@dogzillah.bsky.social
Seems painfully obvious, doesn’t it?
November 11, 2025 at 6:06 AM
Seems painfully obvious, doesn’t it?
Achingly beautiful song.
September 1, 2025 at 5:01 AM
Achingly beautiful song.
He said the *debate* over it is a distraction because there is no question they are defying the court, a behavior that is obviously unconstitutional. The question was unrelated to the press conference. That’s his point.
April 21, 2025 at 5:32 PM
He said the *debate* over it is a distraction because there is no question they are defying the court, a behavior that is obviously unconstitutional. The question was unrelated to the press conference. That’s his point.
Unfortunately the question is inaudible, but part of his response was: “When a judge adjudicates, it’s not a question. How the hell are we debating that?”. Upholding due process is the obvious right thing to do, no question. Anything that subverts that obvious conclusion is the distraction.
April 20, 2025 at 9:28 PM
Unfortunately the question is inaudible, but part of his response was: “When a judge adjudicates, it’s not a question. How the hell are we debating that?”. Upholding due process is the obvious right thing to do, no question. Anything that subverts that obvious conclusion is the distraction.
Unfortunately the question is inaudible, but part of his response was: “When a judge adjudicates, it’s not a question. How the hell are we debating that?”. Upholding due process is the obvious right thing to do, no question. Anything that subverts that obvious conclusion is the distraction.
April 20, 2025 at 9:27 PM
Unfortunately the question is inaudible, but part of his response was: “When a judge adjudicates, it’s not a question. How the hell are we debating that?”. Upholding due process is the obvious right thing to do, no question. Anything that subverts that obvious conclusion is the distraction.
It was a response to one unrelated question at the end of an important press conference regarding the negative effect of the admin’s tariffs on CA specifically and the entire country more broadly. Please watch the entire thing - it’s available from youtube.
April 20, 2025 at 6:06 PM
It was a response to one unrelated question at the end of an important press conference regarding the negative effect of the admin’s tariffs on CA specifically and the entire country more broadly. Please watch the entire thing - it’s available from youtube.
All of you calling for Newsom’s head on a pike - have any of watched the presser? It’s on youtube. Please watch the whole thing. He quite clearly did not mean what you insinuate.
April 20, 2025 at 4:55 AM
All of you calling for Newsom’s head on a pike - have any of watched the presser? It’s on youtube. Please watch the whole thing. He quite clearly did not mean what you insinuate.
Understood - I’m familiar with Prof Snyder’s work too. Won’t belabor it but my point was that infighting and yelling into the echo chamber may not be a winning strategy.
April 12, 2025 at 2:30 AM
Understood - I’m familiar with Prof Snyder’s work too. Won’t belabor it but my point was that infighting and yelling into the echo chamber may not be a winning strategy.
Think I’ll try to convert more erstwhile opponents to allies. It’s a good feeling.
April 12, 2025 at 2:12 AM
Think I’ll try to convert more erstwhile opponents to allies. It’s a good feeling.
I hear you. Lack of a strong cohesive Democratic response is frustrating. I’ve contacted both senators and my rep repeatedly, attended town halls and rallies and protests, and it still all feels questionably effective.
April 8, 2025 at 7:49 PM
I hear you. Lack of a strong cohesive Democratic response is frustrating. I’ve contacted both senators and my rep repeatedly, attended town halls and rallies and protests, and it still all feels questionably effective.
Voting for Rubio? Ask them. My guess is they felt he was someone they might be able to reason with.
April 8, 2025 at 8:24 AM
Voting for Rubio? Ask them. My guess is they felt he was someone they might be able to reason with.
I don’t agree with some folks here who think things would somehow be different if Democratic senators had all voted no on every nominee. We might feel a little better, but it would mot materially change anything.
April 8, 2025 at 8:04 AM
I don’t agree with some folks here who think things would somehow be different if Democratic senators had all voted no on every nominee. We might feel a little better, but it would mot materially change anything.
It was inevitable after November 6. There’s a metric tonne of blame to spread on his voters, non-voters, crap media, propaganda, foreign adversaries… could the Democrats do better? Yes. Can we criticize them? Of course. By why focus the vitriol on the Democratic party or Schiff in particular?
April 8, 2025 at 7:57 AM
It was inevitable after November 6. There’s a metric tonne of blame to spread on his voters, non-voters, crap media, propaganda, foreign adversaries… could the Democrats do better? Yes. Can we criticize them? Of course. By why focus the vitriol on the Democratic party or Schiff in particular?
No of course not, but that’s not how I see it. I think applying too stringent a purity test might weaken our chances of surviving this epic disaster.
April 8, 2025 at 6:14 AM
No of course not, but that’s not how I see it. I think applying too stringent a purity test might weaken our chances of surviving this epic disaster.
You do realize he’s a senator for the entire state, right? And that he therefore has constituents that voted for and support this administration? I don’t like it any more than you but neither do I see him or the Democrats as the enemy. Surprised that we haven’t seen more action sooner, yes.
April 8, 2025 at 6:09 AM
You do realize he’s a senator for the entire state, right? And that he therefore has constituents that voted for and support this administration? I don’t like it any more than you but neither do I see him or the Democrats as the enemy. Surprised that we haven’t seen more action sooner, yes.
The government (or what’s left of it) still has to run. The admin would simply install temporary /acting personnel with zero oversight, as they did the first time around.
April 8, 2025 at 6:03 AM
The government (or what’s left of it) still has to run. The admin would simply install temporary /acting personnel with zero oversight, as they did the first time around.
No, and I don’t see it as collaboration. Schiff is not aiding and abetting this administration. Sure confirming Rubio looks terrible in hindsight. But I do really think he was given slight pass by virtue of being a senate colleague. Likely seen as someone they could at least possibly reason with
April 8, 2025 at 5:55 AM
No, and I don’t see it as collaboration. Schiff is not aiding and abetting this administration. Sure confirming Rubio looks terrible in hindsight. But I do really think he was given slight pass by virtue of being a senate colleague. Likely seen as someone they could at least possibly reason with
Maybe you are right. But my ire is focused on those actively causing the harm.
April 8, 2025 at 5:39 AM
Maybe you are right. But my ire is focused on those actively causing the harm.
Ok, that def sucks, I’m sorry to hear that.
April 8, 2025 at 5:34 AM
Ok, that def sucks, I’m sorry to hear that.
GOP? Yes they are.
April 8, 2025 at 5:34 AM
GOP? Yes they are.
Maybe. But it would have been symbolic only, with no practical difference.
April 8, 2025 at 5:33 AM
Maybe. But it would have been symbolic only, with no practical difference.
He voted to confirm five. Rubio aside, he voted no on the worst of the bunch. Rubio was a senate colleague, and I’d guess he was given some benefit of doubt at the time.
April 8, 2025 at 4:13 AM
He voted to confirm five. Rubio aside, he voted no on the worst of the bunch. Rubio was a senate colleague, and I’d guess he was given some benefit of doubt at the time.
Rubio would have been confirmed by the GOP majority.
April 8, 2025 at 4:09 AM
Rubio would have been confirmed by the GOP majority.