma hates, e.g., secularism, pluralism and democracy.

  

Two sociologists describe CN like this: CN is "a cultural framework—a collection of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives and value systems—that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life." Christian nationalists see secular and pluralistic principles represent ahistorical aberrations in desperate need of correction. One of the sociologists commented that Trump's January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection and coup attempt was "as Christian nationalist as it gets." Many of the participants said they were motivated by Christian ideology. 

Finally, some experts see the power of the CN movement as mostly a political wealth and power movement (~80%?) than a purely Christian fundamentalist movement (~20%?). From that point of view, Christianity is mostly a stalking horse that hides the CN's corruption and theocratic intent. In that vision, CN is primarily a political ideology that uses religious language and symbols to advance secular power objectives. CN's use of Christian identity to exclude others and consolidate political power is evidence that the movement subordinates religious teachings to political goals when politically expedient.

What is the evidence of CN influence on the USSC?

Because the US Constitution is a secular document that protects all religions, Republican USSC judges cannot explicitly mention God, CN ideology or any CN dogma as an authority or influence. In my firm opinion, it is nonsense to say there is no influence of CN ideology or dogma on the Republican judges because they said nothing about any religion or dogma. Those judges are not stupid. They have the power to never mention God, CN or Christian authority or dogma while still obliterating the Establishment Clause, dismantling church-state separation and gutting civil liberties that God disapproves of, including abortion, universal voting eights, minority protections, and same-sex marriage. None of those judges will ever mention God in their decisions, but that does not mean that God or his dogma has no influence. Common sense, cognitive biology and social behavior all say there is going to be at least some influence.

Therefore, one needs to look for indirect or circumstantial evidence of CN influence on the USSC.

Since John Roberts assumed the role of Chief Justice in 2005 evidence of CN’s influence has become apparent. CN dogma can be found in USSC decisions, the role of CN-aligned MAGA elites in judicial selection, the transparency of nomination processes, and the ideological impact on cases involving LGBTQ+ rights are all in alignment with CN dogma. The vetting process for judicial appointments are opaque and strategic. The public simply has no empirical basis to independently decide about what will guide decisions of a court nominee. We just has to trust a MAGA political process that has clearly proven itself to be untrustworthy. 

The Roberts Court has consistently reinterpreted the First Amendment’s religion clauses to favor CN interests. For example, the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado (2018) and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2025) cases expanded free exercise and free speech protections for businesses opposing LGBTQ rights. Those decisions align with the CN-driven agenda to elevate CN morality over secular law. 

Religion cases under Roberts show a pronounced tilt, with 9 out of 10 rulings on Establishment and Free Exercise Clause disputes between 2005–2018 favoring Christian positions. That aligns with the CN objective of embedding “biblical principles” into law (and this). Evidence of that is seen in Alito’s concurrence in the Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) anti-abortion ruling.[1] He cited 17th-century theologian Matthew Hale, a figure known for misogynistic views, to justify overturning abortion rights.

The Federalist Society, an authoritarian legal network, is the dominant force in judicial nominations. All six Republican-appointed justices (Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Thomas) are Federalist Society affiliates, and the Society has supplied over 85% of Trump-era appellate court nominees (and this). While the Society claims neutrality, its leadership, including co-chair Leonard Leo, openly promotes CN-aligned judges who prioritize “biblical worldview” principles.

Organizations like the American Family Association’s Center for Judicial Renewal (CJR) explicitly vet nominees for adherence to CN tenets. CJR’s “Ten Principles of a Constitutionalist Judge” prioritize candidates who affirm America’s Christian heritage and oppose LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, and church-state separation. During Trump’s presidency, this vetting process operated with minimal transparency, as seen in the rushed confirmations of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, where key documents were withheld from public review (and this).

Dark money groups such as the Judicial Crisis Network (spending $27 million on Barrett’s confirmation) and The Wellspring Committee have funded campaigns to promote CN-aligned judges while obscuring donor identities (and this) 9 18. This lack of financial transparency enables CN interests to shape the judiciary without public accountability.

I firmly believe the evidence strongly supports a rational belief that Christian nationalism has exerted significant influence on the Roberts Court. But as usual, opinions differ widely. The big question here is, what is the empirical basis to trust that the six MAGA judges are principled and acting in service to the public interest, not in service to various forms of radical right authoritarianism, including CN politics and policy? 

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

For the wonks in the land of TL/DR 

Footnote:

1. Regarding the 2022 Dobbs decision that eliminated a national right to abortion, I asked Pxy about expert legal opinion on that case.

