61 Comments

I truly believe that a world run by women would be a much better world. To disenfranchise women, much less keep them from positions of power, would ensure an imbalanced Mars here on Earth. I hope that family privacy, bodily autonomy, and the freaking right to keep voting bring women to the polls to vote for their own self-interests, which are good for us all.

Expand full comment

There are millions of women who vote R, which is a sure sign in this country that women can't be trusted, either.

Expand full comment

Too often, people forget that right-wing Republicans know they are nowhere near the majority of voters and so cannot win the presidency by getting the majority of votes. So, they have for years used all sorts of subversion to undermine voting by likely democratic voters. Trump and the Republican Party have now arrived at a place of desperation. They have concluded that all they can do now is to sow complete and utter electoral chaos with hundreds of lawsuits challenging voters and voting procedures all around the country — but especially in the swing states — and feverishly trying to provoke local intimidation and violence by their local acolytes and militias.

Trumps and the Republican Party at this point are far more than weird. They are dangerous to our collective life and liberty..

Expand full comment

H.R. 8281, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act). Introduced by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX). “Radical progressive Democrats are engaged in a wholesale attack on citizenship and what it means to be an American. Through open borders, lawlessness, and attacks on this nation’s founding principles, the Left is ripping at the very fabric that holds this nation together.

We will only be able to keep this republic as a republic as long as our citizenship as Americans remains meaningful. That’s why I introduced the SAVE Act in the first place, and it's why the People’s House passed it today.

I am grateful for Speaker Johnson's leadership and my Republican colleagues' support for getting this across the finish line. Today's passage is just the beginning, however. We must push forward, pressure the Senate, and keep up the fight for what makes this country great and what it means to be an American citizen.”

Every public official is sworn to defend and protect the Constitution. Every MAGAT public official who supports stuff like this should be questioned to determine whether they violated the oath.

"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This section does not affect other oaths required by law."

General Ethical Standards Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees; and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people. Henry Clay.

See House Ethics Manual. https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/Dec%202022%20House%20Ethics%20Manual%20website%20version.pdf

The purpose for the legislation is based on a phony predicate.....for evasive logic.

Every candidate should be asked whether they accept the results of the 2020 election.

Expand full comment

So, as a 78-year-old citizen of the United States, will I be able to vote in Virginia if my birth certificate does not have the same name on it as my passport (which, even though I am divorced, still has my married name on it?)

Expand full comment

A passport is all you need, by itself it proves identity and citizenship in one document. The problem here is for women who took their husbands name and DON’T have a passport to prove both. If the picture ID has their married name, it won’t match their birth certificate and they could be refused a ballot in some states

Expand full comment

Thank you for clarifying that a passport is all anyone needs to qualify for voting in any state even if the SAVE Act passes. If I use my driver's license (with my married name) as my photo ID, and my birth certificate (with my maiden name), would those two documents suffice, without my passport, under the SAVE ACT?

Expand full comment

No. Then you disappear and become one with your husband. This was the case not so very long ago. You were under your Father's name and control, or later on Uncle, Brother or another Male until marriage. At that point you passed into ownership of your husband and everything you owned became his. You were unable to work unless he agreed and he legally got your pay, your children were his, the house, everything. You couldn't open a bank account,get a patent, go to school, or even leave the house without permission and often a male escort. These are the actual Good Old Days that Republicans are aiming for. That's a reason Single Cat Ladies are such a threat. Do you realize what a Loose Woman really means? She's not tied down by a man. She's independent.

Expand full comment

I got married in 1960, and my wife could not get a credit card in her name. Well there were no credit cards, only Gas cards and Diners Card.

Expand full comment

Short answer: no, technically speaking. I would imagine, however, in some jurisdictions with reasonable people working the polls, you might get to vote. But, I would operate on the presumption that those 2 documents without the matching surname will NOT suffice to allow you to vote

Expand full comment

Trump’s own election fraud task force disbanded after finding no evidence of systematic illegal voting by non- citizens. And certainly not the millions that delusional Trump alleged.

This is all cynical theater from a Party that knows it has to suppress the vote to have any chance of winning the presidency.

Expand full comment

No surprise here that they will try every trick in the book to win the election. But on the upside it means that they are seriously looking at a blue wave this fall. They are like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike.

Expand full comment
Sep 19Liked by Thom Hartmann

This is an important post clarifying the nefarious rationale for Trump and the Republicans pushing for a law that, on its face, seems unnecessary due to federal law already prohibiting votes by non-citizens. The media hasn't made either the Republican strategy or the downstream opportunity that a new law like this presents for authoritarian misuse clear, so most people will view it only as another sideshow in a dysfunctional Republican house doing the bidding of Trump and dismiss it as noise.

