I love this video. John Fugelsang is a wonderful person to elaborate on the bible and he does so as a follower of Jesus, not Paul or the Old Testament. His mother was a nun and his father was a monk and the way he describes his father wearing his robes is as the Christian jedi of Flatbush. He explains how those using the bible to attack or bash others including the LGBTQ+ are not following Jesus that they are following Paul. He explains clearly how Jesus brought a new covenant for the people doing away with the old one in Leviticus. He explained how those using the bible to bash others and not feed & clothe the stranger/ immigrant are totally against what Jesus preached. He also mentioned how those trying to force the Old Testament of the bible in schools never want the words of Jesus hung in classrooms in public schools, they never want the sermon on the mount posted on the walls. Those kind of people only want authoritarian laws or do and dont do pushed on kids. Enjoy the video, I listen to him on The Daily Beans (news with swearing) friday newscast and his Sirius talk show. Hugs
The Palm Warbler is unusual among the Western Hemisphere’s wood-warbler family. While the majority of warblers are sexually dimorphic, with males noticeably brighter in the breeding season, the male and female Palm Warbler are nearly identical, and can be impossible to tell apart. Warblers, in general, spend a majority of their time in trees and shrubs, but the Palm Warbler is quite comfortable on the ground. Rather than hopping like their arboreal relatives, these birds take to walking or running. Like other warblers, the Palm Warbler often joins mixed-species flocks outside of the breeding season. However, though most warblers tend to flock up with other arboreal species, the Palm Warbler is just as likely to be found foraging with sparrows along hedgerows and in open weedy fields.
Palm Warblers share another habit more typical of ground-dwelling birds in that they continuously bob their tails. This behavior is also seen in other birds typical of open habitats, including the Spotted Sandpiper and Black Phoebe, where the rate of bobbing is thought to vary with the bird’s level of excitement, and thus plays a role in communication. In many ways, the Palm Warbler behaves more like a sparrow or pipit than a typical wood-warbler — even its monotonous trilled song is remarkably similar to that of a Dark-eyed Junco or Chipping Sparrow. Though perhaps an oddball among its own family, this unique bird has found a niche all its own, somewhere between a sparrow and a warbler. (snip-MORE)
In a 6-3 decision on Wednesday, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district, ruling it an unconstitutional gerrymander. Immediately, Louisiana conservatives started redrawing the state’s congressional districts, without any of them being majority Black. Now, election maps from local school districts to state legislatures to Congress will be redrawn to undermine minority representation.
Louisiana is now planning to postpone the state’s May 16 primary, in which many people have already voted, so it can redraw the congressional maps. And just announced early this evening, Alabama and Tennessee will also be redrawing their congressional maps before the midterms. They won’t be the last.
Don’t be surprised if Republicans don’t create a red sweep of congressional districts across the South on Election Day.
The Voting Rights Act was created to prohibit discrimination in American voting and was signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965. The act ended things like literacy tests for minorities before they could be allowed to vote. It increased voter turnout among black Americans. According to the National Archives, around 250,000 new Black voters registered to vote by the end of 1965. Nine out of 13 Southern states had more than 50 percent of African Americans registered to vote by the end of 1966. What the Supreme Court did on Wednesday was to encourage discrimination in American voting.
The conservative Supreme Court has been chipping away at the Voting Rights Act for years. The court issued a ruling in 2013 that killed federal oversight of voting rules in nine states, and led to over 1,000 closings of voting precincts, mostly in Black districts. Studies years later show that it increased the racial turnout gap, translating to hundreds of thousands of uncast ballots by voters of color in the 2022 election. Remember the 2013 ruling the next time you hear a MAGAt brag about Trump sweeping all of the swing states in 2024.
In 2021, the court ruled that fears of election fraud could justify new election rules without evidence that any fraud had occurred in the past, or that new rules created by Republicans in the aftermath of Donald Trump losing the 2020 election would make elections safer.
