dark-chocolate
@dark-chocolate.bsky.social
That's what he's doing. He doesn't need the Supreme Court yet here. He'll wait for Democrats or Congress to sue him and he'll appeal all the way to SCOTUS and he hopes SCOTUS will help him at least run out the clock until at least after the midterms.
December 20, 2025 at 2:35 AM
That's what he's doing. He doesn't need the Supreme Court yet here. He'll wait for Democrats or Congress to sue him and he'll appeal all the way to SCOTUS and he hopes SCOTUS will help him at least run out the clock until at least after the midterms.
I would in fact argue that with the caveat the messaging will have two parts:
1) distinguishing themselves from Biden & emphasizing their commitment to enforcement
2) outrage over the lawlessness and inhumanity of the current Admin
1) distinguishing themselves from Biden & emphasizing their commitment to enforcement
2) outrage over the lawlessness and inhumanity of the current Admin
December 18, 2025 at 5:02 PM
I would in fact argue that with the caveat the messaging will have two parts:
1) distinguishing themselves from Biden & emphasizing their commitment to enforcement
2) outrage over the lawlessness and inhumanity of the current Admin
1) distinguishing themselves from Biden & emphasizing their commitment to enforcement
2) outrage over the lawlessness and inhumanity of the current Admin
We do know that during the campaign Trump promised over & over again: “When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One."
And people cheered. Clearly many voters loved that promise. It shouldn't be shocking that some people expect him to follow through.
And people cheered. Clearly many voters loved that promise. It shouldn't be shocking that some people expect him to follow through.
December 18, 2025 at 2:23 AM
We do know that during the campaign Trump promised over & over again: “When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One."
And people cheered. Clearly many voters loved that promise. It shouldn't be shocking that some people expect him to follow through.
And people cheered. Clearly many voters loved that promise. It shouldn't be shocking that some people expect him to follow through.
He knows how and he's making strategic choices, like every other Speaker ever.
I agree that when a few "blue dogs" are not on the same page as the base, sometimes he might be better served by saying less.
I agree that when a few "blue dogs" are not on the same page as the base, sometimes he might be better served by saying less.
December 17, 2025 at 5:06 PM
He knows how and he's making strategic choices, like every other Speaker ever.
I agree that when a few "blue dogs" are not on the same page as the base, sometimes he might be better served by saying less.
I agree that when a few "blue dogs" are not on the same page as the base, sometimes he might be better served by saying less.
My point is he's proven he can speak competently & persuasively.
IMO the problem is not that he can't competently articulate why we should care about Due Process for Abrego Garcia or why we should impeach Hegseth. It's that he has vulnerable members who don't want to be linked to those arguments.
IMO the problem is not that he can't competently articulate why we should care about Due Process for Abrego Garcia or why we should impeach Hegseth. It's that he has vulnerable members who don't want to be linked to those arguments.
December 17, 2025 at 4:54 PM
My point is he's proven he can speak competently & persuasively.
IMO the problem is not that he can't competently articulate why we should care about Due Process for Abrego Garcia or why we should impeach Hegseth. It's that he has vulnerable members who don't want to be linked to those arguments.
IMO the problem is not that he can't competently articulate why we should care about Due Process for Abrego Garcia or why we should impeach Hegseth. It's that he has vulnerable members who don't want to be linked to those arguments.
When he's talking about any issue where his caucus is united (e.g. health care, taxes ) he is a very effective & persuasive communicator.
What I think you object to are his comments when he signals a reluctance to fight because his caucus is not 100% united. (That's not about his speaking skill).
What I think you object to are his comments when he signals a reluctance to fight because his caucus is not 100% united. (That's not about his speaking skill).
December 17, 2025 at 4:38 PM
When he's talking about any issue where his caucus is united (e.g. health care, taxes ) he is a very effective & persuasive communicator.
What I think you object to are his comments when he signals a reluctance to fight because his caucus is not 100% united. (That's not about his speaking skill).
What I think you object to are his comments when he signals a reluctance to fight because his caucus is not 100% united. (That's not about his speaking skill).
He's not Obama, or even Buttigieg, as a communicator, but relative to past Speakers of either party who was better?
I think he's fine at persuasion. He often frustrates the base by showing an unwillingness to fight (e.g. Abrego Garcia, impeaching Hegseth) when just "no comment" would be better.
I think he's fine at persuasion. He often frustrates the base by showing an unwillingness to fight (e.g. Abrego Garcia, impeaching Hegseth) when just "no comment" would be better.
