crossery

@cdg864.bsky.social

Followers

Following

Posts

Posts Replies Media

Reply to

Mike Masnick

Lol Marco, amiright? I'm forever reminded of Josh Marshall's distillation of Trump's core political method as dominance politics. talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-t...

The Trumph of the Willtalkingpointsmemo.com I wanted to make a couple related observations about this Donald Trump...

Reposted by

crossery

As he isn't here anymore

Reply to

Julian

Definitely agree. When they really want to push a narrative they saturate the paper with that narrative. That saturation signals the other press to jump onboard. See whitewater, emails, Biden's old, etc.

Reposted by

crossery

Reading a story about the election that casually referred to "Biden's slide in the polls" and it just remains remarkable to me that narrative reporters can just drop stuff like that into copy and never think twice about whether it has any basis in fact.

Reposted by

crossery

Reply to

Greg Pak

Biden was one of my last choices in the 2020 primary. I'm sick to my stomach about many of his policies. If he drops out, so be it. But I'm furious with the cavalier way these "moderates" are kicking out our feet in the event he DOESN'T drop out.

Reposted by

crossery

People really discount the extent to which The Squad are incredibly talented politicians, and mostly because they're young, women, and not white. But they've been more effective at getting policy positions across than most of their senior colleagues...

AOC has got good political instincts and she can pretty clearly see where this is going.

Reposted by

crossery

Updated: I read the NYT Front Page so you didn't have to.

Reply to

jiminnh.bsky.social

This. It's meant to be coded in headlines as moderation (thanks again NYT!) but personhood opens the door to existing criminal law to regulate women's healthcare.

Reposted by

crossery

The lesson from France is that sometimes you have to hold your nose to defeat fascism. You can't beat it with your own ideological purity.

Reposted by

crossery

New York Times, July 5, 2025: “Biden’s Stumbles And Gaffes During His Criticism of President Trump’s Internment Camps Vindicate Age Concerns”

I think we should start expanding how we think about responding to a rogue court. Congress should pass a law rebuking this decision and dare the court to overturn it. Oh and of course Congress should restructure the court, not just add seats. Not possible today, but let's build the framework now.

I hate this court so much and even I am astonished by this case. It writes new provisions into Art 2 of the constitution that were unnecessary to decide the case at hand and that cannot be repealed by legislative action or even undone without a new case of presidential law breaking before the court

Reply to

@Sea-level

Of course. A real response requires having control of Congress and presidency. We should have a day 1 plan ready though. It should become part of how we vet candidates. No more Sinemas!

Reply to

Lauren

Major papers still have not internalized that they need to get rid of dedicated SCOTUS reporters. As a class they missed every scoop on their beat over the last 10 years. Totenberg admitted to being too friendly to actually report. Just outsource to propublica.

Reposted by

crossery

A fun thing about the Supreme Court is if it didn’t exist and you described how it worked as a good idea for a functioning country people would laugh at you and call you a dumb stupid ass bastard

Reposted by

Reposted by

/8 At any rate, congratulations to the Federalist Society for an achievement beyond the reach of the British, outside the grasp of bloody civil war, impossible to Nazis and Soviets and terrorists: defeating the American idea.

Reply to

Jamison Foser

I would add that since this court has shown no respect for its precedent and has invited a pipeline of 5th circuit courts to do the same, Congress should ignore this decision and pass a bill explicitly rebuking this decision. Congress is the first of equals and needs to speak on this.

Reply to

Radley Balko

The best part is we can speculate as though John "Taney2" Roberts actually has a legal theory underpinning his calvinball. It's all word vomit to reach the conclusion he wants. Very bizarre to think the president can kill or jail his opponent but cannot regulate power plants.

Reposted by

crossery

In awe of this tweet, which truly captures everything bad about mainstream journalism in 2024

Reposted by

crossery

The 14th Amendment says if you were involved in an insurrection you can't be president. SCOTUS said they won't allow anyone to enforce that because of reasons they made up. The Constitution doesn't say the president is immune from criminal law. SCOTUS decided he is because of reasons they made up.

Reposted by

crossery

It's just hilariously disingenuous. Imagine looking at, say, ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY and concluding that the biggest threat to liberty isn't abuse of power, but powerful people refraining from sufficiently wielding their authority out of fear that they might one day be held accountable.

It's not the worst of it, but what I may be actually angriest about (right now) is Roberts' smarmy smugness and dismissiveness in the final two paragraphs of section IV and the whole of section V. "Fear mongering," "extreme hypotheticals," "our perspective must be more farsighted," and this.

Reposted by

crossery

Reposted by

crossery

That “Black jobs” seems to be the main thing from the debate to go actually viral on social media should give certain columnists some pause about their pulse on the campaign.

Black Americans demand to know what ‘Black jobs’ are after Trump debate commentwww.wate.com Black Americans are demanding to know what “Black jobs” are after former President Trump used the phrase in Thursday’s debate with President Biden in Atlanta. In response to the first 2…

Reposted by

crossery

I do not understand how an entire culture seems to have spawned around this absolute loser shit. bsky.app/profile/badm...

Reply to

taco socialist

Democrats own the nomination process and could certainly put rules around it. Democrats could just exclude anyone who coordinated with corporate money during the primary from their party line. The general is different but parties control their own nominations.

A fair question to Democrats would be "Why do you let corporate and dark money groups flood your primaries?" That's been a problem for a while, tho it doesn't seem to be Bowman's only problem here.

This is about AIPAC pouring money into Latimer's campaign, which everyone who follows this knew about already and is distinct from Ayo's claim (you guys are really bad at this btw).

Reposted by

crossery

Posting this randomly and not for any recent headlines or whatever

Reply to

emptywheel

The contrast should be THE story of the election, honestly. Stochastic terrorists cannot be part of the political process.

Reply to

Radley Balko

Ah but they don't want free markets. They want to corner markets so they can seek rents!

Reposted by

crossery

Biden has to say he won't pardon his son because he knows the media would absolutely savage him if he tried. Yet the same media completely takes it for granted that Trump will pardon himself if he's re-elected, it's just baked into assumptions about his future cases and they don't even bother to ask