J
@nihilscio.bsky.social
he/him 🏳️🌈 nerd about 🌍🗳️🗣️🎶
lib/left/socdem. pro democracy. pro 🇺🇦🇵🇸
from 🇺🇸 (MN->MI), speak fr🇫🇷 pt🇧🇷 es🇲🇽
lib/left/socdem. pro democracy. pro 🇺🇦🇵🇸
from 🇺🇸 (MN->MI), speak fr🇫🇷 pt🇧🇷 es🇲🇽
These 3 positions are somehow simultaneously held by millions of people:
1. Democrats don't fight hard enough against Republicans (true), so I hate them
2. But I can't be assed to vote in primaries
3. And btw my own friends and family members who actively vote for and support Republicans are fine
1. Democrats don't fight hard enough against Republicans (true), so I hate them
2. But I can't be assed to vote in primaries
3. And btw my own friends and family members who actively vote for and support Republicans are fine
November 10, 2025 at 5:11 AM
These 3 positions are somehow simultaneously held by millions of people:
1. Democrats don't fight hard enough against Republicans (true), so I hate them
2. But I can't be assed to vote in primaries
3. And btw my own friends and family members who actively vote for and support Republicans are fine
1. Democrats don't fight hard enough against Republicans (true), so I hate them
2. But I can't be assed to vote in primaries
3. And btw my own friends and family members who actively vote for and support Republicans are fine
Reposted by J
Dems are very proud of themselves for their “savvy” willingness to tell their base to simmer down and let the experts work. What they don’t seem to understand is the intangible, but very real, damage that does to the enthusiasm of their voters, who feel abandoned. And then the “experts” fail!
The Dem base wants the shutdown to continue because it’s the only time we’ve felt like our electeds were representing us: trying to squeeze the GOP instead of squeezing us to accept concessions; directing their anger at the Republicans instead of at their own voters for wanting them to resist
November 10, 2025 at 4:32 AM
Dems are very proud of themselves for their “savvy” willingness to tell their base to simmer down and let the experts work. What they don’t seem to understand is the intangible, but very real, damage that does to the enthusiasm of their voters, who feel abandoned. And then the “experts” fail!
Reposted by J
We deserve so much more.
November 10, 2025 at 4:18 AM
We deserve so much more.
Reposted by J
I think tonight shows why “moderate to win elections” is a real risk
the big divide in the Dem caucus, as many have noted, has been less moderate vs progressive than fight versus don’t fight
but it’s not a coincidence that basically everyone in the “don’t fight” camp is a moderate
the big divide in the Dem caucus, as many have noted, has been less moderate vs progressive than fight versus don’t fight
but it’s not a coincidence that basically everyone in the “don’t fight” camp is a moderate
November 10, 2025 at 4:17 AM
I think tonight shows why “moderate to win elections” is a real risk
the big divide in the Dem caucus, as many have noted, has been less moderate vs progressive than fight versus don’t fight
but it’s not a coincidence that basically everyone in the “don’t fight” camp is a moderate
the big divide in the Dem caucus, as many have noted, has been less moderate vs progressive than fight versus don’t fight
but it’s not a coincidence that basically everyone in the “don’t fight” camp is a moderate
correct. please keep the primary vs. general distinction clear.
absolutely nothing justifies letting republicans win. republicans are the ones we're furious they're surrendering to. remember?
*primaries* are where you get the chance as a voter to push for someone who will truly fight.
absolutely nothing justifies letting republicans win. republicans are the ones we're furious they're surrendering to. remember?
*primaries* are where you get the chance as a voter to push for someone who will truly fight.
I see a lot of folks saying this will hurt Dems in the midterms and frankly I’m not sure that’s true - if anything, it shows the depth to which people are angry and engaged and wanting to fight these assholes
but it does substantially increase the chance they will be voting for different Democrats
but it does substantially increase the chance they will be voting for different Democrats
November 10, 2025 at 4:17 AM
correct. please keep the primary vs. general distinction clear.
absolutely nothing justifies letting republicans win. republicans are the ones we're furious they're surrendering to. remember?
*primaries* are where you get the chance as a voter to push for someone who will truly fight.
absolutely nothing justifies letting republicans win. republicans are the ones we're furious they're surrendering to. remember?
*primaries* are where you get the chance as a voter to push for someone who will truly fight.