Now the court has ruled that the majority-minority congressional districts created with the intent of ensuring minority voters could elect candidates of their choice were unconstitutional. This will lead to states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Carolina, etc, having congressional delegations without any Black members.
Samuel Alito wrote the conservative court’s majority decision and said that the gerrymandered district that gave the state its second Black congressional representative was unconstitutional. The six conservatives say that this congressional district was discriminating.
The Civil Rights Act required Southern states with a history of voter discrimination to obtain federal approval before making changes to their voting laws. Now, that’s gone. Yeehaw states will now be free to discriminate in their elections without the burden of the federal government stopping them.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act outlaws any voting practice that creates hurdles to voters “on account of race or color.” Technically, that provision has not been eliminated, but as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, it leaves the provision “all but a dead letter.” She said the bar to show intentional discrimination is “an almost insurmountable barrier for challenges to any voting rights issues to prove discrimination.”
The Rev. Al Sharpton called the high court’s decision a “bullet in the heart of the voting rights movement, and said in a statement, “The Supreme Court has not just weakened a law, it has humiliated and dismantled the life’s work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, and every man and woman who marched, bled, and died for Black Americans to have an equal voice at the ballot box.” It’s like the Roberts Court has just burned down the Edmund Pettus Bridge.
Cliff Albright, a co-founder of the group Black Voters Matter, said Wednesday’s ruling “means that you have entire communities that can go without having representation. It is literally throwing us back to the Jim Crow era unapologetically, and that’s not exaggeration.”
Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Washington office, said the court’s steady work to erode the Voting Rights Act, culminating in Wednesday’s decision, amounted to “burying it without the funeral.”
Maria Teresa Kumar, president of Voto Latino, said the decision will allow more aggressive “cracking and packing” of populations to dilute their votes, “not just in congressional districts but also in state legislatures, county commissions, school boards, and city councils.”
Marc Morial, National Urban League president and CEO, said, “This decision is a continuation of a frontal assault on the gains of the Civil Rights Movement that began in 1954 with the Brown versus Board of Education decision.
Sophia Lin Lakin, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project pointedout that a loss of representation, especially in state legislatures and Congress, will translate into minority communities losing a voice on issues that matter to them, such as healthcare, education and needed public works upgrades, and said, “States can now point to partisan objectives to justify maps that strip voters of color of representation, and federal courts will have little basis to intervene.”
Shalela Dowdy, an Alabama resident who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit that resulted in the creation of a new Alabama district in 2023, said, “Putting it in the hands of the states on this level is dangerous. There’s just been a history of the states not doing the right thing based off their state population.”
Stupid and racist, conservatives, like Gary McCoyandMargolis & Cox, love to claim that rules and laws that create black congressional districts, and the Civil Rights Act itself, are racist. But what they are doing is eliminating black representation while creating more for whites.
The Supreme Court has once again taken our nation backward. And again, this is the fault of Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell, who broke every rule and norm they could to pack the court with their troglodytes, even by stealing appointments from Democratic presidents. This court has actually taken away rights from Americans, like the guarantee of a woman’s right to choose.
And again, the court is doing everything it can to make it much more difficult to defeat Republicans.
Republicans love to claim that they’re the party that passed the Voting Rights Act. While not technically true, it could not have passed without Republican support. But now, the Republican Party is the one to kill the Voting Rights Act.
Donald Trump’s legacy will not be ballrooms, arches, his face on coins, passports, and his name on federal structures; it will be creating the court that killed democracy.
Crows: My Neighbourhood is full of crows. While you do find them in cornfields, they are also an urban bird. They also have the ability to mimic, like a parrot or a mynah. They are extremely intelligent. I like them. My friend and cartooning colleague Chris Britt creates paintings of crows. I texted him once to tell him that I just saw a murder outside my house. On some days, I have very large and loud murders. (snip-MORE)
Some entertaining; some, things about which to think. The first bit is somber; exceedingly somber. It is easy to just click through on the title to read the entire post; I subscribe for free, so I don’t want to just take the whole thing. Beneath, more stuff! Enjoy your May Day. 🌺
When the Supreme Court dealt the final blow to the Voting Rights Act, it completed its mission to erase the tangible results of the Civil Rights Movement.