Q: Does most expert legal opinion see the Dobbs USSC decision as anchored in evidence based reason and rationality, with no influence of religious belief or dogma?

A: Most expert legal opinion does not view the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization as primarily anchored in evidence-based reason and rationality, with many scholars identifying potential religious influences in the ruling. This conclusion emerges from analyzing a range of legal critiques focusing on the decision's reasoning, methodology, and underlying assumptions. Legal scholars have raised substantial concerns about the Court's reasoning in Dobbs, with most expert opinions finding significant flaws in its legal methodology and conclusions.

Neil Siegel of Duke University Law School offers a particularly pointed critique, stating flatly that "The U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization cannot be taken seriously." He argues that the Court's rationale for rejecting abortion rights protection would logically apply to other substantive due process rights that the Court claims are not under threat. 4 This inconsistency in application suggests reasoning driven by outcome rather than constitutional principles.

Legal experts have specifically criticized how the Court applied stare decisis principles in Dobbs. The Harvard Law Review analysis notes that the Court's emphasis on "disrupted democratic deliberation" fundamentally "altered the scope and substance of the stare decisis calculus." 8 Rather than following established precedent for when to overturn prior decisions, the Court appeared to create new justifications for overruling long-standing precedent.

Joanne Rosen, a health law expert at Johns Hopkins University, describes the ruling as "stunning in its outcome and in the enormity of the implications entailed by the removal of a constitutionally protected right." She further observes that "perhaps for the first time, the Supreme Court departed from precedent not to recognize a right it previously neglected but rather to remove one it previously protected. It deconstitutionalized a long-standing right." 2

The Question of Religious Influence

Some legal scholars directly argue that religious views influenced the Court's decision. An article from the American Constitution Society contends that the Dobbs opinion "was authored by Justice Alito and four other members of the Court who are all conservative Christians. At least four are conservative Catholics." It further claims these justices "placed their personal, conservative Christian beliefs above those of others" and "believes a 'human person' comes into existence immediately upon conception." 3

This view argues that by failing to accommodate diverse religious perspectives on when life begins, the Court effectively privileged one religious viewpoint in its constitutional interpretation.

Other legal experts contest the characterization of Dobbs as religiously motivated. Bruce Ledewitz argues in Canopy Forum that "there is nothing inherently religious about qualms concerning abortion, nor is there anything specifically religious in the Dobbs majority opinion. Abortion is, as Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, a 'profound moral issue.' But, it is not a purely religious one."** 10

** As discussed above, one would fully expect there to be nothing specifically religious in Dobbs. And, lots of religious people argue that to be moral, a person must be religious.

Ledewitz points out that secular anti-abortion positions exist, citing figures like Nat Hentoff, a self-described "Jewish Atheist" columnist who opposed abortion. From this perspective, characterizing all opposition to abortion as religious "exacerbates the religious/non-religious division in America." **

** Arguing that there are non-religious people who oppose abortion is irrelevant to the question of whether CN ideology has influenced some Roberts court decisions. CN theocratic aggression is what exacerbates the religious/non-religious division in America, not opposition to abortion.

Conclusion
The preponderance of expert legal opinion views the Dobbs decision as problematically reasoned, with significant concerns about its constitutional methodology, application of precedent, and internal consistency. While disagreement exists about whether explicitly religious beliefs influenced the decision, many legal scholars identify moral positions aligned with particular religious traditions as having shaped the Court's approach.

While the Court’s legitimacy relies on perceptions of impartiality, the interplay between CN ideology and judicial outcomes reveals a systemic alignment with authoritarian and majoritarian religious values. For advocates of pluralism and secular governance, these trends pose existential challenges to democracy itself 16 18.

MAGA demagoguery about tariff pain: "Weak and stupid people!"

A wonderful essay by Amanda Marcotte that Salon published describes MAGA's propaganda strategy:

Fox News, desperate to defend Trump's tariffs, 

exploits MAGA's masculinity delusions

[Radical] right-wing social media has decided soaring inflation will somehow grant them all tradwives

With the stock market plunging and the threat of hyper-inflation bearing down, the propagandists at Fox News are in quite a pickle. Their job is to paint every dumb decision made by Donald Trump as the work of a secret genius [playing 6-dimensional chess] who is only pretending to be a half-literate idiot. But that's a tough sell, even to their delusional audiences, when Trump's tariffs are wiping out people's retirement accounts and threatening to raise the price of everything from groceries to cars. But Fox News knows there's one reliable way to get their audience to stop worrying about the real world and bury themselves even more deeply in fantasyland: make everything about MAGA's male insecurities.