Reposted by J
I see a lot of folks saying this will hurt Dems in the midterms and frankly I’m not sure that’s true - if anything, it shows the depth to which people are angry and engaged and wanting to fight these assholes
but it does substantially increase the chance they will be voting for different Democrats
but it does substantially increase the chance they will be voting for different Democrats
November 10, 2025 at 3:37 AM
I see a lot of folks saying this will hurt Dems in the midterms and frankly I’m not sure that’s true - if anything, it shows the depth to which people are angry and engaged and wanting to fight these assholes
but it does substantially increase the chance they will be voting for different Democrats
but it does substantially increase the chance they will be voting for different Democrats
I think bluesky is kidding itself if it thinks Janet Mills would not have contributed to tonight's surrender if she were in the Senate.
November 10, 2025 at 4:13 AM
I think bluesky is kidding itself if it thinks Janet Mills would not have contributed to tonight's surrender if she were in the Senate.
Reposted by J
Silver lining is Mike Johnson has to come up with new reasons not to release the Epstein files
November 10, 2025 at 3:56 AM
Silver lining is Mike Johnson has to come up with new reasons not to release the Epstein files
same. there is only a very short list of US senators I baseline trust at this point.
Van Hollen, Warren, Sanders, Smith (retiring), Merkley, Hirono. Idk, hard to say beyond a handful.
It's hard to avoid the grim conclusion that any of the other 41 may be complicit in this constant surrendering.
Van Hollen, Warren, Sanders, Smith (retiring), Merkley, Hirono. Idk, hard to say beyond a handful.
It's hard to avoid the grim conclusion that any of the other 41 may be complicit in this constant surrendering.
It’s so funny how I personally went from a fairly pragmatic institutionalist to personally hating 95% of the Senate caucus in mere months.
November 10, 2025 at 3:53 AM
same. there is only a very short list of US senators I baseline trust at this point.
Van Hollen, Warren, Sanders, Smith (retiring), Merkley, Hirono. Idk, hard to say beyond a handful.
It's hard to avoid the grim conclusion that any of the other 41 may be complicit in this constant surrendering.
Van Hollen, Warren, Sanders, Smith (retiring), Merkley, Hirono. Idk, hard to say beyond a handful.
It's hard to avoid the grim conclusion that any of the other 41 may be complicit in this constant surrendering.
Reposted by J
My actual position is that this is a fascist occupied government and giving them more money, at least without actionable restraints on their power, should not happen.
I understand that this is an extreme position. But I was hoping the Democrats would at least eke out a small victory.
I understand that this is an extreme position. But I was hoping the Democrats would at least eke out a small victory.
November 10, 2025 at 3:10 AM
My actual position is that this is a fascist occupied government and giving them more money, at least without actionable restraints on their power, should not happen.
I understand that this is an extreme position. But I was hoping the Democrats would at least eke out a small victory.
I understand that this is an extreme position. But I was hoping the Democrats would at least eke out a small victory.
Reposted by J
For what it's worth, I do basically agree that even pretty good Dem Senators (e.g. Booker) should face a strong primary challenge
Some of them may end up deserving to win those primaries! But they should still have to face them
Some of them may end up deserving to win those primaries! But they should still have to face them
November 10, 2025 at 3:18 AM
For what it's worth, I do basically agree that even pretty good Dem Senators (e.g. Booker) should face a strong primary challenge
Some of them may end up deserving to win those primaries! But they should still have to face them
Some of them may end up deserving to win those primaries! But they should still have to face them
Reposted by J
Any D running for Senate in 2026 must vow to oust Schumer as leader. Maybe he would quit
November 10, 2025 at 3:08 AM
Any D running for Senate in 2026 must vow to oust Schumer as leader. Maybe he would quit
Reposted by J
a note on the Minnesota primary: this is correct, the person to replace Tina Smith with is Peggy Flanagan
Replace Smith with Peggy Flanagan. Do not replace her with Angie Craig.
that's right, Smith is retiring, I forgot
that sucks! she's good! replace her with someone who is also good!
that sucks! she's good! replace her with someone who is also good!
November 10, 2025 at 2:38 AM
a note on the Minnesota primary: this is correct, the person to replace Tina Smith with is Peggy Flanagan
Reposted by J
Warner is up for reelection. He was widely seen driving towards surrender behind the scenes, but he's voting no in public because it's unpopular. The real question is whether he supports a senate leadership change. If not, someone who supports senate leadership change should primary him.