The dictum,”once a free man, always a free man,” though founded about as deeply in law, history and reason as, that “all men are born free and equal,” … [is] unimportant and ineffectual to protect the rights of citizens of slave States.
— Judge Hamilton Gamble
On March 22, 1852, America made a slave.
America’s race-based, constitutionally enforced system that legally extracted labor and intellectual property through violence or the threat of violence existed long before the 13 English colonies staged an insurrection against their British master. Colonial law made the condition intergenerational and perpetual. The founders wrote the fugitive slave clause to ensure that people who had already been reduced to human chattel couldn’t free themselves. But the Constitution didn’t make someone a slave. (snip-MORE, and so worth the click!)
On Monday, the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee passed HB26-1322, a bill that creates a private civil right of action allowing survivors of conversion therapy to sue the practitioners who subjected them to it. The bill, which has no statute of limitations for such claims, would likely make the practice of conversion therapy financially prohibitive in the state. It comes in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision last month in Chiles v. Salazar, which found that Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy unconstitutional—effectively legalizing the discredited practice nationwide. The new bill has one final legislative hurdle to clear—the full Colorado Senate—before heading to Governor Jared Polis’s desk, though the governor has so far offered only lukewarm signals about whether he will sign it, saying he is “hopeful there is still time to construct a framework he could support.”
The bill targets what it calls “sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts”—defined as “any practice by a licensed mental health professional that seeks to direct a patient toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity outcome, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of a particular sex or gender, regardless of the sexual orientation or gender identity the patient is directed toward.” The inclusion of “eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions” is notable—conversion therapists have long used this framework to argue disingenuously that they are not trying to change a person’s sexual orientation, merely helping them manage unwanted feelings. The bill explicitly carves out any counseling or therapy that “provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a patient” or “facilitates a patient’s coping, social support, and identity exploration and development”—meaning therapists who support a patient’s own process of self-discovery, without steering them toward a predetermined outcome, would face no liability.
The bill uses a novel legal mechanism to target conversion therapy—a private right of action. Rather than the government banning conversion therapy outright, which is what the Supreme Court struck down in Chiles, the bill instead allows survivors to sue their practitioners directly, stating that “a person who suffered an injury as a result of sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts may bring a civil action for damages” against their conversion therapist. It also states that a lawsuit to recover damages can be commenced “at any time without limitation,” making its statute of limitations effectively endless. The mechanism may be insulated from the constitutional problem the Supreme Court identified in Chiles because the government is not restricting speech—instead, private citizens are seeking civil remedies for harm they suffered, the same way a patient can sue a doctor for malpractice. As Alejandra Caraballo, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School, told Erin in the Morning after the Chiles ruling, “While the Supreme Court decision limits the abilities of states to regulate conversion therapy through professional standards, they did not limit the ability for states to protect LGBTQ youth from these abusive practices through tort or malpractice law.”
If the mechanism sounds familiar, it is because Republicans pioneered it to get around Supreme Court rulings they didn’t like—most famously in Texas’s SB 8, the 2021 abortion “bounty hunter” law. That law banned abortion after six weeks not through government enforcement but by allowing any private citizen to sue anyone who performed or aided an abortion for $10,000 in damages. The legal trick was simple: when abortion providers tried to challenge SB 8 in court, they couldn’t get an injunction because there was no government official to enjoin. Courts found that you can’t sue “the state” to block a law that only private citizens enforce. The Supreme Court effectively let SB 8 stand, and the strategy worked—abortion access in Texas collapsed virtually overnight even while Roe v. Wade was still the law of the land. Kansas used the same model in SB 244, which allows anyone to sue a transgender person for using a restroom that doesn’t match their assigned sex at birth. Now, Colorado Democrats are exploiting the same constitutional loophole in the opposite direction—using private civil enforcement to deter a harmful practice that the Supreme Court says the government cannot directly ban.
