While I applaud her bring it out on the house floor and making it public, I wonder at the general impact apart from making Trump face his responsibly directly and publicly.

For those of you who can stand it, I’d suggest reading what the conservative side is portraying it as. I say this as around 40% of the voting public seems to swallow this without question. They portray Minnesota as:

The theft of billions of dollars in welfare payments in Minnesota by primarily Somali criminals became an overnight political liability for Democratic Gov. Tim Walz and other state officials who, at best, ignored the problem. Trump has designated Vice President JD Vance to lead the fraud investigation; you can be sure that Democrat-run states like California and New York will be in the crosshairs.

So no mention of the killing, among the many other things that the guardian article did discuss.

It makes me wonder what the swing voters read and believe.

I really appreciate the TLDR, as I like to know the point before I start reading the support of it. However “legible” is a horrible word for this as precise as it might be.

Once a threat becomes legible — primarily, by an elected authoritarian beginning to act in authoritarian ways once in office — people start prioritizing democracy in a way they didn’t beforehand.

Which I would rephrase as saying: 'When politicians act like dictators, document it, yell it out, and call them out."

And even that’s to long and not direct enough.

Worth reading on the background of 230 https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2026/02/30-years-of-section-230-why-we-still-need-it-for-a-safer-internet/

While I don’t want to dampen the enthusiasm to much, this State House district has voted Democratic since 2011. So not that much of a surprise, even though good.