Here’s the transcript. The interviewer was Kristin Welker.
A couple of things that might be worth discussing if you’re interested in being an opposition party, not in order of significance.
He said that raising the minimum wage in California was bad because restaurants went out of business. Not true.
His discussion of tariffs centered around protecting Whirlpool from Asian imports. Whirlpool makes a lot of appliances in the upper Midwest, but they just poured $160 million into a plant in Mexico to make more refrigerators there. Trump’s proposed Mexican tariffs will hurt Whirlpool. It was also notable that Trump name-checked Justin Trudeau and told the tale of Justin’s quick flight to Mar-a-Lago, but didn’t say a word about Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. He’s scared of her.
Tellingly, he said he couldn’t guarantee that prices would go down. LOL.
He portrayed Hegseth as a great warrior and made some word salad remarks about addiction. Hegseth is a liability and the more we hear about him shitting the bed, the better.
He said he’d send back whole migrant families, including children who were born here and have birthright citizenship. When reminded that the 14th amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, he said that would have to be changed. Good luck with that. Also, there’s nothing specifically wrong with Welker asking a lot of questions about the human toll of deportation, but how about the economic impact? Trump blathered on with lies about the criminality of immigrants, but she never asked him who was going to take over the work of all of the deportees.
As usual, Trump just spits lies and the efforts to fact-check him are deflected. I saw some criticism of Welker but, frankly, she did about as well as any other journalist interviewing Trump.
Democrats can seize on one of the many issues above as part of acting like a functional opposition party, but I haven’t seen any pushback yet. If you’ve heard any, please share it in the comments.
Nukular Biskits
I need to see some actual opposition from congressional Democrats.
And I ain’t seeing it except from a few individuals.
Ella in New Mexico
Not to say he’s not, but you do know, Trump’s short term memory when he’s improving in an interview is what happened like 3 minutes ago and the Sheinbaum call was ancient history for him, right? lol
trollhattan
Restaurants going out of business is as much an oddity as nursing home residents dying in their rooms.
In conclusion, fuck you, Donny. Guess I’ll be saying that lots over the next [checks notes] forty-eight months.
jimmiraybob
“He portrayed Hegseth as a great warrior …”
Yes, a true Christian Crusader. Alito’s undies must be getting tight.
John S.
@Nukular Biskits:
They’re too busy playing nice with George Santos Claus at the Congressional holiday party.
Ella in New Mexico
@Nukular Biskits:
A. They’re flooding the zone, dude. It’s all we’re going to hear for a bit. t’s like I’ve said before this is straight from the Authoritarian Playbook: FIREHOSE THEM SO THEY HAVE NO TIME TO REACT. So, yeah, it’s making all of us nervous but:
B. It’s early, no hearings are happening yet, no guarantees on any of them and FBI is doing checks on these losers whether they want it or not.
We’ve also had lots of congress folks out on holiday, etc which is the only reason we lost that sneaky little “Don’t Release Matty Gaetz’s Pervy Ethics Report” the other day.
Hang in there. Wait till everyone is back on line, when the real shit hits the fan, when they can actually DO something not just send out soudbites that, frankly, will give the Republicans reconnaisance on our strategies.
Chief Oshkosh
@Ella in New Mexico:
I certainly don’t know what the Democratic caucus knows, but if that’s true, then that is a perfect example of poor leadership from the Democrats.
Michael Bersin
@Ella in New Mexico:
“…We’ve also had lots of congress folks out on holiday, etc which is the only reason we lost that sneaky little “Don’t Release Matty Gaetz’s Pervy Ethics Report” the other day…”
And who scheduled that?
That’s like a college student going on a “family vacation” the week before Thanksgiving break and expecting a special dispensation for missed work [true story].
Melancholy Jaques
Instead of trying to deflect or counter his lies, someone ought to just ask him why he lies all the time. Seriously, just ask him to explain why he does not tell the truth.
Matt McIrvin
The Supreme Court controls the meaning of the Constitution, so they can make the 14th Amendment never have meant that. The crackpot idea that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has something to do with having the right kind of blood pedigree (which sounded insane the first time I heard some rando on the Internet bring it up) is now mainstream among conservatives, so I would not be surprised if a 5- or 6-justice majority ran with it.