December 17, 2025 at 4:20 PM
He's not Obama, or even Buttigieg, as a communicator, but relative to past Speakers of either party who was better?
I think he's fine at persuasion. He often frustrates the base by showing an unwillingness to fight (e.g. Abrego Garcia, impeaching Hegseth) when just "no comment" would be better.
I think he's fine at persuasion. He often frustrates the base by showing an unwillingness to fight (e.g. Abrego Garcia, impeaching Hegseth) when just "no comment" would be better.
Why do you need billionaires?
If a left wing partisan produces content which attracts big audiences, I submit they'd find a bean-counting CEO to give them a platform.
If a left wing partisan produces content which attracts big audiences, I submit they'd find a bean-counting CEO to give them a platform.
December 16, 2025 at 1:50 AM
Why do you need billionaires?
If a left wing partisan produces content which attracts big audiences, I submit they'd find a bean-counting CEO to give them a platform.
If a left wing partisan produces content which attracts big audiences, I submit they'd find a bean-counting CEO to give them a platform.
Sure. Ailes was a rabid partisan with a project. Would he have had the same opportunity if Murdoch was losing money on it?
My point is that propaganda that needs subsidies cannot compete with propaganda that pays for itself.
My point is that propaganda that needs subsidies cannot compete with propaganda that pays for itself.
December 16, 2025 at 1:18 AM
Sure. Ailes was a rabid partisan with a project. Would he have had the same opportunity if Murdoch was losing money on it?
My point is that propaganda that needs subsidies cannot compete with propaganda that pays for itself.
My point is that propaganda that needs subsidies cannot compete with propaganda that pays for itself.
I don't claim the ability to read e.g. Rupert Murdoch's mind to decipher exactly how much of it was chasing audience & profits vs. how much of it was a calculated ideological project.
But it doesn't matter. He's not subsidizing it, he makes incredible profits (even after huge lawsuit settlements).
But it doesn't matter. He's not subsidizing it, he makes incredible profits (even after huge lawsuit settlements).
December 16, 2025 at 1:03 AM
I don't claim the ability to read e.g. Rupert Murdoch's mind to decipher exactly how much of it was chasing audience & profits vs. how much of it was a calculated ideological project.
But it doesn't matter. He's not subsidizing it, he makes incredible profits (even after huge lawsuit settlements).
But it doesn't matter. He's not subsidizing it, he makes incredible profits (even after huge lawsuit settlements).
Except right wing billionaires don't need to subsidize the right wing propaganda machine-- Fox News et. al. are super popular & highly profitable.
The challenge is making left wing propaganda which is nearly that popular & profitable. If some figures that out they could become a billionaire.
The challenge is making left wing propaganda which is nearly that popular & profitable. If some figures that out they could become a billionaire.
December 16, 2025 at 12:54 AM
Except right wing billionaires don't need to subsidize the right wing propaganda machine-- Fox News et. al. are super popular & highly profitable.
The challenge is making left wing propaganda which is nearly that popular & profitable. If some figures that out they could become a billionaire.
The challenge is making left wing propaganda which is nearly that popular & profitable. If some figures that out they could become a billionaire.
Both are useful.
You can call him evil and you can also call him a psychopath / malignant narcissist.
The latter improves understanding & better predicts his behavior. He can be manipulated with flattery. He will attempt to charm others. He's incapable of empathy & that's mostly genetic.
You can call him evil and you can also call him a psychopath / malignant narcissist.
The latter improves understanding & better predicts his behavior. He can be manipulated with flattery. He will attempt to charm others. He's incapable of empathy & that's mostly genetic.
December 15, 2025 at 10:47 PM
Both are useful.
You can call him evil and you can also call him a psychopath / malignant narcissist.
The latter improves understanding & better predicts his behavior. He can be manipulated with flattery. He will attempt to charm others. He's incapable of empathy & that's mostly genetic.
You can call him evil and you can also call him a psychopath / malignant narcissist.
The latter improves understanding & better predicts his behavior. He can be manipulated with flattery. He will attempt to charm others. He's incapable of empathy & that's mostly genetic.
They don't know *how* bad it is and Fox sanewashes him to soothe and deceive them.
A classic example is the Rachel Campos-Duffy interview last June, where they edited him to unequivocally promise he'd release the Epstein files, if elected.
www.yahoo.com/news/fox-new...
A classic example is the Rachel Campos-Duffy interview last June, where they edited him to unequivocally promise he'd release the Epstein files, if elected.
www.yahoo.com/news/fox-new...
