Noah
@ncallaway.bsky.social
There was a risk to Mamdani that something similar would happen.
But his event just went… much better.
(I do think there’s latent sexism at play, both on Trump’s part, and in our reaction that exacerbated the reaction unfairly for Whitmer)
But his event just went… much better.
(I do think there’s latent sexism at play, both on Trump’s part, and in our reaction that exacerbated the reaction unfairly for Whitmer)
November 21, 2025 at 10:00 PM
There was a risk to Mamdani that something similar would happen.
But his event just went… much better.
(I do think there’s latent sexism at play, both on Trump’s part, and in our reaction that exacerbated the reaction unfairly for Whitmer)
But his event just went… much better.
(I do think there’s latent sexism at play, both on Trump’s part, and in our reaction that exacerbated the reaction unfairly for Whitmer)
I think attempting is a key word. Whitmer got rolled by Trump.
She thought she was going to a private meeting, Trump pulled her into the room during an unrelated press event while he was signing (really bad) EOs.
She thought she was going to a private meeting, Trump pulled her into the room during an unrelated press event while he was signing (really bad) EOs.
November 21, 2025 at 9:59 PM
I think attempting is a key word. Whitmer got rolled by Trump.
She thought she was going to a private meeting, Trump pulled her into the room during an unrelated press event while he was signing (really bad) EOs.
She thought she was going to a private meeting, Trump pulled her into the room during an unrelated press event while he was signing (really bad) EOs.
It’s the “you can be President, but you can’t be a billionaire President” clause
November 21, 2025 at 9:52 PM
It’s the “you can be President, but you can’t be a billionaire President” clause
I have a “Musk Compromise” amendment.
- relax natural born citizen to citizen
- require most of the President’s assets to be forced into a blind trust
- liquidate all the President’s assets > 10M (indexed to inflation), and deposit them into the treasury
- relax natural born citizen to citizen
- require most of the President’s assets to be forced into a blind trust
- liquidate all the President’s assets > 10M (indexed to inflation), and deposit them into the treasury
November 21, 2025 at 9:52 PM
I have a “Musk Compromise” amendment.
- relax natural born citizen to citizen
- require most of the President’s assets to be forced into a blind trust
- liquidate all the President’s assets > 10M (indexed to inflation), and deposit them into the treasury
- relax natural born citizen to citizen
- require most of the President’s assets to be forced into a blind trust
- liquidate all the President’s assets > 10M (indexed to inflation), and deposit them into the treasury
There is that, but it is notable that he stood next to Trump and did not disavow calling him a despot or a fascist.
November 21, 2025 at 9:48 PM
There is that, but it is notable that he stood next to Trump and did not disavow calling him a despot or a fascist.
“You can be President, but you can’t be a Billionaire President”
November 21, 2025 at 9:18 PM
“You can be President, but you can’t be a Billionaire President”
My “Musk Compromise” amendment:
- Relax Natural Born Citizen Clause to just Citizen
- Force all of the Presidents assets other than a primary residence and some small amount into blind trust
- liquidate all President’s assets above 10M (indexed to inflation) and deposit into the treasury
- Relax Natural Born Citizen Clause to just Citizen
- Force all of the Presidents assets other than a primary residence and some small amount into blind trust
- liquidate all President’s assets above 10M (indexed to inflation) and deposit into the treasury
November 21, 2025 at 9:17 PM
My “Musk Compromise” amendment:
- Relax Natural Born Citizen Clause to just Citizen
- Force all of the Presidents assets other than a primary residence and some small amount into blind trust
- liquidate all President’s assets above 10M (indexed to inflation) and deposit into the treasury
- Relax Natural Born Citizen Clause to just Citizen
- Force all of the Presidents assets other than a primary residence and some small amount into blind trust
- liquidate all President’s assets above 10M (indexed to inflation) and deposit into the treasury
I just don’t think anything run by the executive branch should be allowed to be called a “court”.
It shouldn’t be allowed to be dressed in the trappings of a court and a judge.