BruceJ
Given the current makeup of the SCROTUS I would really be hesitant to take that for granted…I am sure that there are cases being readied to file in the Texas district courts as I write this.
New Deal democrat
@Matt McIrvin:
Judge Ho of the 5th Circuit has already “auditioned” for his Supreme Court appointment by indicating in an interview that in an “invasion,” the children of invaders born in the US might not be entitled to citizenship.
Elizabelle
@Matt McIrvin: Welcome back. Your absence was noticed.
gene108
Miller, Trump, or some other Republican group just needs to create a situation where birthright citizenship can be challenged. That’s their biggest hurdle, in my opinion.
This SCOTUS would gladly carve out additional exemptions (diplomats kids, for example, born in the USA do not get birthright citizenship, because they have diplomatic immunity via the parent who is a diplomat) on who gets birthright citizenship.
The 14th amendment has been interpreted to grant birthright citizenship, but any decision a prior court came up with this SCOTUS can just as easily reverse.
The anti-immigrant crowd just lacks a case to make it happen.
jimmiraybob
@Matt McIrvin:
If one is “born or naturalized in the United States” thus making them a citizen, doesn’t that then automatically make them “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
dc
The president of the USA, Joe Biden, reacts to the fall of the Assad regime in Syria:
https://mstdn.social/@noelreports/113618740935639261
The not-president of the USA said something of no importance.
Michael Bersin
Donald Trump’s mother was born in Scotland (Outer Hebrides).
Shalimar
I’m not sure what people who want actual opposition from Democrats are expecting 6 weeks out from the inauguration. Trump isn’t in office yet. The new Congress isn’t in office yet. All they can do at this point is respond to Trump’s daily attention-whoring. What does that meaningfully accomplish? For now it’s just posturing. Let’s see what happens whem there are nominees and bills to vote against.
hrprogressive
90% of the elected democrats are not interested in being an opposition party, except when it’s time to beg for campaign cash.
They are quite literally going out of their way to say they are ready to “work” with the Fascist GOP.
Glory b
@Nukular Biskits: Of course there’s always time to blame the Democrats.
Glory b
@hrprogressive: Of course, there’s always time to blame the Democrats.
Glory b
@Chief Oshkosh: Of course, there’s always time to blame the Democrats.
Glory b
@John S.: Of course, there’s always time to blame the Democrats.
Matt McIrvin
@Elizabelle: Thanks. I’ve been online but I couldn’t be here for a while.
hrprogressive
@Ella in New Mexico:
This is a facile argument, which excuses the lack of action from the purported “defenders of democracy”
If the modern Democratic Party really thought this country was in danger the way they claimed it was during campaign time, why aren’t they out there giving their own “firehose” of real information to counter the gish gallops of the Fascist GOP?
That they aren’t doing that is pretty telling about their commitment to defending this country.
They are part of the elites and powerful of this country, for now.
They don’t wish to rock the boat.
They just want bipartisan comity and the adulation of our Gilded Betters.
I hope that foolish devotion to Norms makes them happy when they are frog-marched to a Trump Gulag.
hrprogressive
@Glory b:
If they took action, I would be cheering them on.
Pretty simple calculus.
Matt McIrvin
@jimmiraybob: By the spirit of Marbury vs. Madison, if 5 members of the Supreme Court say that the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is that you have to give Donald Trump a blowjob, that’s what it means.
Dorothy A. Winsor
I didn’t watch the interview but I gather he also said he’d pardon the Jan 6 rioters on day 1 and the entire Jan 6 committee should be in jail
Martin
The emoluments clause is pretty cut and dried and USSC said ‘just ignore that’.
The USSC republicans pretty reliably interpret the constitution away from the authority of government, always weakening it. Birthright citizenship might be a step too far – particularly because it will make stateless people, and if they’re stateless, where would you even deport them to? Mexico is not obligated to take every person we dump on their soil, apart from our military supremacy that could be used to force the issue.