Unable to deny the economic ruin Trump is inflicting on the nation, the Fox News spinsters have moved to reframing financial privation as a good thing, because it will supposedly restore Americans' lost masculinity. And, in the spirit of the "prosperity gospel" grifters that have cleaved themselves to Trump, Fox pundits are insisting that there will be a great reward for all this fiscal sacrifice: the restoration of male dominance over women. "Suffer now, but have faith in Trump, and he will bestow upon thee a tradwife" is the basic pitch.

"Could Trump's tariffs be the ultimate testosterone boost?" declared Greg Gutfeld on "The Five," immediately answering the question with a "yes." The propaganda team was boosted by a hamfisted chyron declaring that Trump's tariffs are "manly."

For those unclear on how paying way more for bananas and blue jeans will boost your testosterone, well, the tortured justification they offer isn't helpful. [Faux News blowhard] Jesse Watters tried to argue that tariffs will somehow magically result in millions of jobs doing physical labor, for which there is no evidence. (In reality, it will hurt existing manufacturing by raising prices on materials, and hurt agriculture by shutting down markets farmers depend on.) Watters went on to argue that these fictional jobs will restore manhood stolen from men who, like Watters, have desk jobs.

"When you sit behind a screen all day, it makes you a woman. Studies have shown this," said a still-male Watters as he sat behind the camera screen he stares at all day. This follows his lie from last week, when Watters promised tariffs would "turn the country into a place with thriving main streets and hometowns." This 1950s fantasy is the exact opposite of reality. The prosperity of the "Leave It To Beaver" era was kicked off because tariffs were dramatically lowered and taxes on the richest Americans reached historic highs — the opposite of Trump's economic plans.

Most right-wing propagandists aren't even trying to make argument-shaped pitches, but instead embracing the fascist method of portraying tariffs as a trial that will restore American manhood through pain. Sean Hannity scolded a caller who was angry about investment losses by telling him, "You don't have the stomach." MAGA influencer Benny Johnson mocked people worried about inflation by calling them "totally dependent and on our knees." He insisted losing money "builds quite a bit of character." Trump joined in by declaring Republican opponents of tariffs to be "Weak and Stupid people!"   

This is fascist rhetoric, in no small part because it's all emotion, no reason or logic. But it's feeding off a recent trend, fed by predatory social media influencers, that conflates masculinity with punishing self-discipline, the kind that rejects all pleasure and comfort as a feminizing — and thereby evil — force. This was most recently illustrated in a viral video by fitness influencer Ashton Hall, who unpersuasively insisted he rises before 4 AM for literal hours of working out and torturing himself with ice baths, while denouncing any form of self-indulgence. Eschewing sex and going to bed early is the key, he declares, to preventing "a weak mind, bad decisions or lack of productivity."

The "real men eschew comfort" mentality is quite convenient right now. Trump's actual reasons for imposing tariffs are a combination of off-the-charts stupidity and malice. But his fans cannot admit their hero-god is wreaking havoc on their pocketbooks for no good reason. Instead, this is being spun into a story not unlike Job's trials at the hands of God. But Trump-God isn't just testing their faith, but their manhood. And, to listen to Watters, if they hang in and prove their mettle, Trump will reward them with a 50s-era fantasy, complete with a submissive tradwife.

Well there we have it ladies 'n germs. If we don't like losing money, we're weak and stupid. 

Hm, I spend a lot of time with my computer screen. Have I turned into a woman?

Qs: Is it unfair or counterproductive to refer to Faux News instead of Fox, or does the reality of it all warrant the label? (It won't faze Faux viewers) Has Germaine morphed into a woman, human or otherwise?

Lizard woman - too much screen time 

used to be a lizard man

InfoWars and messaging wars: Do we deserve the politicians and government we get?

I think some of us do. The ones who voted for djt and MAGA Republicans, and the ones who didn't vote for Harris arguably deserve what they are getting. But what about the rest of us?

As usual, there are complexities.[1] For example, (i) gerrymandering gives political parties the power to choose their voters, rather than voters choosing their representatives, (ii) the electoral college means that for president some votes have more power than others, (iii) primary elections tend to produce more radical candidates, which tend on the political right to be corrupt, anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian, and (iv) voter power depends on accurate information, which means that mass media has a lot of power to either empower or disempower voters. 

Things like lying, slandering (or insulting), distorting information, hiding information, irrational emotional manipulation and asserting flawed reasoning shifts power from deceived people to the deceivers. It takes from deceived and manipulated voters their power to use their vote to get who and what they want. That shields politicians from accountability. 