The stories shouldn’t say “an immigrantion judge ruled XYZ”, they should say “DHS has made a determination that XYZ”
It shouldn’t be allowed to be dressed in the trappings of a court and a judge.
The stories shouldn’t say “an immigrantion judge ruled XYZ”, they should say “DHS has made a determination that XYZ”
November 21, 2025 at 1:54 PM
I just don’t think anything run by the executive branch should be allowed to be called a “court”.
It shouldn’t be allowed to be dressed in the trappings of a court and a judge.
The stories shouldn’t say “an immigrantion judge ruled XYZ”, they should say “DHS has made a determination that XYZ”
It shouldn’t be allowed to be dressed in the trappings of a court and a judge.
The stories shouldn’t say “an immigrantion judge ruled XYZ”, they should say “DHS has made a determination that XYZ”
It’s not always as much relief as I’d like. It’s not always for as many people as I’d like. It’s not as fast as I’d like (A big Fuck You to the 7CA on this one right now)
But the Courts still matter. Court Orders still have an effect.
But the Courts still matter. Court Orders still have an effect.
November 20, 2025 at 11:42 PM
It’s not always as much relief as I’d like. It’s not always for as many people as I’d like. It’s not as fast as I’d like (A big Fuck You to the 7CA on this one right now)
But the Courts still matter. Court Orders still have an effect.
But the Courts still matter. Court Orders still have an effect.
The trick in the Republican system is there *is* no one responsible for people dying. They just create a system where it happens quietly, and there is no one to argue with.
November 20, 2025 at 10:07 PM
The trick in the Republican system is there *is* no one responsible for people dying. They just create a system where it happens quietly, and there is no one to argue with.
Me cashing a $0.74 check from Meta for some privacy rights violation settlement: why yes I did
November 20, 2025 at 5:28 AM
Me cashing a $0.74 check from Meta for some privacy rights violation settlement: why yes I did
You know how on Jan 6th, Pence ordered Milley to send the Guard to the Capitol? That was a soft coup. That was absolutely not Constitutional, nor the chain of command.
November 19, 2025 at 8:06 PM
You know how on Jan 6th, Pence ordered Milley to send the Guard to the Capitol? That was a soft coup. That was absolutely not Constitutional, nor the chain of command.
Connor, no. No. Don't ask this question. That would be so fucking bad.
But why is it in black ink? The foreperson's writing and signature were in blue ink. WHY IS IT IN BLACK INK??
But why is it in black ink? The foreperson's writing and signature were in blue ink. WHY IS IT IN BLACK INK??
November 19, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Connor, no. No. Don't ask this question. That would be so fucking bad.
But why is it in black ink? The foreperson's writing and signature were in blue ink. WHY IS IT IN BLACK INK??
But why is it in black ink? The foreperson's writing and signature were in blue ink. WHY IS IT IN BLACK INK??
I doubt these questions are pertinent to a dismissal, and so I suspect Comey's lawyers aren't going to push too hard down this road, but I sure am curious
November 19, 2025 at 4:52 PM
I doubt these questions are pertinent to a dismissal, and so I suspect Comey's lawyers aren't going to push too hard down this road, but I sure am curious
I still hope we get to the bottom of the GJ foreperson's signature on the 2nd set of indictments.
Did the GJ foreperson actually sign it? Or did someone else sign it? If the GJ foreperson signed it, who advised them to sign it, and what did they say?
Did the GJ foreperson actually sign it? Or did someone else sign it? If the GJ foreperson signed it, who advised them to sign it, and what did they say?
November 19, 2025 at 4:52 PM
I still hope we get to the bottom of the GJ foreperson's signature on the 2nd set of indictments.
Did the GJ foreperson actually sign it? Or did someone else sign it? If the GJ foreperson signed it, who advised them to sign it, and what did they say?
Did the GJ foreperson actually sign it? Or did someone else sign it? If the GJ foreperson signed it, who advised them to sign it, and what did they say?