Ella in New Mexico
@Chief Oshkosh: @Michael Bersin:
I’m guessing we all remember who the sneaky pharisaical con-man Speaker of the House is, right?
Took him like 7 seconds to call the vote once he counted the Yeas and the Nays I’m sure. 206-198 late on a Thursday afternoon, per ABC.
Jackie
@Michael Bersin:
You know complexion will be woven into the amended Amendment 14.
scav
@Shalimar: But hey! Everyone’s in for the Spectacle and Performance of Politics! anymore — certainly the noisiest, at least. Bring on the drama, fill the airwaves and meet the emotional needs of the home team audience and prove the fantasy politico players theories right.
Matt McIrvin
@Martin:
I assume the answer is to just put them in concentration camps, ultimate destination to be decided in the nebulous indefinite future. If you don’t actually want to build gas chambers there’s always the option of not feeding them.
Jackie
@Dorothy A. Winsor:
TCFG’s been saying that the past two years. I didn’t watch either, but that’s probably the least surprising thing he said of all the least surprising things he said.
Martin
@Shalimar: Yeah, there’s almost nothing they can do now.
That said, I think you’re seeing a lack of faith that Democrats won’t roll over and solve all of the GOPs problems as they have a tendency to do. Democrats are unlikely to refuse to vote for a shitty budget, unlikely to vote against raising the debt limit, etc.
We’re starting out with some Dems already being DOGE-curious.
oldgold
@Matt McIrvin: Over the next decade we should expect to be Marburied in ways Constitutionalists never thought possible.
gene108
@jimmiraybob:
No.
The dissent in the 1898 decision granting birthright citizenship stated the person at the center of the case should not have birthright citizenship, because his parents were Chinese citizens who owed their loyalty to the Emperor of China. Throw in some other reasoning, in the dissent, about how the Chinese could not sever their duty to their sovereign, the Emperor, and we have our template for why, at minimum, children of undocumented immigrants will not be granted birthright citizenship.
Plus, an 1884 case, when a Native American man sued to have U.S. citizenship but lost came down to the interpretation that even though he was no longer living on tribal land and was living in a U.S. state, he was still subject to tribal law. Congress remedied this exception for citizenship of Natives in 1924.
The U.S. has a long history of denying citizenship to non-Europeans, whether via birthright citizenship or who could become a naturalized citizen, that only started being done away with by the start of the 20th century, for birthright citizenship, and after WW2 for who could be a naturalized U.S. citizen.
There’s enough precedent from the 19th century to restrict birthright citizenship.
gene108
@Michael Bersin:
Mary Trump came to the USA, in 1930, as an 18 year old via chain migration. An older sister was residing in the USA, which enabled her to immigrate.
Citizen Alan
@Matt McIrvin: I certainly wouldn’t put anything past those bastards. I honestly think Brown versus Board of Education is on the chopping block. Just as I think the court will reaffirm Korematsu, before the end of this decade. Because of course, the President should be allowed to herd disfavored ethnic groups into concentration camps if he really, really wants to.
Martin
@Matt McIrvin: Yes, certainly. But USSC might not want to have to deal with that ongoing nightmare. Gitmo is already that problem with people whose home countries won’t accept them back. It’s one thing to have that problem with a dozen people, it’s something else entirely to expand that to a million (roughly how many there are).
I wouldn’t take off the table turning Puerto Rico into American Nauru, but the scale of the task here shouldn’t be underestimated.
Matt McIrvin
@New Deal democrat: The “invasion” exception came up in the arguments over Wong Kim Ark and I don’t think the majority particularly denied it: it makes some sense in the theoretical case where the invaders are actually forcibly holding US territory, so that the US government is unable to exercise jurisdiction there.
Of course, though, if anyone brings that up today it’s code for immigrants somehow being the army of “invaders”, which is absurd but is also standard Republican rhetoric.
