Is Anyone Paying Attention?

[Sephirah]

The trouble with Europe is that they're too busy arguing with each other to actually come together. Maybe Trump's insanity will be the catalyst, but you have to keep in mind you have thousands of years of animosity between different European countries. Telling people to come together is a whole lot easier than actually doing it. Rather than states under a federal government, Europe is made up of sovereign countries... all looking after their best interests. Often with centuries of animosity bubbling under the surface.

It's a good idea, I just don't know how realistic it is. I know there's this whole thing for "The United States of Europe" but I don't know how much water it actually holds.

[Stottie Girl]

Britain is well out of the EU political union in my view. It's just that our useless politicians are totally inept at reaping the benefits. However, if NATO falls apart I see no reason why there shouldn't be a European force/ military pact. We are stronger together in that regard. Pollitically the UK has always felt different to the continent.

We also must never forget about the commonweatlh nations either. They came to our aid in our time of need (twice in fact) and should never ever be forgotten. It's about time we forged closer trade and military ties with the likes of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. I think the EU relationship has caused the UK governments to somewhat sideline these nations for decades and it's time to renew bonds.

[Lori Dee ✅]

Trump vows voter ID requirements for the midterms, 'whether approved by Congress or not'
In social media posts on Friday, the president said if Congress failed to approve legislation mandating voter ID, he would issue an executive order.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/trump-vows-voter-id-requirements-midterms-rcna259018 🔗
NBC News - Kyla Guilfoil
Feb. 13, 2026, 7:12 PM MST

President Donald Trump said in social media posts Friday that he would issue an executive order to require voters to show identification in the midterm elections if Congress fails to act.

"If we can't get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order," Trump said in the post.

In another, he wrote, "There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!"

Trump has called for Republicans to "nationalize" and "take over" the administration of elections. ... the Constitution states that "... shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof."

Nate Persily, a law professor at Stanford University, said that an executive order mandating changes to elections would be unconstitutional.

"It's not an isolated tweet here, right?" Persily said of Trump's posts. "There's a lot that's going on. So you've got the action in the legislature, in Congress, you've got these, the earlier executive order, you have the seizing of the ballots and other materials from Fulton County, right? And so it's all of a piece with the desire to have greater federal oversight of elections."

----------------------------------

Federal oversight = control.

If you can't win by playing by the rules, you change the rules.

The Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear throughout history:

"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual's rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary." ~ Marbury v. Madison, (1803)

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed".  ~ Norton v. Shelby County, Tennessee (1886)

Now, we wait and watch to see if anyone is willing to rein in this madman.

[Paulie]

I agree, Trump is blowing smoke if he thinks an executive order is going to stand for mandating voter ID. 

But According to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in August 2025, 83% of U.S. adults favor requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification. Support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats.

The poll also found majorities across racial groups backing the requirement, including 85% of white adults, 82% of Hispanic adults and 76% of Black adults.

Makes you wonder why democrats are not on board with this?  Perhaps there's something in the bill that's not acceptable, but they are not making any effort to find middle ground.  Why not?

Voter ID would go a long way to squashing Republican complaints about voter fraud. 

There are those that spout that it will disenfranchising minority voters.  Well a number of years ago, one of the alphabet networks went in to several black communities expecting to get a stories about how hard it is for them to get a photo ID.  All they got were people laughing at them, telling them "What are you talking about, We all got ID's"

I want the government out of more of my business, but I want voter ID.

[Stottie Girl]

I'm genuinely curious what the issue is with regard to needing ID to vote?

I'm assuming you have to be a US citizen to vote so doesn't everyone have access to some form of ID? like drivers license, passport, bus pass etc. In the UK, if you do not have an acceptable photo ID then there is the option to apply for a special voting certificate so everyone is covered.

Haven't heard of any issues when we introduced it.

[Courtney G]

A large percentage of poor people (this means lots of minorities) don't have driver's licenses or other federally-recognized ID but they are American citizens and they have a right to vote. Requiring them to obtain ID will suppress their vote.