That's a dangerous mistake to make at a time when Republicans could use a law like this to effectively end democracy should they gain the power to use it. It's also a disgraceful failure of our corporate media, who have failed to report on the real gravity of this situation, the reason that Trump and the Republicans are pushing this, and the potential downstream abuse that would deprive millions of US citizens their right to vote.

Expand full comment

Tell me Mr. Gardener; "will there be growth in the spring?"

Expand full comment

Recall that Trump’s main claim that the 2020 election was rigged were the accommodations that were made to facilitate voting in light of the Covid pandemic. Now he wants to make new rules just before the 2024 election to ensure “fair voting” which in his view is no voting by anyone who would vote against him. Talk about stealing an election!!

Expand full comment
Sep 19·edited Sep 19

Is Trump, convicted of 34 FELONIES, eligible to vote in Florida? DeSantis' "election police" should be all over this!

Expand full comment

Hey Tom--you left out "malarky"! But seriously, what kind of political party would be so hellbent on constructing barriers to voting, but one that has no interest in how people think and feel? All the more reason to stop them at the polls.

Expand full comment

A brief glance at Project 2025 will answer your question (and then some)!

Expand full comment
Sep 19·edited Sep 19

This is beyond bullshit folks, what the Republicans have started to implement is a full-on SHIT STORM!

Jeremy Strong describes what Trump's mentor Roy Cohn taught him:

1-Attack and keep attacking

2-Deny everything

3-Never admit defeat

Jeremy plays Roy in the up-coming Trump movie "The Apprentice". He gave the list on Colbert last night.

Then Rachel Maddow was on Late Night with Seth Meyers informing the public that this election will not be properly certified by the Republicans. She said to expect turmoil after election night and long after. A fact Thom had already taught HIS audience.

Trump and his cult led by Mike Johnson are desperate losers that will continue to Attack, Deny, and Never Admit Defeat. It is going to take Kamala, an army of women, and some good allies of all genders to fight back. Everyone will have to clean up. Expect no relief from this shit ON election day!

Expand full comment

The Republicans are trying to provoke a civil war. They are being directed by Russia - Putin is Russia, and other oligarchs. The Evangelicals associated with them are trying to trigger the Rapture.

The insurrection never stopped.

This is only the birth pains. I went to the Tim Alberta’s church-when his dad was alive. It was nice then. Haven’t been back since.

How many “coincidences” do you need to see that there are messengers.

Appeal to Heaven

You are getting your answer

Lazarus and the Rich man

Expand full comment

Kay, I also think the Evangelical Republicans are trying to start a civil war. This morning, I read in the paper USA TODAY NETWORK--Tennessean that " a high-profile group of Christian organizations, including the National Religious Broadcasters, have filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service challenging a key legal precedent that limits the amount of political influence a nonprofit organization can wield."

They call the classification that churches cannot speak about political candidates "discriminatory." They don't want to proceed until after the election, I believe, because they expect Trump to lose but want church members to be angry that their freedom of speech is being violated. The courts have ruled that all the churches must do is change to 501c-4 from 501c-3 to endorse candidates, allowing church members to claim donations on their Federal tax forms. Since the LBJ administration, church pastors can't endorse candidates to be tax-exempt.

I fear this special SCOTUS will change the ruling, but worse is that the members will be angry and protest that Trump lost due to the repression of their free speech.

Expand full comment

SCOTUS had some phony 17th century English common law arguments to sanction their overthrow of Roe, but in reality, it was nothing more than six activist justices engaged in an exercise to cram their personally indoctrinated religious views down the rest of America's throats, while ignoring the 1st amendment's Separation Clause.

1/3 of this Court was established by an illegitimate twice impeached president, that cheated his way into office. The next president & Congress are going to have fix this nefariously contrived, by enemies of democracy through corruption, Supreme Court, before the Seditious Six destroys what's left of our human rights.

Expand full comment

Reported so in the Guardian today. “Collusion” was and continues to be a real threat.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/19/intelligencer-pro-russia-website-trump?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Expand full comment

Very, very important point. We need to lean on our senators -- if we're lucky enough to have rational, pro-democracy senators -- to watch out for this. If men adopted their wives' surnames at marriage, we wouldn't have to put up with this crap.

Expand full comment

That's a excellent idea. 💡🎉

Expand full comment

More swearing! More! In the situation we’re in

Expand full comment

I read research several years ago that swearing is cathartic and relieves symptoms of stress. Nevertheless, it took me two months and several trips retrieving documents to renew my driver's licence although it was the fourth renewal under my married name. My yearly Social Security statement finally sufficed but not my Medicare card. I checked my voter's registration again two weeks ago.