In practice, modern precedent is that the phrase means you don’t get citizenship if you’re born with diplomatic immunity, an incredibly narrow exception. But precedent can change if the politics shift. I think the “invaders” argument is sheer crankery but I’m not one of the people who decides this.
gene108
@Dorothy A. Winsor:
A ready made group of brown shirts for Trump to call up as needed. Hire some of the organizers as White House advisers and Trump has himself his own version of made men, who can lean on any member of Congress to do what Trump wants and have a few hundred brown shirts to back up the threat.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@hrprogressive:
Here is what Trump said in response to him appoint a special prosecute to investigated Biden and the rest of “Deep State”.
Explain to me were you get “sending people to gulags” out this, Because that sure reads like Trump filched from the question and did everything he could to claim he never said that.
Kayla Rudbek
@BruceJ: yes, the fucking Sedition Six will keep on whoring themselves out for Trump every chance they get. It makes me understand Robespierre and Diderot a hell of a lot more than when I was younger.
tam1MI
I have think your percentage is off by a bit, but yeah, the likes of Seth Moulton and Ro Khanna are doing us no favors.
Steve LaBonne
@Matt McIrvin: In its historical context “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was also intended to deny members of Indigenous nations automatic US citizenship.
different-church-lady
What Trump says does not matter.
What social media tells people Trump represents is “reality” for nearly half the country.
That’s why he can just do his weave to the sabbath gasbags and there’s no negative effect whatsoever.
Turd Blossom’s dreams of a post-factual world have come true.
different-church-lady
@tam1MI: I don’t think Molton’s gonna be a Democrat much longer.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
In this Meet the Press interview Trump apparently arguing this the case in “certain apartment buildings”.
oldgold
@Matt McIrvin: In my opinion, ever since Bush v. Gore, the study of Constitutional Law is a waste of time. The Constitution means what 5 lifetime appointed pols in black robes decide that it means – nothing more and nothing less.
RandomMonster
Not really an excuse.
Martin
@Matt McIrvin: I can see an argument that the US should get to decide who does and doesn’t grant that benefit, and that’s up to Congress to say, and they haven’t said, so nobody gets it.
That’d be consistent with their attacks on the administrative state.
@mistermix.bsky.social
Those who are saying that the opposition party can’t really do anything for now, and that their comments would be spectacle or posturing — turn that around and look at Republicans, starting with Trump. They’re saying plenty. It’s a lot of posturing. I guess that’s just bad politics on their part, right?
I really don’t understand the acceptance and excuse making for our side’s politicians who are unwilling, unable or uninterested in stating the Democrats’ case publicly, loudly and frequently. It really is baffling to me, and it goes against every political instinct I have, and against the political experience I’ve had.
Matt McIrvin
@Enhanced Voting Techniques:
“The border” means gulags. That’s what it meant last time.
The people in there were largely undocumented immigrants, but these things have a way of expanding. Documentation can be lost, citizenship can be defined away.
trollhattan
@oldgold: They can just hand off Conlaw curriculum to the History Department, itself under attack for being a wokety waste of time.
jimmiraybob
@Matt McIrvin: “By the spirit of Marbury vs. Madison, if 5 members of the Supreme Court say that the meaning of ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ is that you have to give Donald Trump a blowjob, that’s what it means.”
Now I get it. I tells ya, I become a better constitutional lawyer every day.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@Matt McIrvin:
I was quoting Trump’s answer to is he going to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Biden. Were the does Trump say he is going to removed Biden’s citizenship and deport him? Quote please.
Omnes Omnibus
Well, this is a thread to skip.
Betty
@@mistermix.bsky.social: The only ones I see on social media speaking out are Elizabeth Warren, AOC and Adam Schiff. Adam is in the crosshairs so he seems ready to fight back.
Another Scott
@@mistermix.bsky.social: There are people doing what you advocate. I don’t think it’s their fault that we don’t hear much about it when DJT demands to have our full attention 24/7.
DemocraticWins is a site that collates them. There are others.
The new Congress isn’t seated yet. We don’t know which of DJT’s nominees will still be around to get votes in the Senate. We don’t know what will replace the CR that expires in 2 weeks or so. We don’t know what will replace the Debt Ceiling moratorium that expires on January 1.
Lots of things will be happening soon. As OO says, we need to pace ourselves and keep our wits about us.