In addition, systematically marginalized people (minorities) are more cautious regarding an involuntary requirement to be documented. Historically, that sort of device was used to repress them even further in the past.

Republicans target minority voters.

[Lori Dee ✅]

A large percentage of poor people (this means lots of minorities) don't have driver's licenses or other federally-recognized ID but they are American citizens and they have a right to vote. Requiring them to obtain ID will suppress their vote.

In addition, systematically marginalized people (minorities) are more cautious regarding an involuntary requirement to be documented. Historically, that sort of device was used to repress them even further in the past.

Republicans target minority voters.

This.

And it is being used as a springboard for voter intimidation. Trump's advisers have already stated that they want ICE agents at the polls (which is also illegal) in large cities in Blue states. The White House did not rule it out. The only reason for this is to scare away anyone who might be intimidated, thereby reducing the vote count.

https://time.com/7371900/steve-bannon-ice-election-donald-trump-leavitt/ 🔗

[Courtney G]

And it is being used as a springboard for voter intimidation. Trump's advisers have already stated that they want ICE agents at the polls (which is also illegal) in large cities in Blue states. The White House did not rule it out. The only reason for this is to scare away anyone who might be intimidated, thereby reducing the vote count.

Yup. Anyone who has *close* friends who are people of color will tell you that they have a healthy fear of anyone in a uniform. Their feeling that is the there are NO law enforcement personnel that exist to "protect and serve" them; that's not how it works when you're black. I don't expect most people to understand this. As a matter of fact, I know many will say something ignorant like "If they would just obey the laws...". But I encourage you to do some deep reading on the subject if you're willing to open your mind to a long-standing and very uncomfortable reality.

So yeah, armed officers at voting places? Perfect way to keep minorities from voting, just like the strategic closing of polling places in areas with a lot of minority voters who can't afford to take an entire day off to vote. And on and on.

In order to have a representative government, all of our citizens must be afforded the right to vote and that right must not be suppressed.

Twenty-five states bar community members from voting, simply on the basis of convictions in their past.

[Stottie Girl]

Are they not introducing a free voter certificate for those who don't have ID?

If someone is an illegal immigrant surely they can't vote anyway so they wouldn't/shouldn't be at the poling stations in order for ICE to round them up? What would be the point of ICE being there at all?

Not trying to delibrerately be argumentative here, just asking.

I'm not blind to reports of US police heavy handedness towards ethnic minorities or frankly outright murders that are going on, they do make our news. But I figured, taken as a whole, that would have been a minority, a few bad eggs?

We can have a joke on with ours and most of them aren't packing any heat, so maybe it's not surprising I'm a bit naive. I must admit I do find european police who carry guns far more intimidating than UK police.

[Lori Dee ✅]

If someone is an illegal immigrant surely they can't vote anyway so they wouldn't/shouldn't be at the poling stations in order for ICE to round them up? What would be the point of ICE being there at all?

You are correct that they can't vote, except that in some places, they allow voting only in local elections. So they won't be there. Therefore, the only reason for any law enforcement to be in the area is voter intimidation or to keep the peace if called. They are not allowed within 100 feet of any polling place.

[Simplycause]

I'm genuinely curious what the issue is with regard to needing ID to vote?

I'm assuming you have to be a US citizen to vote so doesn't everyone have access to some form of ID? like drivers license, passport, bus pass etc. In the UK, if you do not have an acceptable photo ID then there is the option to apply for a special voting certificate so everyone is covered.

Haven't heard of any issues when we introduced it.

You'd be surprised. Lots of low income rural people don't have their social or Birth Certificate and to get them is a PIA. So they don't have actual ID.

Personally I don't have an issue with voter ID. Primarily because there's organizations that will help you get those documents. Or there currently are, that may be the next thing on the chopping block. I'm sure how what passes for the Republican Party these days would deem any attempt to help someone get their social, birth certificate and driver's license in order to vote a crime some how.

