Daniel Adams
@danieladams.bsky.social
“Everyone has a little NIMBY in them. It doesn’t have to be the part that wins.” Views expressed are my own.
Oh my god. That’s Jason Bourne.
October 28, 2025 at 9:58 AM
Oh my god. That’s Jason Bourne.
Ms Nelson’s C/D campaigns took in tens of thousands of dollars and mailed deceptive flyers to every voter in town, and still lost by a huge margin. See! Ideas still matter!
October 22, 2025 at 12:04 AM
Ms Nelson’s C/D campaigns took in tens of thousands of dollars and mailed deceptive flyers to every voter in town, and still lost by a huge margin. See! Ideas still matter!
At least one Anti CM has claimed that it was actually Door 2 and did so as if Door 2 is not obviously the worse and dumber door for them to have chosen. The decision doesn't look better if the claim is "we could have fired this person without spending a bunch of taxpayer money."
August 15, 2025 at 1:18 PM
At least one Anti CM has claimed that it was actually Door 2 and did so as if Door 2 is not obviously the worse and dumber door for them to have chosen. The decision doesn't look better if the claim is "we could have fired this person without spending a bunch of taxpayer money."
There are only two doors in this game show:
Door 1: They fired him without cause and it cost taxpayers a bunch of money.
Door 2: They could have fired him for cause but chose to fire him without cause; taxpayers paid the severance needlessly.
Door 1: They fired him without cause and it cost taxpayers a bunch of money.
Door 2: They could have fired him for cause but chose to fire him without cause; taxpayers paid the severance needlessly.
August 15, 2025 at 1:13 PM
There are only two doors in this game show:
Door 1: They fired him without cause and it cost taxpayers a bunch of money.
Door 2: They could have fired him for cause but chose to fire him without cause; taxpayers paid the severance needlessly.
Door 1: They fired him without cause and it cost taxpayers a bunch of money.
Door 2: They could have fired him for cause but chose to fire him without cause; taxpayers paid the severance needlessly.
They consistently conflate "without cause," the contractual term of art, with "didn't have a reason."
Yes, we all know they had *reasons* for wanting to sack the administrator. But the fact remains: they paid him his severance because they fired him, under his contract, without cause.
Yes, we all know they had *reasons* for wanting to sack the administrator. But the fact remains: they paid him his severance because they fired him, under his contract, without cause.
August 15, 2025 at 1:06 PM
They consistently conflate "without cause," the contractual term of art, with "didn't have a reason."
Yes, we all know they had *reasons* for wanting to sack the administrator. But the fact remains: they paid him his severance because they fired him, under his contract, without cause.
Yes, we all know they had *reasons* for wanting to sack the administrator. But the fact remains: they paid him his severance because they fired him, under his contract, without cause.
Perhaps you haven’t read LGC’s crack legal team’s response to the allegations, which rebuts the charge by relying on the well-known common-law doctrine of “‘slander’ territory.” Nah nah nah na boo boo, stick your head in doo doo. Res ipsa loquitor. They rest their case.
August 11, 2025 at 11:19 PM
Perhaps you haven’t read LGC’s crack legal team’s response to the allegations, which rebuts the charge by relying on the well-known common-law doctrine of “‘slander’ territory.” Nah nah nah na boo boo, stick your head in doo doo. Res ipsa loquitor. They rest their case.
When anyone points this fact out to them, they wail that this is a “personal attack.”
Yes! Of course it is. But being dispositionally unsuited to leadership and coalition building is also relevant to their organization’s near total failure to accomplish its objectives
Yes! Of course it is. But being dispositionally unsuited to leadership and coalition building is also relevant to their organization’s near total failure to accomplish its objectives
July 31, 2025 at 4:46 PM
When anyone points this fact out to them, they wail that this is a “personal attack.”
Yes! Of course it is. But being dispositionally unsuited to leadership and coalition building is also relevant to their organization’s near total failure to accomplish its objectives
Yes! Of course it is. But being dispositionally unsuited to leadership and coalition building is also relevant to their organization’s near total failure to accomplish its objectives
And—top it off—their entire leadership team seems to have no idea how to get along with, let alone actually persuade, the people who didn’t support what they were trying to do but whose support would be crucial to actually getting it done.
July 31, 2025 at 4:44 PM
And—top it off—their entire leadership team seems to have no idea how to get along with, let alone actually persuade, the people who didn’t support what they were trying to do but whose support would be crucial to actually getting it done.
There is no way to consume any amount of their work product and come away with the impression that they were either competent to perform or serious about accomplishing any task outside of blocking the Core Spaces project.
July 31, 2025 at 4:42 PM
There is no way to consume any amount of their work product and come away with the impression that they were either competent to perform or serious about accomplishing any task outside of blocking the Core Spaces project.
Reposted by Daniel Adams
For a group that’s been claiming a grassroots mandate for their parking lot preservation initiative, that the people are positively clamoring to plow millions in taxpayer dollars into this project, pulling in six total individual donors is… not a strong showing.
July 26, 2025 at 1:01 AM
For a group that’s been claiming a grassroots mandate for their parking lot preservation initiative, that the people are positively clamoring to plow millions in taxpayer dollars into this project, pulling in six total individual donors is… not a strong showing.