FWIW.
Thanks.
Best wishes,
Scott.
scav
@@mistermix.bsky.social: There’s also choosing a field and time of battle that’s more advantageous for one’s goals and not rushing in willy-nilly just because the enemy’s on the field. Keep the powder dry, your cards close to your chest and blah blah the whites of their eyes. Yelling into the storm can just wear one out. Blah blah, everyone skins the cat their own way and none of them are magic and work in all instances. Hence the universal frustration.
df
Friendly reminder that you can just ignore the Supreme Court; they have zero guns. Hell, you could take away their office supplies and computers and the entire thing would probably collapse right then and there.
The only thing stopping a bad constitutional crisis is a good constitutional crisis.
zhena gogolia
@Omnes Omnibus: Groundhog Day? (I haven’t even seen that movie.)
Geminid
@different-church-lady: Why would Seth Moulton leave the Democratic Party? Moulton consistently votes with leadership and the rest of the caucus, and he wins his primaries easily.
On the other hand, Ro Khanna could be vulnerable to a strong primary challenger, especially with California’s jungle primary system. But Khanna will have plenty of tech-bro money behind him and that will make him tougher to beat.
Gretchen
@Dorothy A. Winsor: He did. And that won’t get 1/100th of the attention and outrage that the Hunter pardon drew.
oldgold
@trollhattan: !
geg6
@@mistermix.bsky.social:
I don’t understand it either, which is one of the reasons I’ve lost faith in the party.
geg6
@zhena gogolia:
Seriously?!?!?!?! You must watch it.
prostratedragon
@Matt McIrvin: If being undocumented is made a criminal offense, then they “can” be enslaved.
hells littlest angel
I’m afraid it’s just a simple matter of his supreme court ruling that the 14th amendment doesn’t really say what people think it says. They won’t raise a sweat doing that.
cmorenc
@Matt McIrvin: A conundrum the logic of designating person A born in the US but of undocumented parents X faces under the proposed caveat based on grandparent Xs undocumented status is whether it also extends to make grandchild C (born in the US) a noncitizen? Granted there is a fair chance C’s other parent was born in the US to lineage going back to the Jamestown Colony, thus validating C’s citizenship apart from the status of A or B. But OTOH chances are the other parent’s status is unknown or noncitizen.
Now let’s suppose INS agents confront very Hispanic-looking C about his citizenship and he produces his certified birth certificate. Is that the end of how far the INS can push C, or can they demand he prove parent B is/was a bona fide citizen? Does it depend in whether or what nationality is listed for parents of C or B?
Another foundational question is the extent to which the INS can approach a random – oh, let’s be more specific, Hispanic-looking person who was speaking in Spanish when they caught notice of INS) person and demand their papers? On whom does the burden of proving citizenship v noncitizenship?
Bottom line is that if SCOTUS tortures the 14A birthright citizenship language the was the RW proposes, it’s going to create a sordid Gordian knot of complexity and ambiguity.
BTW I just looked at my NC birth certificate – it lists my parents’ name and city/county of residence, but not citizenship.
Chief Oshkosh
@Glory b: Like I said, I don’t know what the caucus knows. If the vote went as described, yes, that was a failure of leadership. Would Nancy Smash have allowed a vote like this to slip by just because somebody wanted to take a holiday (again, if that’s all that was going on, as presented by the OP)? Maybe, but seems unlikely.
Nelle
@Matt McIrvin: First generation American here (my dad grew up in what is now Ukraine, then Russia). How far back do they want to go on this birthright citizenship dealy?
Geminid
I see that Ragnarok Lobster has finally left Twitter. He’s on BlueSky so I guess it’s time for me to sign up. I don’t want to miss Lobster’s salty political commentary or his knowledgeble coverage of Green Bay Packers games.
Geminid
@Glory b: My guess is that Ethics Committee report is gonna come out one way or another before too long.
TBone
@df: I like how you think.
Ella in New Mexico
@hrprogressive: if it’s any consolation, the vote sent the whole thing back to the Ethics Committee. It was sneaky yes, but the issue is not dead as far as I can read.
