I suppose the only questions there are whether or not her state allowed women to vote for president, and whether or not a candidate who cannot legally hold the office counts (since she was under 35). Because it wasn't just blanket illegal for women to vote prior to the 19th Amendment, it was up to the individual states and like anything up to the individual states it was all over the place depending on which state we're talking about. For example, New Jersey allowed anyone who had the equivalent of 50 British pounds of wealth to vote regardless of sex (and there are recorded examples of women voting there) - at least until they embraced Jacksonian democracy and removed the wealth requirement and added a sex one. By the time the 19th Amendment passed, women could vote in at least some elections in most states.
The legislature tried to backpeddle it as much as they could in order to prevent black people from voting, but the main mechanism is forcing the felons to pay a bunch of money, which isn't a problem for Trump.
To be exact, the "backpedaling" was that if the courts assigned you fines and prison time you had to complete both before you had "completed your sentence" and thus could vote.
Also, those other things were mostly the fallout of military actions performed as part of the job, rather than assorted felonies while a private citizen.
They pick the bear because some guy on Lemmy said that if a woman groped him without his permission he'd grope her without hers?
What I'm reading into this is that you think a woman groping a man without his permission is a lesser violation than a man doing the same to a woman.
At least he's talking about the views of a justice he might pick, rather than what race and sex they're going to be as though that's the most important criteria.
You know you can have Firefox open a second window, right?
Too bad there are so many French people
There are a bunch of right-wingers out there that would tell you (((they))) are working on that. That's basically the heart of the whole "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory and I've seen a few specifically point to Paris as an example of it in action.
Article mentions 5 other State Department employees have left over Biden’s support of a genocide while pretending it’s not a genocide.
It'd be nice if we could have a presidency where no one from the State or Justice Departments quits in disgust during their term. The last time was what? The first Bush?
Is AIPAC really that big of a threat?
Yes. And it's wild to me that you don't have to be a far-right neo-Nazi conspiracy theorist to be able to say that nowadays. They're a huge lobby with a lot of money and influence to throw around.
I've been saying for a long time that Democrats basically sell themselves on the idea that you should be afraid that the Republican might win, and vote for them to prevent that. Sometimes they get something done, often only after compromising heavily, but for the most part that's not the message they're selling on.
To put it another way, if someone asks you why they should vote Dem instead of third party, the answer isn't about how great the Dems are and why they deserve your vote it's about why you should be scared that the GOP might win. It didn't work in 2016 because most didn't actually think Trump might win and it did in 2020 because they knew he could.
It might work this time (I'd give it better than even odds, even given the Israel/Gaza stuff is going to hurt Biden some), but eventually it won't and when it fails and we get another GOP president the Dems won't win another election for a while - either we immediately fall into Christo-fascist super-Nazism and there are no more elections where we could vote for Dems or we don't and Dems are at a loss on what to do for votes.
The problem is that even a Constitutional Convention gives more power to land than people.
Specifically in the case of a Constitutional Convention 2/3 of states have to agree to have one and 3/4 of states have to agree to any changes.
You'd have an easier time convincing the federal government to condense a few states - we don't really need TWO Dakotas, and Montoming seems like a good idea. Maybe also split California into a few pieces. The whole "land over people" thing is only really a problem because a couple of states blow the curve - House apportionment is done in a fashion that mathematically minimizes the average difference in people/representative between states while having a fixed number of representatives, but California blows the curve by being so utterly massive compared to any other state and there just not being enough representatives to go around. So all but a few states are pretty close in terms of people/representative, a couple are sitting at the 1 representative minimum while being tiny, and California blows the curve on the other side.
Either increase the House size, merge some of the smallest states, split California up or all of the above - and all of those can be done without passing an amendment.
Of course, then Texas will invoke the clause in the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States and split itself into five states, each of which gets its own Senators and whatever number of Representatives the math would work out to.
Wyoming wasn't the first state to allow women to vote for President. At the very least women could vote in New Jersey as early as 1790, presuming they had the equivalent of 50 British pounds of wealth (because the wealth requirement was the only requirement). Women later lost the right to vote in New Jersey when New Jersey embraced Jacksonian democracy and extended the right to vote to all white men of age, regardless of wealth.
But again, women's right to vote was a state issue prior to the 19th Amendment and as such it was kinda all over the place with some states allowing women to vote but only in some elections (often different rules for municipal, county, state and federal elections).