Fox News Trump Interview Resurfaces With Edited Answer on Epstein Files: ‘Kamala Should Sue’
A resurfaced Fox News interview with President Trump in 2024 has social media users calling for Kamala Harris to sue the network.
www.yahoo.com
December 11, 2025 at 7:42 PM
They don't know *how* bad it is and Fox sanewashes him to soothe and deceive them.
A classic example is the Rachel Campos-Duffy interview last June, where they edited him to unequivocally promise he'd release the Epstein files, if elected.
www.yahoo.com/news/fox-new...
A classic example is the Rachel Campos-Duffy interview last June, where they edited him to unequivocally promise he'd release the Epstein files, if elected.
www.yahoo.com/news/fox-new...
Or it's about repaying the President's debts to Putin for doing him some favors...
December 11, 2025 at 7:33 PM
Or it's about repaying the President's debts to Putin for doing him some favors...
Is there data on where cars start from? Does it point to origins that lack good transit options (in some cases just on weekends)?
Are there efforts to consider making boundaries more gradual? E.g. a smaller fee above the zone? A smoother transition from peak to off-peak?
Are there efforts to consider making boundaries more gradual? E.g. a smaller fee above the zone? A smoother transition from peak to off-peak?
December 5, 2025 at 9:19 PM
Is there data on where cars start from? Does it point to origins that lack good transit options (in some cases just on weekends)?
Are there efforts to consider making boundaries more gradual? E.g. a smaller fee above the zone? A smoother transition from peak to off-peak?
Are there efforts to consider making boundaries more gradual? E.g. a smaller fee above the zone? A smoother transition from peak to off-peak?
I think it already did. When Biden was a litigant they momentarily re-discovered the role of Congress and invoked "Major Questions Doctrine" (e.g. Biden v. Nebraska)
December 5, 2025 at 5:43 PM
I think it already did. When Biden was a litigant they momentarily re-discovered the role of Congress and invoked "Major Questions Doctrine" (e.g. Biden v. Nebraska)
That's who I mean too.
They forget about "Unitary Executive" theory when they find it inconvenient... e.g. Biden v. Nebraska
They forget about "Unitary Executive" theory when they find it inconvenient... e.g. Biden v. Nebraska
December 5, 2025 at 6:40 AM
That's who I mean too.
They forget about "Unitary Executive" theory when they find it inconvenient... e.g. Biden v. Nebraska
They forget about "Unitary Executive" theory when they find it inconvenient... e.g. Biden v. Nebraska
I don't think "Unitary Executive" is their genuine principle either. That's for Republicans. For Democrats it's "Major Questions" which require Congress.
The one true principle seems to be Wilhoit's Law. Protect elite & powerful interests, especially Leonard Leo & his gift-giving friend network.
The one true principle seems to be Wilhoit's Law. Protect elite & powerful interests, especially Leonard Leo & his gift-giving friend network.
December 5, 2025 at 5:06 AM
I don't think "Unitary Executive" is their genuine principle either. That's for Republicans. For Democrats it's "Major Questions" which require Congress.
The one true principle seems to be Wilhoit's Law. Protect elite & powerful interests, especially Leonard Leo & his gift-giving friend network.
The one true principle seems to be Wilhoit's Law. Protect elite & powerful interests, especially Leonard Leo & his gift-giving friend network.
No, everyone is not a Nazi.
No, the 'establishment' (whatever that is) is not some monolith that prefers Manchin (who left the party & has 11% approval) or 'imperfect' candidates.
No, the bigger concern with Platner is not the tattoo he got 20 years ago but his deception / lack of candor.
No, the 'establishment' (whatever that is) is not some monolith that prefers Manchin (who left the party & has 11% approval) or 'imperfect' candidates.
No, the bigger concern with Platner is not the tattoo he got 20 years ago but his deception / lack of candor.
December 4, 2025 at 11:08 PM
No, everyone is not a Nazi.
No, the 'establishment' (whatever that is) is not some monolith that prefers Manchin (who left the party & has 11% approval) or 'imperfect' candidates.
No, the bigger concern with Platner is not the tattoo he got 20 years ago but his deception / lack of candor.
No, the 'establishment' (whatever that is) is not some monolith that prefers Manchin (who left the party & has 11% approval) or 'imperfect' candidates.
No, the bigger concern with Platner is not the tattoo he got 20 years ago but his deception / lack of candor.
If you followed Will's timeline you would know he's been very supportive of Mamdani, even though he doesn't agree w/ him on stuff.
