Honestly, this seems like a no-brainer. Having Pentagon press access means you get to break stories sooner, but if your only reporting what the Pentagon gives you, you’re basically just getting press releases a little earlier. That’s not worth giving up you’re ability to get an exclusive story from a leak, and there’s always someone who wants to leak something. I’m sure that even these journalists’ cooperate overlords see agreeing to this as a bad business decision.

Yeah, but you gotta keep calling it out when they use it to try to coronate someone.

The new poll, conducted by Echelon Insights, has Newsom in second place among potential Democratic candidates with 13 percent support, behind former Vice President Kamala Harris with 26 percent.

The number one spot right now is the woman who lost the last election, while number two is the guy who’s been in the news lately. This is basically just measuring name recognition. It’s more than 3 years until the election, a frontrunner is meaningless at this point.

The 5 conservatives that actually give a shit about state’s rights are gonna be so pissed.

Is, “influenced by billionaires,” a euphemism for, “she let her uber executive brother-in-law talk her into gutting any economic populism from her campaign in favor of tepid centrist policies that cost her the election and ushered in a new era of American fascism?”

I’m sure some of them will believe whatever the narrative is, but some of them have been on this train since the early QAnon days. They’ve been promised arrests, public executions, and a, “great awakening,” where their conspiracy theories about the deep-state pedophile cabal is exposed and their children call them and apologize for uninviting them to Thanksgiving. Trump created a very big fracture with those people a few weeks ago when he told them to shut up and stop talking about Epstien, and his damage control has been very poor. Maybe he can get ahold of the narrative again, but he’ll need to do more than have a human trafficker say he did nothing wrong.

We’ll see. He spent the last 6 years stirring up this Santanic-panic pedophile shit, I don’t think it’s going to be that easy to put down. Besides that, he’s about to throw us into a massive recession with huge inflation. I’ve never been one of those, “Trump is finished! There’s no way he’s coming back from this!” guys, but this really seems like a perfect storm of events that will hurt his most loyal followers.

I really don’t think that Trump giving a human trafficker special treatment to say that he isn’t a pedophile is gonna play out as well with his base as he thinks it will.

Yeah, it’s true. I just went to get my son’s inhaler, and the pharmacy paid me 14 times what I normally pay them for it. Thank you, Mr. President.

Yeah, but this Supreme Court doesn’t give a shit about the Constitution or consistent rulings, only partisan bullshit. Citizens United ruled that money is free speech, but they refused to rule on an anti-BDS law because they would have either had to rule against their ideology or explain how withholding money is not free speech.

If a lower court rules in favor of the bill, they’ll decline to hear the case. If a lower court rules against it, I bet they’ll make up some bullshit about how the first amendment applies to journalism and public speech, but not private companies providing a service, even if that service is speech. They’re barely even trying to pretend that they’re not a partisan institution anymore.

First of all, good to know someone’s finally gotten in touch with Chuck Schumer. When you don’t hear from someone of his age for this long, you start to worrry.

Second of all, what the hell is he talking about? He’s 100% right to call this an, “Epstien Recess,” that’s accurate and good branding, but why would he be pardoning Maxwell? What would the motive be? “She might talk, so I’m going to pardon her as a bribe, even though that would be incredibly suspicious and unpopular with literally everyone. Also, it wouldn’t guarantee she would never talk, and would make it much harder to silence her later.” Doesn’t seem like a great idea, but maybe I’m missing something.

So, this is a dumb explanation. It’s like saying you would never support giving a knight a sword, just armor and a sheild. The armor and sheild are what let’s him mow down peasants on the battlefield with impunity, you can’t separate them out.

That being said, this is getting fucking ridiculous. The amendment was never going to pass (it got 6 votes), so this was entirely symbolic. Beyond that, she voted against the defense spending bill it was attached to, so in end, she didn’t support arms to anyone. She’s also one of the strongest voices on Gaza in congress (an admittedly low bar); she’s been voting against sending arms to Israel since before October 7th, she usually votes, “present,” on Iron Dome funding, and she’s called what’s happening in Gaza a genocide on the House floor. I can count on one hand the number of U.S. politicians willing to say, “genocide,” when talking about Israel. Behind Omar and Talib, she’s probably the most reliable pro-Palestinian Representative.

