Primal Zed
@primalzed.bsky.social
So are they cancelling that upcoming "Things That Matter" series with a bunch of the most powerful professional influencers in America, or...?
January 3, 2026 at 5:20 AM
So are they cancelling that upcoming "Things That Matter" series with a bunch of the most powerful professional influencers in America, or...?
This strange paradox where as soon as these average Americans organize to try to advocate for themselves, they cease to be worth listening to.
January 3, 2026 at 5:17 AM
This strange paradox where as soon as these average Americans organize to try to advocate for themselves, they cease to be worth listening to.
Alongside what Weiss CBS has been so far, it's hard to not interpret it as targeting a (possibly imagined?) white suburban middle class with "We want to help you feel comfortable and complacent."
January 1, 2026 at 4:57 PM
Alongside what Weiss CBS has been so far, it's hard to not interpret it as targeting a (possibly imagined?) white suburban middle class with "We want to help you feel comfortable and complacent."
Special "Fuck you" to Dick Durbin, Democratic whip for over a decade, and one of the fall-guys to capitulate on the shutdown and gaining nothing. Now those ACA subsidies are expired.
January 1, 2026 at 3:37 PM
Special "Fuck you" to Dick Durbin, Democratic whip for over a decade, and one of the fall-guys to capitulate on the shutdown and gaining nothing. Now those ACA subsidies are expired.
Why not reference Trump throwing out any advisor saying he lost, and pulling in anyone who has a crazy scheme to keep him in power? Or the interrogators' weird fishing expeditions trying to make it anyone else's fault that Trump had terrible lawyers?
January 1, 2026 at 3:14 PM
Why not reference Trump throwing out any advisor saying he lost, and pulling in anyone who has a crazy scheme to keep him in power? Or the interrogators' weird fishing expeditions trying to make it anyone else's fault that Trump had terrible lawyers?
I don't get how this is the headline quote. Of course he said that - what prosecutor would file an indictment and then say they didn't actually have the evidence for a conviction?
January 1, 2026 at 3:14 PM
I don't get how this is the headline quote. Of course he said that - what prosecutor would file an indictment and then say they didn't actually have the evidence for a conviction?
Trump was already convicted on 34 felony counts. He should have been in prison even notwithstanding the pending conspiracy trial.
January 1, 2026 at 1:04 AM
Trump was already convicted on 34 felony counts. He should have been in prison even notwithstanding the pending conspiracy trial.
It's such a bizarre line of questioning, I don't even know what kind of soundbite the person was going for. I think they're implying that any lawyer choosing to defend Trump in these cases would have been career suicide, which.... yeah? How is that damning for Smith?
January 1, 2026 at 12:56 AM
It's such a bizarre line of questioning, I don't even know what kind of soundbite the person was going for. I think they're implying that any lawyer choosing to defend Trump in these cases would have been career suicide, which.... yeah? How is that damning for Smith?
The case wasn't halted due to lack of evidence.
January 1, 2026 at 12:48 AM
The case wasn't halted due to lack of evidence.
In the transcript, the name of the questioner is redacted.
January 1, 2026 at 12:19 AM
In the transcript, the name of the questioner is redacted.
Is "Smothering" used as an adjective (the progressivism is smothering) or a verb (progressivism was smothered)?
January 1, 2026 at 12:08 AM
Is "Smothering" used as an adjective (the progressivism is smothering) or a verb (progressivism was smothered)?
How is it a bombshell for a prosecutor who filed indictments for two cases to say "yes I think we would have won those two trials"?
This was all elaborated on in great deal in the indictments.
This was all elaborated on in great deal in the indictments.
December 31, 2025 at 11:48 PM
How is it a bombshell for a prosecutor who filed indictments for two cases to say "yes I think we would have won those two trials"?
This was all elaborated on in great deal in the indictments.
This was all elaborated on in great deal in the indictments.
Just because they haven't had the military declare an oath to Trump personally yet doesn't mean there hasn't been huge advances in consolidating power around the executive.
December 31, 2025 at 11:39 PM
Just because they haven't had the military declare an oath to Trump personally yet doesn't mean there hasn't been huge advances in consolidating power around the executive.