It is important to note that some have raised concerns the bill could be weaponized against gender-affirming therapists—with anti-trans groups arguing that helping a trans youth transition constitutes its own form of “conversion therapy.” But the bill contains multiple layers of protection against such misuse. Its carveouts explicitly shield counseling that provides “acceptance, support, and understanding of a patient.” The bill also has protections in its causation standard. To establish that conversion therapy caused harm, a court must weigh “the nature, duration, and intensity” of the efforts, “the age and vulnerability of the plaintiff at the time,” “the relationship between the plaintiff and the mental health professional,” and “expert testimony regarding the general psychological effects of sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts.” It is unlikely that judges will consider anti-trans activists to be considered medical “experts” on this topic.
LGBTQ+ organizations, activists, and Democratic lawmakers in the state have supported the bill’s passage. “This decision only reinforces the urgent need for state-level protections,” said One Colorado, the state’s largest LGBTQ+ advocacy organization. “[HB 1322] provides a pathway for accountability, allowing survivors to seek justice against those who administer this harmful practice. We remain committed to ensuring that those responsible for such profound damage are held accountable.” Rep. Karen McCormick, a Democrat from Longmont, was blunt about the bill’s intent: “The purpose of this bill is seriously to send a chilling effect to any licensed professional therapist who may think about bringing that practice back.”
Conversion therapy is a discredited practice broadly decried by every major American medical organization. The APA concluded in a 2009 systematic review that the practice is “unlikely to be successful and involves risk of harm, including depression, suicidality, and anxiety,” and called for its total elimination. The United Nations has deemed conversion therapy a form of torture. A 2020 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that LGBTQ+ youth subjected to conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to report attempting suicide. For transgender people specifically, conversion therapy often takes the form of so-called “gender exploratory therapy,” a rebranded approach that seeks to convince trans youth they are not actually transgender, keeping transition just out of reach by tricking trans youth that it might be offered if they jump through endless hoops while intending to deny it the entire way.
The bill now heads to the full Colorado Senate for a floor vote, where Democrats hold a 23-12 majority and passage is expected. Coloradans who support the bill can contact their state senator through the Colorado General Assembly’s legislator lookup tool. If the Senate passes the bill, it will go to Governor Polis, whose signature remains the final and most uncertain step. Polis, the first openly gay governor elected in the United States, signed the original 2019 conversion therapy ban and has called the practice “a scam and a waste of people’s hard-earned money”—but his office has stopped short of committing to sign this bill, saying only that he is “hopeful there is still time to construct a framework he could support.” What changes, if any, the governor is seeking remain unclear. The bill includes a safety clause that would make it take effect on July 1, 2026, and would exempt it from voter referendum. If signed, Colorado would become the first state in the country to use a private right of action to combat conversion therapy in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Some good news for a change. An attempt to stop the ever increasing discrimination and white supremacy push by haters, bigots, and racists. The idea of white only communities had long been something of the past only now with constant push from racists making a come back at the same time as the SCOTUS is on a break neck pace to roll back minorities civil rights while enshrining Christian white privilege over the rights of any other group into laws. I have heard repeatedly the phrase “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” however that says nothing about fairness or equality. I don’t understand the hate, bigotry, or racism or why a majority party in the US, along with the majority of the SCOTUS appointed by such people endorse those harmful feelings / ideas but I know we must resist and fight against them as was done in the past. We can not let big moneied instrests fuel the destruction of what the US could be, a progressive country where the government works for the entire public and minorities have equality, tolerance, and acceptance under law in a society where people are free to think what they wish or have a faith that harms no one but can not use those thoughts / ideas to harass or cause harm to others. Hugs
Lawmakers in the Pennsylvania House passed legislation on Tuesday that would add the commonwealth to the growing list of states that have enshrined nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ individuals into state law – a vote that came despite Republican concerns that the bill would jeopardize fairness in women’s sports and infringe upon religious liberties.