But in the U.S. this is two problems. One states handle election standards. Two we don't have widespread voter fraud in the way Trump and other morons allege. For starters it's already a crime to register to vote when you're not eligible. It's a crime to vote. It's already investigated and prosecuted. Know what a bunch of people who are in the country illegally aren't doing? SIGNING UP TO VOTE BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORTH IT TO THEM TO GET CAUGHT.

Also Trump doesn't just want ID. He wants Real ID, Passport, Birth Certificate and SS card. Now I've got two copies of my stuff because I couldn't find mine to update something after my wife and I bought a new home. So I went through the pain to get my social and BC replaced. Then about a month later I found my social and birth certificate. But a lot of people don't have one or both for what ever reason.

[Lori Dee ✅]

If anyone asked to see my birth certificate or passport, I would ask to see theirs first.

Most people don't carry a birth certificate around with them. Passports are not required for interstate travel, so most people don't carry them either. All you need is a driver's licence or state ID card. When you apply for one, they will ask to see your birth certificate, passport, or another form of identification to verify your identity. There are many forms that are acceptable for this purpose. Many states will allow you to register to vote at the same time. Some states issue Voter ID cards; others just accept your driver's license or state ID.

This works because the Constitution states that the States determine the time and manner of elections. Every part of the elections is handled by the States, including the election of their members of Congress. There is no reason for the federal government to be involved until the final Certification of the election in the Senate (for Presidential elections only).

[Paulie]

A very large percentage of poor people are white, non-minority, and are more likely to live in rural areas where the access to means of getting an ID is more difficult.  So I don't buy the "suppressing the minority vote" argument.  Also, we are not talking about a huge change regarding the number of states that don't have voter ID.

From the most recent US Census:

•    About 40–45% White, non‑Hispanic (largest numeric group in poverty, because White people are the largest group overall).
•    Roughly 25% Black (African American).
•    Roughly 25% Hispanic/Latino of any race.
•    Around 4–5% Asian.
•    Around 2–3% Native American/Alaska Native, with poverty rates among the very highest but smaller total population.
•    A small remaining share in other or multiracial categories.

How many states have voter ID laws?
Using national policy trackers:

•    Around 35–36 states require or request some form of ID when voting in person (either photo ID or non‑photo ID like a utility bill or bank statement).
•    Of these, roughly 25–26 states specifically require a photo ID to vote in person, with the others accepting non‑photo documents as alternatives.
•    The remaining 14–15 states plus Washington, D.C. do not generally require ID for most in‑person voters on Election Day, although federal law still requires certain identification checks for some first‑time voters who registered by mail.

Yes the Constitution states that the States determine the time and manner of elections.  But recall Under Biden, the Democrats tried to ban states from requiring Voter ID with the "For the People Act" (H.R.1, 2021)

As for Assistance with obtaining IDs - assistance measures such as free cards, mobile DMVs, or waived fees—are common in the 25+ states with photo ID rules, most of which are Republican-controlled. They aim to address access barriers while enforcing ID mandates.  Critics argue they don't fully cover transportation or document costs, but it a far cry from intentionally making it difficult. 

Let's talk Real ID.  The SAVE Act does not require a Real ID. Congress passed the Real ID Act in May of 2025.  Enforcement of it has been delayed multiple times since 2028 when it was supposed to go into effect.

But again, The SAVE Act does not require a Real ID.

I don't like the Real ID Act.  I don't have a Real ID.  I just renewed my driver license and I didn't get the Real ID.

Requiring Voter ID would squash most of the voter fraud complaints of those that think it exists.

I stil want voter ID.     

[Stottie Girl]

Obviously a hot topic over there judging by the strong feeling.

In the UK it was prettty much a non issue. Might be because we are one of the most beaurocratic nations in the world! We all have birth certs and if born outside the uk will have documentation proving citizenship. Using these it's possible to get any of the other photo id's that are required.