If *you* don't stand by 'problematic candidates with nazi-like cultishness' you should be concerned about deception & red flags even if they sound 'progressive.'
If *you* don't stand by 'problematic candidates with nazi-like cultishness' you should be concerned about deception & red flags even if they sound 'progressive.'
December 4, 2025 at 7:00 PM
If you followed Will's timeline you would know he's been very supportive of Mamdani, even though he doesn't agree w/ him on stuff.
If *you* don't stand by 'problematic candidates with nazi-like cultishness' you should be concerned about deception & red flags even if they sound 'progressive.'
If *you* don't stand by 'problematic candidates with nazi-like cultishness' you should be concerned about deception & red flags even if they sound 'progressive.'
One difference is no one's identified better, less mortally wounded alternatives who want to step up in this case...
The leading current alternative wants to be elected to serve a term that would last until she's 84, and she performs worse in polls against Collins.
mainebeacon.com/poll-shows-p...
The leading current alternative wants to be elected to serve a term that would last until she's 84, and she performs worse in polls against Collins.
mainebeacon.com/poll-shows-p...
Poll shows Platner leading Collins, Mainers unhappy with ICE and shutdown - Maine Beacon
A new poll shows that if Maine’s U.S. Senate race were held today, Democrat Graham Platner would narrowly beat Republican Sen. Susan Collins. The results also reveal that most Mainers are not happy wi...
mainebeacon.com
December 4, 2025 at 6:49 PM
One difference is no one's identified better, less mortally wounded alternatives who want to step up in this case...
The leading current alternative wants to be elected to serve a term that would last until she's 84, and she performs worse in polls against Collins.
mainebeacon.com/poll-shows-p...
The leading current alternative wants to be elected to serve a term that would last until she's 84, and she performs worse in polls against Collins.
mainebeacon.com/poll-shows-p...
Is that your new fitness routine?😮
December 4, 2025 at 3:10 PM
Is that your new fitness routine?😮
Yes, many voters don't understand, some have an unfavorable view of "Obamacare" & a favorable view of their state exchange (e.g. "Kynect" in Kentucky) w/o understanding it's Obamacare.
But overall net approval is ~+30% these days.
www.kff.org/interactive/...
navigatorresearch.org/the-affordab...
But overall net approval is ~+30% these days.
www.kff.org/interactive/...
navigatorresearch.org/the-affordab...
Poll: The Affordable Care Act Remains Widely Favorable
Poll on the Affordable Care Act, including the share of Americans who want Congress to prioritize extending ACA subsidies over the Trump tax cuts.
navigatorresearch.org
December 4, 2025 at 2:53 PM
Yes, many voters don't understand, some have an unfavorable view of "Obamacare" & a favorable view of their state exchange (e.g. "Kynect" in Kentucky) w/o understanding it's Obamacare.
But overall net approval is ~+30% these days.
www.kff.org/interactive/...
navigatorresearch.org/the-affordab...
But overall net approval is ~+30% these days.
www.kff.org/interactive/...
navigatorresearch.org/the-affordab...
It's not hard to know. Govt negotiated costs are lower in the US & everywhere else on Earth for every drug, every procedure.
Medicaid expanded, and health care costs stopped increasing faster than GDP after ACA. Premiums increased, but not worse than before, & patients were better protected.
Medicaid expanded, and health care costs stopped increasing faster than GDP after ACA. Premiums increased, but not worse than before, & patients were better protected.
December 4, 2025 at 3:31 AM
It's not hard to know. Govt negotiated costs are lower in the US & everywhere else on Earth for every drug, every procedure.
Medicaid expanded, and health care costs stopped increasing faster than GDP after ACA. Premiums increased, but not worse than before, & patients were better protected.
Medicaid expanded, and health care costs stopped increasing faster than GDP after ACA. Premiums increased, but not worse than before, & patients were better protected.
No one is obligated to get Medicare Advantage if they don't think it's a good deal for them...
Out of pocket costs are higher for people with private insurance... I expect that is already included in "spending per person" but if it isn't it would only make Medicare look better to include it.
Out of pocket costs are higher for people with private insurance... I expect that is already included in "spending per person" but if it isn't it would only make Medicare look better to include it.
December 4, 2025 at 3:26 AM
No one is obligated to get Medicare Advantage if they don't think it's a good deal for them...
Out of pocket costs are higher for people with private insurance... I expect that is already included in "spending per person" but if it isn't it would only make Medicare look better to include it.
Out of pocket costs are higher for people with private insurance... I expect that is already included in "spending per person" but if it isn't it would only make Medicare look better to include it.