The House voted 101-100 on Tuesday to pass House Bill 2103, which would make it unlawful under the state’s Human Relations Act for someone to be denied housing, employment or access to public accommodations based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
The legislation sparked a contentious debate on the House floor over whether the nondiscrimination protections are written in a way that would allow transgender women to access women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, and that would also infringe upon religious liberties.
Proponents of the bill argued that the legislation is ultimately about fairness and the protection of LGBTQ Pennsylvanians from discrimination.
“Today, at its core, is about fairness – the right to exist as your full self without fear that you’ll lose your job or your apartment,” said Democratic state Rep. Jessica Benham, who said she has experienced discrimination firsthand as a queer woman. “I believe that Pennsylvania is better when it’s fairer, and I know that most Pennsylvanians believe that, too.”
Democratic state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, the prime sponsor of the Fairness Act in the state House, said bills seeking to enshrine nondiscrimination protections into state law have been routinely introduced because LGBTQ Pennsylvanians have been experiencing discrimination firsthand.
“If you want to understand why we’ve offered this bill, why it has been offered and reintroduced for 20-plus years, it is because Pennsylvanians are experiencing this discrimination and they want it to end,” he said. “Pennsylvanians are recognizing that they don’t have full access to their God-given inalienable right to be treated with dignity and respect – to have full access to this American Dream.”
According to the Human Rights Campaign, 23 states currently have laws on the books that prohibit housing and employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, while 22 states have laws that outlaw discrimination pertaining to public accommodations.
Republican lawmakers feared that the definitions included in the bill are too broad and that they could infringe upon religious beliefs.
Many of the arguments against the bill centered on the definition of public accommodations and whether that definition would extend to bathrooms and locker rooms in schools, as well as to girls’ sports teams. “The definition of gender identity or expression … most definitely means that if you identify as a female, you get to get on a female sports field,” said GOP state Rep. Craig Williams. “If the whole point here is to protect people in special classes, we just denigrated all young women.”
“This bill shifts power away from elected representatives and places it in the hands of judges who will decide over time how far these definitions reach,” state Rep. Charity Grimm Krupa said in remarks on the House floor. “And while that plays out, it will not be large institutions that carry the burden, it will be the small business owners, it will be the faith-based organizations, it will be the individuals, people of faith, forced to choose between their beliefs and the threat of litigation.”
“We’ve heard these arguments before,” noted GOP state Rep. Scott Barger. “They may be subtle, they may be emotional, but we reject them because we know that what you’re really doing is weaponizing degeneracy against our faith communities.”
Benham, in response to Barger, said: “As a queer woman, I know what it’s like to experience discrimination, to be told I’m ‘less than,’ that I’m a degenerate, that I am perverse – and treated like that too … I believe that both the right to be free from discrimination and to practice one’s religion can coexist.”
Democrats noted that the bill includes protections for religious liberty, stating that nothing in the bill shall be interpreted to require an individual or religious entity “to engage in conduct that constitutes a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion.”
Despite passing in previous legislative sessions with bipartisan support, the legislation was approved along party lines on Tuesday, with one Democrat, state Rep. Frank Burns, joining Republicans in opposing the bill.
Prior to being amended with the nondiscrimination language on Monday, the original version of HB 2103 sought to prohibit the development of white nationalist communities and housing developments by not allowing private clubs and members-only organizations to discriminate based on race or other protected classes.
The bill’s prime sponsor, Democratic state Rep. Ben Waxman, said he introduced the bill after an organization called Return to the Land created a “whites only community” in Arkansas, with plans to build additional locations.
Waxman said Tuesday that the amended version of his bill “further protects people all over this Commonwealth.”
“I’m so thrilled that it’s a part of my bill,” he said.