I’m assuming that she had some reason for voting against the amendment, and I assume it has to do with optics. Maybe she she thought siding with MTG would hurt her, maybe she thought voting against the Iron Dome would make her vulnerable to AIPAC attacks. It sucks, but Bowman and Bush both lost their seats to AIPAC money. The reality is you have to play politics sometimes, and if that means not making a symbolic vote for a doomed amendment, that’s not the worst compromise to make.

The party is supporting him for fucks sake…

It’s good to see that Ken Martin isn’t attacking Mamdani, but Schumer and Jefferies are refusing to endorse him. You can’t say the party is supporting Mamdani when its two highest ranking members, both representatives from Mamdani’s city, are withholding their endorsement.

Stop treating random shitty neoliberals as “the party” when their wing was just kicked out of the DNC.

The people you want to “punish” were voted out of leadership in the last DNC election, by the voting members of the DNC…

I’m really struggling to understand why you believe this. The party just kicked Davie Hogg out of leadership for threatening entrenched power, and Ken Martin isn’t exactly fighting the neoliberal wing of the party either. One of the main differences between him and Ben Wikler, his main opponent for DNC chair, is that Martin wanted to continue taking money from, “good billionaires.” Even in the interview you shared, Martin goes out of his way to defend centrist and even conservative Democrats:

You win by bringing people into your coalition. We have conservative Democrats. We have centrist Democrats. We have labor progressives like me, and we have this new brand of Democrat, which is the leftist.

The neoliberal wing of the party is on the back foot right now, but they haven’t been kicked out. Many of them are trying to stage a comeback with Project 2029 and the Abundance Agenda, and plenty voting DNC members will support them. The fight for control of the party isn’t over; it’s barely started.

This dude looks like Seinfeld if he spent 5 years in a Siberian Gulag.

I honestly don’t know too much about him except that he was a Gaurdian Angel founder and he took over the Reform Party.

“There’s been, I gather, some argument between the left of the party and people who are promoting the quote-unquote abundance agenda. Listen, those things are not contradictory. You want to deliver for people and make their lives better? You got to figure out how to do it,” he said.

“I don’t care how much you love working people. They can’t afford a house because all the rules in your state make it prohibitive to build. And zoning prevents multifamily structures because of NIMBY,” he said, referring to “not in my backyard” views. “I don’t want to know your ideology, because you can’t build anything. It does not matter.”

Claims that leftists and abundance Dems need to work together, then immediately starts promoting the abundance agenda. What a transparent shill.

Fucking love this polling. The only shot the establishment has is either Adams or Cuomo dropping out and endorsing the other. Cuomo won’t quit because he’s a sociopathic narcissist. Adams can’t quit because if he can’t do Trump’s bidding in NYC, Trump will probably prosecute him for corruption (and he is very guilty of corruption). Throw Silwa into the mix and the moderates will have to choose between two corrupt megalomaniacs and a weirdo in a beret, while anyone remotely progressive will gravitate towards Mamdani.

I think this is a miscalculation. 62% of Democrats want the leadership gone, the establishment Dems are splitting their vote between Adams and Cuomo, and nothing short of full-throated support of Israel will satisfy them anyway. There’s no point in appeasing an enemy that is weak, fractured, and belligerent. They pose no threat to him and he has little to gain from winning them over.

I mean, here’s a poll published 2 months later stating that Democrats want the party to be more progressive. Couple that with the fact that the 62% of Democrats want to throw the centrist leadership out on its ass and I’m not sure, “people want moderates, actually,” is a reasonable conclusion anymore.

This could be great for progressives. A lot of voters don’t pay attention during primaries and only vote for Democrats because they’re ostensibly left-wing. I can’t see someone like Elissa Slotkin having any viability when she’s not camping on the de facto progressive space.