They can pretty much all be applied for online with no need to go anywhere. The documents arrive in the post. Last time I got my passport renewed it took 8 working days to get it back.

[Dances With Trees]

The last major federal incursion and oversight of states' Constitutional mandate to oversee voting was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Lyndon Johnson signed the 'Act' in response to Jim Crow practices that suppressed the Black vote. Recent Supreme Court rulings have gutted this act and many states are once again pursuing voter suppression strategies. Voter ID laws would not mollify MAGA. Trump would still claim that every election he lost was stolen.

Besides, as others noted, this is about intimidation. About maintaining power. About oppression.

[Lori Dee ✅]

Trump has chipped away at the long-standing wall between church and state. It's just the beginning
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/15/politics/trump-religious-liberty-commission-church-state-separation 🔗
CNN - René Marsh, Steve Contorno
Feb 15, 2026

...By this summer, the group — Trump's Religious Liberty Commission — is expected to produce a blueprint for policy changes that could redefine the boundaries between government and religion in American life.

"We have to bring back religion in America," Trump told the commission last year. "Bring it back stronger than ever before."

Discussions by the commission on how to fulfil Trump's mandate have included aggressively pursuing legal action against state and local governments accused of blocking religious expression and withholding federal funding for K-12 schools viewed as hostile to faith. The latter mirrors pressure Trump has applied to colleges accused of failing to protect Jewish students from discrimination.

They have also considered ways to encourage the Supreme Court to revisit decades-old precedent governing the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits the US government from establishing a state religion or favoring one religion over others.

Though the commission has representatives from various faiths, and Jewish and Muslim communities are involved, its strongest threads skew toward conservative views within Christianity.

Brian Kaylor, a Baptist minister and author of books on religious communication, said the administration appears to be emphasizing Christianity above all others.

--------------------------------

American Inquisition. Coming soon to a city near you.

Next, Trump will issue an Executive Order declaring transgender women are witches. Here come the pitchforks.

Maybe not. Maybe he will decide that we are not bad people after all and that all humans are children of God and deserve love.

Yeah. Right.

[Dances With Trees]

You've got to pick up every stitch...

[Simplycause]

Trump has chipped away at the long-standing wall between church and state. It's just the beginning
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/15/politics/trump-religious-liberty-commission-church-state-separation 🔗
CNN - René Marsh, Steve Contorno
Feb 15, 2026

...By this summer, the group — Trump's Religious Liberty Commission — is expected to produce a blueprint for policy changes that could redefine the boundaries between government and religion in American life.

"We have to bring back religion in America," Trump told the commission last year. "Bring it back stronger than ever before."

Discussions by the commission on how to fulfil Trump's mandate have included aggressively pursuing legal action against state and local governments accused of blocking religious expression and withholding federal funding for K-12 schools viewed as hostile to faith. The latter mirrors pressure Trump has applied to colleges accused of failing to protect Jewish students from discrimination.

They have also considered ways to encourage the Supreme Court to revisit decades-old precedent governing the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits the US government from establishing a state religion or favoring one religion over others.

Though the commission has representatives from various faiths, and Jewish and Muslim communities are involved, its strongest threads skew toward conservative views within Christianity.

Brian Kaylor, a Baptist minister and author of books on religious communication, said the administration appears to be emphasizing Christianity above all others.

--------------------------------

American Inquisition. Coming soon to a city near you.

Next, Trump will issue an Executive Order declaring transgender women are witches. Here come the pitchforks.

Maybe not. Maybe he will decide that we are not bad people after all and that all humans are children of God and deserve love.

Yeah. Right.

Beyond it skewing towards Christianity, what's being pushed is this nationalistic, ultra conservative version of Christianity. 

I don't know if anyone has bothered to look into the 7 mountain mandate but that's the blueprint.

[Lori Dee ✅]

There will always be someone in the White House pushing an agenda. That is not new. But in the past, they stuck to their Oath of Office to protect and defend the Constitution, not attack it. Very often, they pushed Congress to expand the rights guaranteed in law.