This is an important clip that exposes the fallacies that Maher and the right push about trans people and the democrats supporting the LGBTQ+ and progressive causes such as equality of religions and government working for the people. Maher tried to push the idea that kids become trans only due to being pushed into it by adults, but when corrected with facts and examples he has no retort except to make more debunked claims. The idea that simply buying a child the clothing they want is somehow making them transition. Every study indicates that cultural issues that republicans try to use against democrats make no difference to how people vote. Only die hard haters who were already going to vote republican care about the woke cultural issues supported by progressives. Yet many Democratic candidates run from even tepid support for protecting minorities due to the made up idea of courting the center that doesn’t exist in any large size now. People leaning right are not going to vote democrat who is republican lite when they can have the real full republican but any votes that are gathered by turning on the LGBTQ+ / Trans / minority communities are countered by the loss in left / progessive votes. Maher talks about how girls who were tomboys in the past would be “forced” today to become trans. Emma talks about how she was a tomgirl who wanted to wear boys clothing and was allowed to do so but no one tried to suggest she needed to change her gender. He mistakes allowing a kid to express themselves is some how forcing them to be trans. I love how completely supportive of trans people / trans children and up on the facts / reality the people on the show are. Hugs
*** Personal note*** I ran out of steam early yesterday. I only went back to bed for an hour in the morning, but by 3:30 pm, between the pain and being so tired I went to bed before 4 pm. I got up about 5:30 am. Hugs
Russia began the campaign against LGBTQ+ people by first targeting trans people as a threat to children. Then once the people got used to that line they claimed that any mention of non-cis non-straight way of living was sexualizing kids and so a threat to them. Mentioning or showing a gay person was equated with showing a kid hardcore porn. Fully nude bodies. It worked in their society. That is the play book the right wing haters / Christian nationalists have used against trans people here. How soon until they try to go the entire way to force the entire country / society to be straight and cis and that Christianity be the national religion enforced by white men who force those around them to follow their personal church doctrines. But what these nut jobs really want and understand is removing all mention and signs of being not cis or straight won’t stop LGBTQ+ people from existing. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, questioning / queer / nonbinary, and all others not straight or cis are born to straight cis parents. What these outstanding moral Christians like Congress person Randy Fine from Florida want is that non-straight and non-cis kids be harassed and assaulted like when he was in school making them afraid to come out or be themselves publicly. In other words these haters want the facade of a straight cis country such as when one of the presidents of Iran said they did not have any gay people in his country ignoring a well know community that was there. They want anyone not like them to be afraid to live their lives in case they are discovered. They think that will please their god. The god who they believe created all people also created the LGBTQ+ ones as well. They think that the all knowing god will not know people are faking it due to fear and that they will be rewarded for causing that fear in the LGBTQ+ community. Very Christian of them. Hugs
The designation could mean anybody associated with the group risks years behind bars for supporting an extremist organization — akin to terrorism charges under the nation’s criminal code.
A gay rights activist wearing a headpiece walks ahead of a squad of gay rights activists, during a traditional May Day rally in St.Petersburg, Russia, Thursday, May 1, 2014. The poster reads : ‘Love is stronger than war!’ (AP Photo, File)
A Russian court on Monday labelled the country’s top LGBTQ rights group as “extremist,” effectively outlawing the organization and paving the way to prosecute its supporters.
Russia has for years targeted LGBTQ organizations but has become even more hostile since launching its full-scale assault of Ukraine in 2022, massively accelerating the country’s hardline conservative turn.
On Monday, a court in St. Petersburg ruled in favor of a case brought by the Russian justice ministry to brand the Russian LGBT Network — a top LGBTQ rights nonprofit — “extremist.”
“The public movement has been designated as an extremist organization, and its activities are banned in Russia,” the court’s press service said on Telegram.
The hearing was held behind closed doors.
The designation could mean anybody associated with the group risks years behind bars for supporting an extremist organization — akin to terrorism charges under Russia’s criminal code.
Amnesty International in February slammed the justice ministry’s move to seek the label.
“This move reflects a deliberate strategy by the Kremlin to legitimize and weaponize homophobia in its assault on dissent and equality,” said Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia director.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has for years denounced anything that goes against what he calls “traditional family values” as un-Russian and influenced by the West.
