Publicly financed & organized Job Guarantee programs--the unfinished work of Reconstruction & the long Civil Rights struggle--must play a part here as well. Welfare in the form of dividends is helpful, but it is essentially laissez-faire & enables little self-conscious democratic world-building.
The shadow docket expose reveals that, despite his pretensions, John Roberts is the same intellectual coward as the rest of MAGA.
They can’t win arguments, so all they do is avoid.
An analysis.
www.salon.com/2026/04/22/j...
We need to call this what it is: “positive eugenics” — and it’s certain girls.
The rate of improvement for this technology is staggering. The US could have been a part of this, but our greed and racism and arrogance are more important I guess.
Any journalists writing about Social Security and Medicare funding who don't ask their subjects about just eliminating the restriction on payouts are part of the problem, helping to promote the austerity narrative.
"This figure, the legal and cultural figure of the 'taxpayer', is very central to the creation of mass incarceration, the policing system, and the general security apparatus that protects private property."
-- Raúl A. Carrillo, chair of the board of the Modern Money Network
James A. Robichaux Published by James A. Robichaux (tooltip)Only people who manage this Page can see who published · April 22, 2023 · "We reduced the deficit, everybody!" 🤦♂️🤦♂️😡 This is what "deficit reduction" looks like in actual practice. People not only are broke but also lack free or almost-free-publicly-subsidized services that make being broke less bad. The article also talks about Social Security becoming insolvent, and I'm starting to think that any journalists who don't ask their subjects about just eliminating the restriction on payouts are part of the problem, helping to promote the austerity narrative. <article headline>: Millions of older Americans are nearing retirement without a penny in savings.
Good morning.
nelsonsteelberg.bsky.social @nelsonsteelberg.bsky.social · 42m I mean, of course, in the general election. Vote for whoever you want in the primary. Representatives listen to people who vote. They don't listen to people who don't vote, because what's the point? 2 Jane Ball (living dead girl) @jane.inurhead.lol · 40m to attract new voters and make inroads with previously politically unengaged people 1 4 nelsonsteelberg.bsky.social @nelsonsteelberg.bsky.social · 20m Why would they try to coax the unengaged when the engaged are right there? 2 briellastella @briellastella.bsky.social · 6m You're right, their strategy worked perfectly and needs no changes. 1 3 Jane Ball (living dead girl) @jane.inurhead.lol not to mention "getting the unengaged to vote" is literally how Trump won in 2016 and 2024 8:34 PM · Apr 21, 2026
🙂
A new survey by the Canadian Medical Association finds doctors are increasingly intervening to address harm caused by patients acting on false health information found online. #Canada
www.ctvnews.ca/health/artic...
Here is how a Democratic Party candidate in 2024 (whoever it might have been) should have responded to the Cheney endorsements.
substack.com/profile/7855...
Here is how a Democratic Party candidate in 2024 (whoever it might have been) should have responded to the Cheney endorsements.
substack.com/profile/7855...
Currency is transferable liquid non-interest-bearing public debt, a transferable claim on others issued by a sovereign, a social and legal construct, not some external commodity that exists prior to the state and to the community and that even entire societies must first find and then ration.
No, it does not come from any "taxpayers", Margaret Thatcher. 🙄
I don't know what you think that you're accomplishing by employing dishonest fascist tropes in order to criticize the fascists, but what you are doing is REINFORCING *THEIR* worldview.
Fascists cant be shamed. They arent committed to rules & institutions. When they overturn them there is no cognitive dissonance. A political strategy aimed at calling them out wont stop them, because the problem is not that they're inconsistent.
It's astonishing how wedded people are to the idea that refusing to name what's happening is how we overcome it.
Post from Polling USA that reads "Do you have a favor or unfavorable view of Hasan Piker?" Unfavorable 15% Favorable 7% Never Heard Of/Have No Opinion: 79% Echelon/April 2026
Question asked in poll just of Dems and Lean Dems Hasan Piker is a popular progressive online streamer who has hosted Democratic politicians. He has said "American deserved 9/11", Hamas is better than Israel, and bemoaned the collapse of the Soviet Union because it made America's global power uncontested and resulted in humanitarian crises. Based on what you know about Hasan Piker, which of the following statements do you agree with most, even if none are exactly right? His views are antithetical to what most Democrats believe and party leaders should say so 51% Even if I disagree with some of his views, he reaches new audiences and helps Democrats defeat the MAGA right 21% I agree with his views, and he's an asset to the Democratic Party 9% Unsure 19%
If you ask people neutrally, a huge majority have never heard of Piker. If you prime just Democrats that he is the embodiment of evil, suddenly most have an opinion.
So, bright side of this truly embarrassing push poll, folks are now going to admit public opinion is malleable. Right?
That's a heck of a self-damning question.
Here is how Kamala Harris SHOULD HAVE characterized the Cheney endorsements.
substack.com/profile/7855...
Before the end of November 2024, I posted this long example of what she should have said:
www.facebook.com/permalink.ph...
That question seems like a category error.
It's been happening on several posts for me.
🚨 ICE Glasses are coming - specialized smart glasses designed by and for the Department of Homeland Security, documents reveal:
www.kenklippenstein.com/p/exclusive-...
And it was an obnoxious idea.
Harris did not properly contextualize/characterize the Cheney endorsements.
Properly contextualizing/characterizing the Cheney endorsements would have involved starting with the premise that the Cheneys are awful.
bsky.app/profile/jame...
It's almost as if the same things that radicalized us during GWB's presidency still make us mad when Democrats also do them.
The only phrases I remember verbatim from the 2024 convention are "most lethal military in the world" and "tirelessly working toward a ceasefire."
Also not reading the room that is our country and what the name Cheney was in our collective minds both for left and right, like I get the idea, and maybe in the 2004 election it could have been noteworthy, but 20 years later it's seen as out of touch because it was.
Incredible shots of the exchange between Rep. AOC and RFK, Jr. at today’s congressional hearing.
(image credit: WSJ reporter @lizessleywhyte.bsky.social)
by that logic, why did Harris even need to court cheney? Republicans who would be convinced by Cheney's endorsement to vote for Harris should have simply voted for Harris because the clear and present danger was Trump and nothing else mattered
Yes, that makes sense!
But never once did Harris characterize this as "Trump is so dangerous that even monsters like the Cheneys, who helped create the authoritarianism that led to Donald Trump becoming President in the first place, say that Trump cannot become President again."
Her platform already being palatable to someone as far right as Liz Cheney is not making the point you think it's making.
"The fake news media received their new marching orders to push this trans propaganda story... Who writes the script?" and then it's screenshots of an AP story about a trans athlete.
Over on Twitter, LibsOfTikTok is pretending not to understand that a lot of news outlets publish the AP newswire. apnews.com/article/supr...