@moominpapa.bsky.social
If it came down to Rahm or this guy, I'd go with Shapiro. But neither of them is going anywhere with their constituency of irrelevant magazine thinkpiece writers.
December 7, 2025 at 2:26 AM
If it came down to Rahm or this guy, I'd go with Shapiro. But neither of them is going anywhere with their constituency of irrelevant magazine thinkpiece writers.
Yep, it's not like having that Georgia Senate seat ever allowed anything good to happen. Who needs it?
December 7, 2025 at 2:21 AM
Yep, it's not like having that Georgia Senate seat ever allowed anything good to happen. Who needs it?
There are numerous cases where Dems can be criticized for not using all the tools at their disposal, yet on social media they the tools that are just made up. Yes, the Trump admin is ignoring laws as much as possible. That's not actually worthy of emulation, as Fictional Thomas More would tell you.
December 7, 2025 at 2:08 AM
There are numerous cases where Dems can be criticized for not using all the tools at their disposal, yet on social media they the tools that are just made up. Yes, the Trump admin is ignoring laws as much as possible. That's not actually worthy of emulation, as Fictional Thomas More would tell you.
Without the screenshot? Possibly not. Though "Dems/liberals refuse to fight with fightership using powers that don't exist" is a standard go-to, this call for unilaterally nullifying EC votes manages to add something to the genre.
December 7, 2025 at 2:05 AM
Without the screenshot? Possibly not. Though "Dems/liberals refuse to fight with fightership using powers that don't exist" is a standard go-to, this call for unilaterally nullifying EC votes manages to add something to the genre.
I vaguely recall a previous set of cases where SCOTUS greenlit Maryland's map along with GOP ones, because they could go with "gerrymanders are okay" as a legal principle. But that was an era when blue states were much less willing to fight fire with fire. Now it doesn't automatically favor the GOP.
December 6, 2025 at 12:33 AM
I vaguely recall a previous set of cases where SCOTUS greenlit Maryland's map along with GOP ones, because they could go with "gerrymanders are okay" as a legal principle. But that was an era when blue states were much less willing to fight fire with fire. Now it doesn't automatically favor the GOP.
Democrats have shown that they can pass articles of impeachment. They have never shown that they can turn simple majorities in the Senate into the two thirds required for removal. Because that's currently impossible.
December 6, 2025 at 12:26 AM
Democrats have shown that they can pass articles of impeachment. They have never shown that they can turn simple majorities in the Senate into the two thirds required for removal. Because that's currently impossible.
Indeed, when I think of mealy-mouthed inadequacy in responding to Trump, I think of 2019-2021 Nancy Pelosi.
December 6, 2025 at 12:23 AM
Indeed, when I think of mealy-mouthed inadequacy in responding to Trump, I think of 2019-2021 Nancy Pelosi.
Okay. but we literally do have to play by some rules if we're proposing anything short of explicitly scrapping the current republic and starting over. "We have to ignore the plain text of the Constitution too, in order to restore the rule of law" is a fraught approach.
December 6, 2025 at 12:18 AM
Okay. but we literally do have to play by some rules if we're proposing anything short of explicitly scrapping the current republic and starting over. "We have to ignore the plain text of the Constitution too, in order to restore the rule of law" is a fraught approach.
Changing the number of justices doesn't require an amendment. It does mean a potential arms race of changes every time Congress and the White House are controlled by the same party, though. Maybe things would eventually get absurd enough to force anendment-level reform.
December 6, 2025 at 12:15 AM
Changing the number of justices doesn't require an amendment. It does mean a potential arms race of changes every time Congress and the White House are controlled by the same party, though. Maybe things would eventually get absurd enough to force anendment-level reform.
Why is this a one-way street? Why is the onus on those who are poorer to make common cause? Why can't the person feeling precarious at US$140000 a year explicitly connect the dots without sympathy from people making $40000 a year? Is "UMC life in Brookline is tough" an example of bridge building?