In 2023, Russia’s Supreme Court banned what it called the “international social LGBT movement” as an “extremist organisation”.
As part of the crackdown, Russia has in recent years targeted LGBTQ clubs and bars, raiding them and arresting owners.
Courts have also issued fines and short-term jail sentences to people displaying LGBTQ “symbols,” such as clothes, jewelry or posters featuring the rainbow flag.
This is a thing for me: I’m one of those who says, “Watch the primary candidates. Pay attention, and make a decision based on who resonates with what I want. Do this without tearing apart the other primary candidates (in my party.)” Without tearing apart candidates who could end up winning the primary, because face it: in my state, and even here on Scottie’s Playtime, most people are not as liberal as I am. So, in the primary, I vote for who I want. In the general, so far, it’s always gonna be a Dem, and Dems have a hard enough time running against always well-funded Republicans, and who, in my state, are also the majority, passing laws to make it more difficult to elect anyone who isn’t a rightwingnutjob Republican. This is the thing I dislike about some “media” who count themselves as liberal: they make a choice based on a single issue (and, frankly, the gender of the candidates often figures in, like it or not; many like a “bro”) then proceed to eviscerate the primary oppo. This suppresses the actual vote because people take the message that everyone’s basically the same, so no point voting in the primary, or at all.
Here in Kansas, we’ve got an experienced woman running for Governor. She’s been in the legislature for a while, knows who she’d be working with, and is familiar with government law and procedure. So far, there really isn’t anything to undercut her, from what I know. She’s not as liberal as I am, but is left-moderate enough to allow me to communicate with her what I believe she should do in her work, and to actually consider it on some level. Then, we’ve got a young man running. Nothing wrong with him that I can see, either, except he’s not got as much experience in state governance. This will put him at a disadvantage working with our legislature, which might/maybe/could turn less red but likely will remain Republican majority. I haven’t decided who I prefer as yet. I know of her, not so much yet of him. I like what they each say, as far as we know from this report.
So, she did point out that he has accepted donations from CoreCivic and from their lawyers. He’s also said more than once that he will continue to oppose CoreCivic moving back into KS and opening an I.C.E. detention center. Personally, I believe a person can take some campaign contributions without becoming the donators’s best friend in government. It happens more frequently than people realize. In this system we have with no public campaign finance, the campaigns need money, and will have to take legal donations. Brava/o to anyone who truly has never done that; I know it can be done, but it’s a special district who will get out and support their candidate, with the price of running a campaign these days.
So I am not holding campaign contributions against anyone as yet. Actions speak louder than words. So far, there is nothing in either candidate’s actions that make me distrust either one. I also am not unhappy with the way this forum went as far aswe know; where while the candidates pointed out differences between them, there was not out-&-out “crushing” or “destroying” or “ripping” of each other. Here’s (below) a news story about KS’s Dem. Gubernatorial campaign. What I’m most disappointed about is the number of lines given to reviewing the campaign contributions, rather than each of their answers to the other questions listed in the story below. There could have been plenty of space for that if they’d merely reported the campaign contribution issue along with the rest, rather than dwelling on it. But, even the KS Reflector is not a friend of Democrats; it’s the same sort of coverage we always getthough better than known mainstream.
In the midst of the coarse political rhetoric that seems worse every passing year (and does not originate with actual Democrats!), I hope we can remember: in the primary, choose the one most close to your perfection, which means supporting them: discussing things in their favor, giving positive reasons for your support, and not eviscerating the other candidates. This works in all U.S. primary elections everywhere.After that, support the one who wins. Otherwise, we get a fkin’ Republican.
SHAWNEE — Kansas Sen. Cindy Holscher positioned herself at a Sunday night Democratic forum as the anti-establishment candidate for governor with a history of winning in legislative districts formerly held by Republicans.
Her top opponent in seeking the party’s nomination, Kansas Sen. Ethan Corson, argued he is the only one who could win in the November general election.