In theory, the federal government could ban gerrymandering because it is fundamentally anti-democratic. But that's not going to happen. We need to get rid of the electoral college, but that's also a pipe dream. Also impossible, are (i) imposing ethics laws with real teeth on the Supreme Court, (ii)  disincentivizing (taxing?) lies and crackpottery in mass and social media, (iii) relying on some sort of morality check to independently rank political candidates on the basis of pro-morality traits like honesty, reliance on sound reasoning, and sufficient relevant experience needed for competence in the job (inexperienced = unqualified or at least underqualified = a possible indicator of bad moral character for trying to get the job). 

Upping the messaging game

What a mess. There are lots of deceived and manipulated Americans. Many of them, probably a large majority, cannot be coaxed into reality by fact and sound reasoning alone. That seems to be more a fact than an opinion. Since major reform efforts are doomed for the foreseeable future, all that's left that is non-violent appears to be better messaging against the rising tide of MAGA demagoguery, authoritarianism and corruption.

What's a better messaging strategy that does not veer into dark free speech such as demagoguery, lies slanders, etc.? The only thing that is available seems to strong appeals to emotion packaged with just enough fact and sound reasoning to shift the message from one that is mostly an appeal to evidence and rationality to one that mostly appeals to emotional. 

Unless I already do mostly appeal to emotion, I will try to consciously shift my content from appeals to evidence and reason to mostly appeals to emotion. 

Yabut whadabout logic fallacy?

According to Wikipedia, appealing to emotion, or argumentum ad passiones, is an informal fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence. This kind of appeal to emotion is irrelevant to or distracting from the facts of the argument (a so-called "red herring") and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, flattery, pity, ridicule, or spite, and wishful thinking. .... It is only fallacious when the emotions that are elicited are irrelevant to evaluating the truth of the conclusion and serve to distract from rational consideration of relevant premises or information. .... The power of emotions to influence judgment, including political attitudes, has been recognized since classical antiquity. Aristotle, in his treatise Rhetoric, described emotional arousal as critical to persuasion. .... Disagreeing with Seneca the Younger that emotion destroys reason, the 18th century Scottish philosopher George Campbell argued, instead, that emotions were allies of reason, and that they aid in the assimilation of knowledge. However, Campbell warned of the malleability of emotion and the consequent risk in terms of suggestibility:

[Emotions] are not supplanters of reason, or even rivals in her sway; they are her handmaids, by whose ministry she is enabled to usher truth into the heart, and procure it to favorable reception. As handmaids, they are liable to be seduced by sophistry in the garb of reason, and sometimes are made ignorantly to lend their aid in the introduction of falsehood.

Qs: 1) Under current political, social, religious and commercial circumstances, is appealing to emotion necessarily a logic fallacy, or can emotional appeals be mostly honest and mostly moral because they are strongly or completely aligned with facts, true truths and sound reasoning, i.e., not unreasonably distracting from rational consideration. 2) Are current political, social, religious and commercial circumstances relevant here to honesty and morality? 3) Do I already mostly appeal to emotion?

But what if that child really is starving?

Footnote:

1. Pxy:

Q: In view of the human condition, including human cognitive biology and social behavior, and current political circumstances, how true is the following assertion?: “we get the politicians (or government) we deserve." Take into account the relative persuasive power of honest speech (facts, truths and sound reasoning) compared to dishonest speech (demagoguery, lies, slanders, crackpot conspiracies, etc.) under modern circumstances, e.g., social media, giant corporations with vast power, political radicalization, etc.

A: .... long analysis ....

Cognitive constraints 

Confirmation Bias and Political Reasoning
Almost every political actor, from ordinary citizens to syndicated pundits, regularly falls victim to confirmation bias—the tendency to seek information that confirms existing beliefs while disregarding contradictory evidence. This cognitive shortcut allows people to maintain confidence in their political positions despite opposing views, creating echo chambers that reinforce polarization.

The Focusing Illusion in Political Attention
Daniel Kahneman's "focusing illusion" demonstrates that what we focus on becomes disproportionately important in our minds. As described by politicwise.org, "what you focus on becomes important to you. What is important to you becomes important to your politics." This explains why media coverage shapes political priorities, often elevating sensational issues over substantive policy matters.

Conclusion
The statement "we get the politicians we deserve" contains an important kernel of truth about collective responsibility in democratic systems. Citizens do shape their political environment through their choices and non-choices. However, this perspective must be balanced against recognition of the systemic constraints and cognitive limitations that influence political outcomes.

True political agency requires not just moral virtue from citizens but also information environments that enable meaningful deliberation. Without addressing the structural advantages that dishonest speech currently enjoys in our media ecosystem, we will continue to see a disconnect between the government we deserve and the government we actually get.