The Founding Fathers were very wise when trying to figure out what the Constitution should look like. These were not stupid people. They were educated, knew well the history and functions of European governments, and what they were trying to avoid by leaving and creating a new country. They understood what worked and what did not.

Madison's Notes and the Federalist Papers are very revealing about the discussions that were had as they tried to make these decisions. They didn't come lightly. There was much debate on both sides. And when they finally figured out what everyone could agree to, they decided that the very First Amendment should be:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

They also realized that they may need to protect those rights by force at some time in the future. They didn't have a standing army at the time, so they relied on state militias (armed private citizens). Knowing that a government could start imposing restrictions on that, they wrote the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And so on through the Tenth Amendment.

Again, these were not decided easily. There were lengthy discussions and heated arguments on both sides, for and against. But, they finally agreed that this is how it shall be in this country. The Constitution is the law of the land and supersedes all others. For centuries, those rights have been enshrined in our Constitution.

And now, instead of protecting and defending the Constitution, he wants to change it because he doesn't like it. Neither the President nor any of his Cabinet has the authority to change any part of the Constitution. That power is reserved to Congress, and only Congress.

I'll have to check and see just how many Constitutional amendments he has already violated, how many times he has done something that a court ruled was illegal, and exactly how many times he has been convicted of criminal activity in multiple states. That will be for my own notes. I won't bore you with the details.

[Lori Dee ✅]

This is just my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, or a spoonful of sugar, or a bottle of bourbon.

I have never been in favor of "pre-emptive" strikes for any reason. We live in a country whose foundation was built upon the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

I don't agree with blowing up boats because they are suspected of being members of a drug cartel. I don't agree with kidnapping heads of state from their homes in the middle of the night. And I don't agree with bombing cities because we want regime change in that country.

When we set that kind of example, we are telling the international community that this is acceptable behavior. It is not. And what's to stop someone else from deciding they want to do the same to us? What's good for the goose...

Every human and every country has an inherent right to self-defense by whatever means they deem necessary.

Does that mean bad guys might buy a gun? Yes. That is their right.
Does that mean some country might want to develop nuclear weapons? Yes. That is their right.

We don't punish people for something we think they might do. We punish them after they are proven guilty. That means they must commit the crime first. Then and only then can punishment be swift and severe. As long as what they are doing is self-defense, we have no right to act against them.

If they harm a hostage, we hunt them down. As John Travolta explained in the movie, Swordfish:

They bomb a church, we bomb ten. They hijack a plane; we take out an airport. They execute American tourists; we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.

That is how a deterrent works.

During the Cold War nuclear arms race, the deterrent between nuclear powers (the U.S. and the Soviet Union) was retaliatory strikes. Our defense systems are designed to detect and shoot down any incoming missiles... and then launch a retaliatory strike so devastating that no one would dare be the first to launch. It worked and continues to work.

Everyone knows that peace in the Middle East was very fragile. The region is a tinderbox, and no one wanted to throw a match in there. Now we have a deranged madman at the helm who did just that "to effect a regime change."

Worse yet, his cult followers are now declaring that this is a "Holy War" and part of God's Divine Plan.

MRFF has received over 200 calls from more than 50 military installations across all the services since Saturday, reporting similar disturbing pronouncements from their Christian zealot commanders.
Jonathan Larsen - Monday, March 2, 2026
https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/2026/03/mrff-inundated-with-complaints-of-gleeful-commanders-telling-troops-iran-war-is-part-of-gods-divine-plan-to-usher-in-the-return-of-jesus-christ/ 🔗

Now we have Iran attacked, and they retaliated against U.S. bases in various countries all over the Middle East. Those countries have made statements that they have the right to defend themselves. Then we had U.K. military bases attacked.

And now, Poland says it will pursue nuclear weapons on their own.

I think the entire world has gone insane.
Welcome to World War III.