They did make progress toward authoritarian consolidation. They shut down or severely handicapped federal offices they didn't like. They fired congressional appointees, and SCOTUS seems ready to allow that including in the FTC. They're engaging in lethal military strikes with no declaration of war.
December 31, 2025 at 11:39 PM
They did make progress toward authoritarian consolidation. They shut down or severely handicapped federal offices they didn't like. They fired congressional appointees, and SCOTUS seems ready to allow that including in the FTC. They're engaging in lethal military strikes with no declaration of war.
4-5 sentences *a week*.
December 31, 2025 at 11:25 PM
4-5 sentences *a week*.
I've seen some very compelling segments pulled from the testimony, but the portions you emphasize here aren't revealing. They're very brief summaries of what was already laid out at length in the original indictments of those cases.
December 31, 2025 at 11:21 PM
I've seen some very compelling segments pulled from the testimony, but the portions you emphasize here aren't revealing. They're very brief summaries of what was already laid out at length in the original indictments of those cases.
So little of what they do is "calculated". They're just getting gradually more brazen as they continually learn there are no real (immediate) repercussions to their wretchedness.
Trump barely had guardrails to begin with, and now he's aging and surrounded by yes-men. It's all spontaneous.
Trump barely had guardrails to begin with, and now he's aging and surrounded by yes-men. It's all spontaneous.
December 31, 2025 at 7:19 PM
So little of what they do is "calculated". They're just getting gradually more brazen as they continually learn there are no real (immediate) repercussions to their wretchedness.
Trump barely had guardrails to begin with, and now he's aging and surrounded by yes-men. It's all spontaneous.
Trump barely had guardrails to begin with, and now he's aging and surrounded by yes-men. It's all spontaneous.
A lot of announced "self-deports" are also people that were grabbed by DHS and intimidated into signing deportation papers they legally didn't have to.
December 30, 2025 at 11:11 PM
A lot of announced "self-deports" are also people that were grabbed by DHS and intimidated into signing deportation papers they legally didn't have to.
MTG is already publicly antagonistic towards Trump. She's always been an impulsive child eager to throw out haphazard attacks - she got her start through QAnon bullshit. She didn't suddenly turn reticent and patient on this one specific topic.
December 29, 2025 at 6:59 PM
MTG is already publicly antagonistic towards Trump. She's always been an impulsive child eager to throw out haphazard attacks - she got her start through QAnon bullshit. She didn't suddenly turn reticent and patient on this one specific topic.
I think you're ascribing a level of cunning that these people mostly do not possess. If they have a clear attack vector on a political rival, such as secret info on Trump's declining health, they would unleash it without a second thought. At least one would have blabbed.
December 29, 2025 at 6:28 PM
I think you're ascribing a level of cunning that these people mostly do not possess. If they have a clear attack vector on a political rival, such as secret info on Trump's declining health, they would unleash it without a second thought. At least one would have blabbed.
Ackman doesn't even live in California.
December 29, 2025 at 3:09 AM
Ackman doesn't even live in California.
What's the article? Only retrospective I see on NYT today is a list of "Trump said" vs "Trump did".
December 27, 2025 at 3:39 PM
What's the article? Only retrospective I see on NYT today is a list of "Trump said" vs "Trump did".
If there's any justice, Democrats would have Congress and can pass legislation to abolish ICE. (And get FEMA out of DHS because wth.)
December 27, 2025 at 4:54 AM
If there's any justice, Democrats would have Congress and can pass legislation to abolish ICE. (And get FEMA out of DHS because wth.)
I think the person is trying to separate gendered terms from any biological feature, extending that to say that we shouldn't call the effects of T "masculine", whether it's on a trans or cis person.
I don't know what alternative they want though.
I don't know what alternative they want though.
December 27, 2025 at 4:04 AM
I think the person is trying to separate gendered terms from any biological feature, extending that to say that we shouldn't call the effects of T "masculine", whether it's on a trans or cis person.
I don't know what alternative they want though.
I don't know what alternative they want though.