Delaying it and fighting it as long as they did was a catastrophic political mistake.
If they had stopped it from getting a house vote, it might’ve been worth the political price they paid. But they paid an enormous political prices and got nothing out of it.
If they had stopped it from getting a house vote, it might’ve been worth the political price they paid. But they paid an enormous political prices and got nothing out of it.
November 19, 2025 at 4:38 AM
Delaying it and fighting it as long as they did was a catastrophic political mistake.
If they had stopped it from getting a house vote, it might’ve been worth the political price they paid. But they paid an enormous political prices and got nothing out of it.
If they had stopped it from getting a house vote, it might’ve been worth the political price they paid. But they paid an enormous political prices and got nothing out of it.
They don’t want it to take time.
“Takes time” is extremely damaging for them.
That just keeps “Epstein files” in the news for the entire rewrite process.
There’s a reason the Senate moved it through that chamber in record time
“Takes time” is extremely damaging for them.
That just keeps “Epstein files” in the news for the entire rewrite process.
There’s a reason the Senate moved it through that chamber in record time
November 19, 2025 at 4:37 AM
They don’t want it to take time.
“Takes time” is extremely damaging for them.
That just keeps “Epstein files” in the news for the entire rewrite process.
There’s a reason the Senate moved it through that chamber in record time
“Takes time” is extremely damaging for them.
That just keeps “Epstein files” in the news for the entire rewrite process.
There’s a reason the Senate moved it through that chamber in record time
If he’s definitely going to lose the vote and have dozens of GOP defections, then it’s best to at least pretend he’s still the leader of the party
November 19, 2025 at 4:26 AM
If he’s definitely going to lose the vote and have dozens of GOP defections, then it’s best to at least pretend he’s still the leader of the party
Because the GOP was going to vote against him in huge numbers.
If he fought the House vote tooth and nail to the end, and then 100 members of the GOP voted against him, it would fully cement him as a lame duck.
If he fought the House vote tooth and nail to the end, and then 100 members of the GOP voted against him, it would fully cement him as a lame duck.
November 19, 2025 at 4:20 AM
Because the GOP was going to vote against him in huge numbers.
If he fought the House vote tooth and nail to the end, and then 100 members of the GOP voted against him, it would fully cement him as a lame duck.
If he fought the House vote tooth and nail to the end, and then 100 members of the GOP voted against him, it would fully cement him as a lame duck.
The trigger that was removed was also not contingent on the TX maps being legal, it was just contingent on the TX legislature passing the maps.
The trigger was removed because it had already been fulfilled before the CA legislature passed the law
The trigger was removed because it had already been fulfilled before the CA legislature passed the law
November 19, 2025 at 4:10 AM
The trigger that was removed was also not contingent on the TX maps being legal, it was just contingent on the TX legislature passing the maps.
The trigger was removed because it had already been fulfilled before the CA legislature passed the law
The trigger was removed because it had already been fulfilled before the CA legislature passed the law
But also a great vehicle for saying it is illegal, because they’re worried about the TX dummymander, and want an out
November 19, 2025 at 2:35 AM
But also a great vehicle for saying it is illegal, because they’re worried about the TX dummymander, and want an out
And Democrats that could plausibly be the next President need to start *saying* that now.
Start raising the prospect of court martials for those killing random fishermen.
The threats now can deter all sorts of bad behavior, and reduce the number of prosecutors we’ll need
Start raising the prospect of court martials for those killing random fishermen.
The threats now can deter all sorts of bad behavior, and reduce the number of prosecutors we’ll need
November 19, 2025 at 2:01 AM
And Democrats that could plausibly be the next President need to start *saying* that now.
Start raising the prospect of court martials for those killing random fishermen.
The threats now can deter all sorts of bad behavior, and reduce the number of prosecutors we’ll need
Start raising the prospect of court martials for those killing random fishermen.
The threats now can deter all sorts of bad behavior, and reduce the number of prosecutors we’ll need