December 5, 2025 at 11:44 PM
Why is this a one-way street? Why is the onus on those who are poorer to make common cause? Why can't the person feeling precarious at US$140000 a year explicitly connect the dots without sympathy from people making $40000 a year? Is "UMC life in Brookline is tough" an example of bridge building?
"A few thousand dollars more than you"? This must be that bit from Marx about how the petite bourgeoisie are the natural allies of the proletariat, tending to embrace those even less well-off when their own security is threatened.
December 5, 2025 at 11:10 PM
"A few thousand dollars more than you"? This must be that bit from Marx about how the petite bourgeoisie are the natural allies of the proletariat, tending to embrace those even less well-off when their own security is threatened.
How does this work? "You accepted the precarity of Brookline on a 6-figure salary, so now I support UBI"? "I mocked people on welfare for owning a TV, but thanks to your nod to my own hardship, it's time to seize the means of production"? Because it seems more like "Yes, SNAP, but what about meeee?"
December 5, 2025 at 11:00 PM
How does this work? "You accepted the precarity of Brookline on a 6-figure salary, so now I support UBI"? "I mocked people on welfare for owning a TV, but thanks to your nod to my own hardship, it's time to seize the means of production"? Because it seems more like "Yes, SNAP, but what about meeee?"
What if they were waving defiantly, ready to get back in the fight? Maybe someone should ask Tom Cotton, and then punch him in the dick repeatedly.
December 5, 2025 at 10:36 PM
What if they were waving defiantly, ready to get back in the fight? Maybe someone should ask Tom Cotton, and then punch him in the dick repeatedly.
So ... just cow tools, then.
December 4, 2025 at 6:07 PM
So ... just cow tools, then.
"Horny Moms Home Alone with Their Dildos" is a Christmas movie.
December 4, 2025 at 6:00 PM
"Horny Moms Home Alone with Their Dildos" is a Christmas movie.
"I can't believe this macho bullshit!"
December 4, 2025 at 3:15 AM
"I can't believe this macho bullshit!"
... And thirdly, the Inspector General Act of 1978 is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.
December 4, 2025 at 12:30 AM
... And thirdly, the Inspector General Act of 1978 is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.
The short-lived 1999-2000 series Now and Again had their super body project cost a cool billion.
December 3, 2025 at 12:36 AM
The short-lived 1999-2000 series Now and Again had their super body project cost a cool billion.
You're saying this next to a guy who's pardoning a narcotrafficker of 400 tons of cocaine, you drunken wife-beating Nazi shitwipe. So maybe go hide under your bed with your Franklin narcoplushie before Mark Kelly comes by to kick your narco-coward narco-ass.
December 2, 2025 at 10:02 PM
You're saying this next to a guy who's pardoning a narcotrafficker of 400 tons of cocaine, you drunken wife-beating Nazi shitwipe. So maybe go hide under your bed with your Franklin narcoplushie before Mark Kelly comes by to kick your narco-coward narco-ass.
Ah, I see Kreis committed one of the classic blunders: Using “Anglo-American” to refer to [checks notes] the shared foundation of English and US common law.
December 1, 2025 at 9:24 PM
Ah, I see Kreis committed one of the classic blunders: Using “Anglo-American” to refer to [checks notes] the shared foundation of English and US common law.
Is this the one where they all get killed by the ancestor of a blue canary night light?
December 1, 2025 at 12:34 AM
Is this the one where they all get killed by the ancestor of a blue canary night light?
This is how Zack Polanski can sound like he has a millimetre-deep grasp of policy, and still seem good by comparison
December 1, 2025 at 12:23 AM
This is how Zack Polanski can sound like he has a millimetre-deep grasp of policy, and still seem good by comparison
Yeah, when even the ostensibly liberal The West Wing had a minor bit about how we shouldn't join the ICC because even virtuous Presidents commit war crimes, I knew the prospects were dim.
November 30, 2025 at 11:15 PM
Yeah, when even the ostensibly liberal The West Wing had a minor bit about how we shouldn't join the ICC because even virtuous Presidents commit war crimes, I knew the prospects were dim.
BUT OUR SOVERENTEH
November 30, 2025 at 11:11 PM
BUT OUR SOVERENTEH