The candidates staked out nearly identical policy positions during the 50-minute forum at the Aztec Shawnee Theater. The questions were submitted in advance by Kansas Young Democrats.
Both support raising the state’s minimum wage, making it easier to vote, and access to reproductive health care.
And they both identified the Republican supermajorities in the state House and Senate as their real opponent.
Holscher, from Overland Park, said Republicans were unable to lower property taxes during this year’s legislative session, despite their ability to pass anything they want.
“So they keep going back to the culture war issues,” she said. “And this past session, instead of solving actual issues of affordability and putting more money in your pockets, what did we get? We got this bathroom bill. We got two Charlie Kirk bills. None of those are going to put money in your pockets.”
Corson, from Fairway, touted his endorsements from Gov. Laura Kelly, former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, and Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes.
“Leading candidates in the Republican Party want to take Kansas backwards on reproductive freedom, public education and so many other issues,” Corson said. “We cannot let that happen. That is why this campaign has earned the support of trusted leaders who understand both the stakes and what it takes to win a statewide election in Kansas.”
Holscher’s response: “I’m running on my record, not the coattails of the establishment.”
About 150 people showed up to hear the two Johnson County Democrats make their case for the August primary vote. A dozen or more people wore bright blue Holscher T-shirts, and at least a couple donned black Corson T-Shirts. An engaged crowd, and available alcohol, ensured a spirited reaction to comments.
They applauded Corson when he said the city of Leavenworth was wrong to approve a conditional use permit for CoreCivic to reopen its private prison as an immigration detention center.
“I believe that private prisons have no place in our carceral system,” Corson said. “I will never support a private prison being built in Kansas. I will never support an ICE detention facility being built in Kansas.”
But the loudest applause came when Holscher attacked Corson for having taken the maximum campaign donation from CoreCivic during his 2024 Senate campaign, and $5,000 from the law firm representing CoreCivic for his gubernatorial campaign.
“You can’t say you’re against private prisons or ICE detention facilities when your campaigns and personal life are intertwined with that very business,” Holscher said. “I have consistently stood with the community opposing ICE overreach. I have never taken CoreCivic money and never will.”
A spokesman for Holscher later clarified that Corson received donations of $4,000 from Anna Kimbrell on Nov. 19, 2025, and $1,000 from Ed Wilson on Oct. 27, 2025. The two are partners for Kansas City, Missouri, law firm Husch Blackwell, which represented CoreCivic in the company’s lawsuit against Leavenworth.
The start of the forum was delayed 45 minutes because the two candidates discovered the party had given them different sets of rules. Party chair Jeanna Repass declined to say what the discrepancy was, but she insisted it was “minor.”
Before the candidates took the stage amid the rumble of storms outside, there was a moment of silence for the attempted violence Saturday night at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
“Just remember,” Repass said, “we don’t solve our differences with violence. We do it by voting.”
Questions touched on affordability, water crisis, young voters and Medicaid expansion.
Corson said the state should invest in building 100,000 houses per year, including 5,000 in rural areas, and work to make higher education accessible to any young person who wants it.
“I’m going to be in my mid-40s, and my wife and I, every single month, are still paying our student loans,” Corson said. “So I understand what it means for higher education to be unaffordable, to feel inaccessible, and to feel like it’s crowding out all these other things that you want to do in your life, whether it’s buying your first home, starting a family.”
Holscher said she wants to hold landlords accountable for high rent and to put a cap on fees. She warned about the threat that water-thirsty data centers pose to farmers. And she pointed out that, as a member of the House in 2017, she helped pass a Medicaid expansion bill — although it was vetoed by then-Gov. Sam Brownback. She also said she worked with the bipartisan caucus that eventually overturned the Brownback tax experiment.
It was her birthday, and her supporters served cake in the lobby.
“If you want someone fighting for the people, you want someone building a broad coalition of nurses, of teachers, people in your neighborhood, farmers, veterans, union members — that’s who I have on my side, not the establishment,” Holscher said.
Scottie's Playtime 