…a permission structure blank check to act as menacingly, boorishly, self-satisfied, and bitchily as the literal leader of the free world did, a volcanic joy they never thought their cruel impulses would be allowed, when they thought he could never win and they’d all have to return to pretending to…
Everyone I know: I would vote for a wet chinchilla over Trump
Rich, enlightened Democratic donors: We need a very specific person to be the Candidate. So much so that we'll risk a chaotic convention and lawsuits to keep the Democrats off the ballot in hostile states. No, not that one though
This weekend I took my kid to the art museum and as we walked up we encountered a guy wearing a spandex face covering and driving one of these things (it was green). “I’m meeting someone here,” he said. When we came out of the museum he and a friend were manning an RFK for president booth
we tend to overuse the term nowadays but babes, JD Vance is a ✨grifter✨ and is potentially about to become the one of the most successful ever and it all started with liberals recommending a book to each other
The mass deportation scheme is probably the most immediately scary part of Trump 2025. It’s not just the just the forcible deportation of millions of people and accompanying family disruption That’s bad enough. Nor is the let’s-see-what-pulling-this-lever-does-hurr economic recklessness./1
Full quote from ex-ICE director Tom Homan: "Trump comes back in January... I will run the biggest deportation force this country has ever seen. They ain’t seen shit yet. Wait until 2025.”
Tonight in Florida Trump pledged to bring Homan back.
Homan, BTW, is a listed Project 2025 contributor.
A California legislator's staff once emailed me to say that their rep had introduced a bill based on my nyt reporting.
Their trans reporting is heavily cited in congressional documents
I think the thing that makes me saddest about the past 4 yrs, if I let it, is that we were confronted w/ crux after crux, crisis after crisis, threshold after threshold, one inflection point after another where we could've been just so extravagant & glorious in our compassion, but instead did… this.
there is a rhetorical bait and switch that occurs when software-driven systems are synonymized with "technology", because if you criticize their behaviour (orthogonal to any strictly technical concern) you get called a luddite (itself a deeply disingenuous manoeuvre)
Why is there, allegedly, money in hating on tech? The hatred must be because of the grift! I mean, you're almost right, you've just got the grift location inverted.
the editor of the New York Times reacting to a potential Trump second term with “fasten your seatbelts” is so deeply vile i can’t wrap my mind around it. these people have detached themselves so completely from the things they cover that the rise of fascism becomes just something exciting to watch
I'm no ivy league fail upward brunchlord news professional, but I feel it's generous to call conspiratorial fascism (managed by a sociopathic manbaby with a fourth grade reading level) "disruptive"
that's kind of like saying nuclear annihilation is "modifying"
Among these, I always get stuck on the Senate filibuster. It did not exist in any form while the Framers were alive. The current form, in which a Senator can stop a bill permanently without doing anything, did not exist until the 1970s.
But it's treated as sacrosanct.
so many things about the US government that are now treated as Inviolable Precedent are based on things like "this is a number I just pulled out of my ass" and have been modified repeatedly over time until one day people decided changing the number was too hard
it doesn't have to stay that way!
OK I'll level with you: I think that's a nigh-on useless & even counterproductive conception of "right wing." But you're not interested in anything but anger it seems.
It's where the "right-wing" language even came from. They sat on the right of the legislative body. It sounds like you're using the word in a way that's not relevant to what policies or practices elected legislators have, let alone their constituent voters.
There's no such thing as strategic voting. Every vote for a candidate means you endorse 100% of their current & future positions, even the ones where people die. Commit to never voting on decisions large or important enough that people are dying, then. Leftism!
During the 1937 court-packing fight, Harold Ickes mocked the people who thought the number of Justices was sacred.
(from Bill Leuchtenburg's Supreme Court Reborn)
so many things about the US government that are now treated as Inviolable Precedent are based on things like "this is a number I just pulled out of my ass" and have been modified repeatedly over time until one day people decided changing the number was too hard
it doesn't have to stay that way!