But I cannot support a deal that still leaves millions of Americans wondering how they are going to pay for their health care or whether they will be able to afford to get sick.
November 10, 2025 at 1:56 AM
Warner is up for reelection. He was widely seen driving towards surrender behind the scenes, but he's voting no in public because it's unpopular. The real question is whether he supports a senate leadership change. If not, someone who supports senate leadership change should primary him.
Reposted by J
Unless Democratic Senators who voted no on the #Schumersurrender today explicitly call for Schumer to resign or step aside - they all own this cave. Just pushing out performative posts and press releases don’t count for much anymore. Enough.
Since the Democrats worked extra hard to hide who actually supported this, I think the No Kings/Resistance position should be to primary every Democrat unless they publicly call for Schumer's ouster this week
Either they go into total rebellion mode, which they won't, or the people will
Either they go into total rebellion mode, which they won't, or the people will
November 10, 2025 at 2:37 AM
Unless Democratic Senators who voted no on the #Schumersurrender today explicitly call for Schumer to resign or step aside - they all own this cave. Just pushing out performative posts and press releases don’t count for much anymore. Enough.
not to be a shit stirrer but have Janet Mills and Graham Platner said anything about this Senate vote?
November 10, 2025 at 2:37 AM
not to be a shit stirrer but have Janet Mills and Graham Platner said anything about this Senate vote?
Reposted by J
In March, after Schumer last surrendered, we called an emergency meeting of Indivisible leaders. 92% told us to call on him to step down from leadership (which we did).
In a poll over this weekend, 98.67% said we should keep up the fight.
Rank & file Dems are going to be PISSED!
In a poll over this weekend, 98.67% said we should keep up the fight.
Rank & file Dems are going to be PISSED!
Either way, so many Dems... the bulk of the Senate caucus, House leadership, governors, etc.,... all quickly throwing down the gauntlet with such open unrestrained attacks on any Dems who cave is new. It wasn't like that in March, not nearly as loud and widespread and immediate, much more base-only.
November 10, 2025 at 1:27 AM
In March, after Schumer last surrendered, we called an emergency meeting of Indivisible leaders. 92% told us to call on him to step down from leadership (which we did).
In a poll over this weekend, 98.67% said we should keep up the fight.
Rank & file Dems are going to be PISSED!
In a poll over this weekend, 98.67% said we should keep up the fight.
Rank & file Dems are going to be PISSED!
Replace Smith with Peggy Flanagan. Do not replace her with Angie Craig.
that's right, Smith is retiring, I forgot
that sucks! she's good! replace her with someone who is also good!
that sucks! she's good! replace her with someone who is also good!
Smith is retiring.
November 10, 2025 at 2:33 AM
Replace Smith with Peggy Flanagan. Do not replace her with Angie Craig.
replace Peters with Abdul El-Sayed. Do not replace him with Haley Stevens.
7. Jeff Merkley. He's fine. Leave him.
8. Jon Ossoff. Do not like that he was involved behind the scenes! Biggest risk by far in terms of losing a seat if primaried, though.
9. Gary Peters. Retiring. Ugh.
10. Jack Reed. Do you ever hear Jack Reed's name? No? Me neither. Could be worse.
8. Jon Ossoff. Do not like that he was involved behind the scenes! Biggest risk by far in terms of losing a seat if primaried, though.
9. Gary Peters. Retiring. Ugh.
10. Jack Reed. Do you ever hear Jack Reed's name? No? Me neither. Could be worse.
November 10, 2025 at 2:33 AM
replace Peters with Abdul El-Sayed. Do not replace him with Haley Stevens.
Schumer voting no to try to save personal face, but letting his caucus vote yes, is such a cowardly weaselly move. Echoes of his obvious cowardice on Tuesday, refusing to say who he voted for in NYC mayoral election.
If Schumer wanted to stop this he could have stopped it. Obviously!
HE MUST GO.
If Schumer wanted to stop this he could have stopped it. Obviously!
HE MUST GO.
November 10, 2025 at 2:32 AM
Schumer voting no to try to save personal face, but letting his caucus vote yes, is such a cowardly weaselly move. Echoes of his obvious cowardice on Tuesday, refusing to say who he voted for in NYC mayoral election.