Expand full comment

I've had a couple of friends who were married a couple of times and had a Devil of a time getting the new Real ID in California because they had to trace each legal shift with official paperwork back to their birth certificate. Lesson: Get married but DON'T take your husband's name.

Expand full comment

I'm not a big fan of the family unit, just another reason to not get married! Who would have ever thought that the fascists would seize power because people got married?

Expand full comment

I strongly recommend you get a passport, if there is any question about your name matching

Expand full comment

Yup, keeps my blood pressure down.

Expand full comment

But I didn't swear when the young lady refused my marriage license which they accepted for the name change on my license after the marriage which didn't help my blood pressure.

Expand full comment

There is a picture of the Golan Heights with a brick or cement sign. The top is in Hebrew but the bottom says Trump Heights.

Some Republicans are also tricking Evangelicals into triggering The Rapture.

Instead they will trigger global war😣.

Stop them.

Expand full comment

I've always said that it's a bad idea to vote someone into Government Office who wants Armageddon and the end of the World. I also wonder why they think they have to end the World themselves when they believe their version of God is Omnipotent? Can't he handle that himself if he wants to do so? 🙄

Expand full comment

They are following liars, false prophets. Look at 2Peter2. This was “predicted”; aka we were warned 2000 years ago. No one including Jesus Christ knew the timing of the End. These people are being misled. They are following false teachers who only care about power and money

Expand full comment

Louder, Thom! We need MANY more pissed off women! Those KristoFascist mother freakers are going to fuck (profanity neccessary) with the men who oppose them too. Gas and fire do not discriminate by sex.

Expand full comment

This is very true. Men don't realize that the oppression of women rebounds onto them also and they end up being used as disposable workers and fodder for wars.

Expand full comment

Of course the GOP quest will fail and women will vote against the failure of the GOP to stop women from voting this year. When a group thinks a fantasy is real is when you know that they are trying to escape reality by any means possible. The danger is the reaction afterwards the loss. Maybe a blue wave if large enough will make more not rational action less likely. Be ready for it anyway as top Repubs politicians will not accept the outcome. No doubt violence will be blamed on the groups that have no history of violence by the supporters of hate and past criminal acts.

Expand full comment

Just as for men, a woman's legal surname is her father's name. Using her husband's name is a courtesy to him. I use my birth name on legal documents for that reason.

Expand full comment

Same here. Glad I did. Just easily got my new real ID and now a passport. My friend who was married a couple of times couldn't get her real ID yet as she went in twice and they still want more documents. This is ridiculous. In the future, young women should keep their original names after marriage. The taking of your husband's name used to be enfolding your identity into his as ceasing to be a separate person. He also received control of all your money and property, children and yourself. You couldn't sign documents, get credit, open a bank account, or get a patent with your own name. Prior to marriage you were under control of your Father, Uncle, Brother or Male Guardian.

Expand full comment

As does my wife Suan. In 1984 I was a law firm administrator and the two female partners both kept their maiden names. I never understood and still don't why women are so eager to give up their identity for that of their husband.

As a genetic genealogist I have encountered so many women who are more diligent in researching their husbands tree, than their own.

My first wife was thrilled that I asked her to marry, all of her friends had husbands and at 20 she was a spinsters, she couldn't wait to change her name, her first stop after the honeymoon was the DMV.

It is society and the social expectations. As said above she couldn't obtain a credit card in her name, and there were only gas and Diners cards, no Visa, Mastercard or Discovery.

Expand full comment

Imagine the R-campaign as a 2-circle Venn diagram of Rs.

One set contains inconceivably Staggering Gullibilty; the other is Chock Full of Hate.

The intersection, the overlap of said sets is Malevolent Hate of Non-White, Non-male, Non-Christians.

Women are not male, ergo they are in the out-group.

The opposite of the Stevie Wonder hit "I was made to Love Her."

R's are shaped by Trumpian politics and the joker John Roberts' Five Flunkies, so:

R's are made to hate Her.

And if that means R females must hate themselves? . . . So be it.

Expand full comment

I see an old-fashioned stagecoach pulled by four horses. Their names are Evangelical, Misogyny, Racism, and Big Gun. Up in the driver's box wielding a whip is a billionaire or mega-multimillionaire -- Peter Thiel, Robert Mercer (and daughter Rebekah for gender balance), Paul Singer, Elon Musk, etc., etc.

Expand full comment