If Schumer wanted to stop this he could have stopped it. Obviously!
HE MUST GO.
If Schumer wanted to stop this he could have stopped it. Obviously!
HE MUST GO.
Reposted by J
My family has been without half our income for 40 days. It has been.. very hard.
We are willing to feel that pain so people can have health care next year, or to undo these illegal recissions.
We are not willing to have been put through this for NOTHING.
We are willing to feel that pain so people can have health care next year, or to undo these illegal recissions.
We are not willing to have been put through this for NOTHING.
November 10, 2025 at 1:36 AM
My family has been without half our income for 40 days. It has been.. very hard.
We are willing to feel that pain so people can have health care next year, or to undo these illegal recissions.
We are not willing to have been put through this for NOTHING.
We are willing to feel that pain so people can have health care next year, or to undo these illegal recissions.
We are not willing to have been put through this for NOTHING.
Two clear tests for any and all US Senate candidates in Dem primaries next year:
1. Will you vote to oust Schumer as leader?
2. Will you vote to end the filibuster?
If you're not a clear yes on both of those, I'm going to have a very hard time trusting you with my primary vote.
1. Will you vote to oust Schumer as leader?
2. Will you vote to end the filibuster?
If you're not a clear yes on both of those, I'm going to have a very hard time trusting you with my primary vote.
November 10, 2025 at 2:29 AM
Two clear tests for any and all US Senate candidates in Dem primaries next year:
1. Will you vote to oust Schumer as leader?
2. Will you vote to end the filibuster?
If you're not a clear yes on both of those, I'm going to have a very hard time trusting you with my primary vote.
1. Will you vote to oust Schumer as leader?
2. Will you vote to end the filibuster?
If you're not a clear yes on both of those, I'm going to have a very hard time trusting you with my primary vote.
Yes, yes, yes. If they think they can stop the fury of this betrayal from fueling 2026 primary challenges, they have another think coming.
*Open* primaries in 2026 are also going to be an essential battleground. Minnesota, Michigan. Schumer-backed candidates need to lose these races.
*Open* primaries in 2026 are also going to be an essential battleground. Minnesota, Michigan. Schumer-backed candidates need to lose these races.
okay, so, with Dems successfully keeping anyone up in 2026 for voting for this turd let's take a look at who's up in 2026 anyway:
1. Cory Booker - apparently involved behind the scenes, constantly looking for bipartisanship. I don't dislike him personally but he doesn't have what we need. Primary.
1. Cory Booker - apparently involved behind the scenes, constantly looking for bipartisanship. I don't dislike him personally but he doesn't have what we need. Primary.
November 10, 2025 at 2:22 AM
Yes, yes, yes. If they think they can stop the fury of this betrayal from fueling 2026 primary challenges, they have another think coming.
*Open* primaries in 2026 are also going to be an essential battleground. Minnesota, Michigan. Schumer-backed candidates need to lose these races.
*Open* primaries in 2026 are also going to be an essential battleground. Minnesota, Michigan. Schumer-backed candidates need to lose these races.
Reposted by J
okay, so, with Dems successfully keeping anyone up in 2026 for voting for this turd let's take a look at who's up in 2026 anyway:
1. Cory Booker - apparently involved behind the scenes, constantly looking for bipartisanship. I don't dislike him personally but he doesn't have what we need. Primary.
1. Cory Booker - apparently involved behind the scenes, constantly looking for bipartisanship. I don't dislike him personally but he doesn't have what we need. Primary.
November 10, 2025 at 2:20 AM
okay, so, with Dems successfully keeping anyone up in 2026 for voting for this turd let's take a look at who's up in 2026 anyway:
1. Cory Booker - apparently involved behind the scenes, constantly looking for bipartisanship. I don't dislike him personally but he doesn't have what we need. Primary.
1. Cory Booker - apparently involved behind the scenes, constantly looking for bipartisanship. I don't dislike him personally but he doesn't have what we need. Primary.
Reposted by J
The filibuster needs to go. It's anti-democratic, and as you point out, useless to use against the GOP anyway. Would have saved everyone a lot of time and irritation (not mention fed some people this week that will now go without).
November 10, 2025 at 2:17 AM
The filibuster needs to go. It's anti-democratic, and as you point out, useless to use against the GOP anyway. Would have saved everyone a lot of time and irritation (not mention fed some people this week that will now go without).