Martin
@@mistermix.bsky.social: For me it comes down to having a cohesive theory of how Democrats want to govern that would be received by the public. Given that largely failed to happen prior to the election, I really don’t have any faith they can pull it together now given that I don’t think Democrats actually understand why they lost where they lost and won where they won.
So I’m not certain that saying anything would actually help.
Note, I’m not arguing that Trump necessarily does either. So far they’re in their own dog who caught the car moment – they have an angry electorate who wants results and their only real skill is in affirming that anger, not in governance. So they’re kind of trying to keep things in that state while they figure out what to do.
Dorothy A. Winsor
Re pardons, if I were Biden, I’d pardon every person on Kash Patel’s list and thank him for providing the guide
Martin
@cmorenc: A lot of people don’t even have birth certificates. If you are born in a hospital that documentation is pretty much automatically handled, but if you weren’t there’s a whole other process for that. Adults that never got recorded after birth need to do some kind of an affidavit process to have the state generate one.
You have issues with indigenous people, people born of American parents but not in the US, and so on. Identity is a surprisingly complex subject that we completely trivialize in this country – and it causes all manner of problems.
Betty Cracker
@Dorothy A. Winsor: Yep. And maybe give a prime time speech explaining why it’s necessary, i.e., because the incoming administration has repeatedly promised to abuse its power upon taking office.
Geminid
@Ella in New Mexico: I’m not sure this guy even cares about that report except as a club with which to beat Democrats.
@mistermix.bsky.social
@Martin:
That would be nice, but just having somebody from our party poking holes in some of the more egregious of Trump’s statements would be a good start. I just posted on the whole Sunday show lineup and there was very little of that, though I can’t blame Democrats for that completely since the shows are wired for Republicans and their talking points.
@scav: I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking, but there’s both a big offensive (which requires a time/place) and then there’s just the act of criticizing some of things that Trump says, which is something that the Republicans did towards Biden all of the time.
Matt McIrvin
@cmorenc: Ambiguity is how Republican daddies get the space to do whatever they want. In practice the answer is going to be “do you look like the kind of person Republicans don’t like?” (You can even be brown if you play ball and are rich.)
different-church-lady
@@mistermix.bsky.social: It really feels like we’re gonna slip off into fascism with a shrug. I’m hoping it’s just a feeling of the moment, born of frustration.
Matt McIrvin
@Nelle:
How white are you, how rich are you, how performatively Christian and conservative are you? That’s what they’d like it to hinge on.
cmorenc
@Betty Cracker:
Recall that the GOP had also won narrow majorities in both houses to go along with Trump’s win in 2016. And they managed to blow it and got their butts handed to them in 2018.
Another example of a huge upward turnaround in party fortunes following a dramatic blowout loss is the GOP between 1964 and 1968 – essentially the year in which the gradual rightward drift of the electorate began. Recall that in the wake of the 1964 elections the democrats had seemingly built an insurmountable electoral advantage across the board, but then the GOP said “hold my beer”.
Steve LaBonne
@different-church-lady: I’m not sure there’s really a lot we can do beyond supporting vulnerable people locally as best we (and our churches and other local institutions) can. I fear real change may be impossible until enough people get Republicanism good and hard and start to question the propaganda.
jimmiraybob
Ah yes, the Trumpty SCOTUS rule.
“’When WE use a word,’ Trumpty SCOTUS said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what WE choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
“’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
“’The question is,’ said Trumpty SCOTUS, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’”
― A modern adaptation of Lewis Carroll’s, Through the Looking Glass
Martin
@@mistermix.bsky.social: I’m not sure poking holes would necessarily matter. He’s an entity whose credibly cannot be undermined because he has none. Listeners have long believed the stuff they choose to believe and ignored they stuff they don’t. It seems like asking Democrats to pick up a cloud.
I would be inclined to challenge the point of the exercise. What’s the point of having this conversation when Trump never delivered on any of his promises in his first term and is unlikely to do so in his second. Call out the posturing, not just of Trump but of the whole exercise.
I think the public is just as angry about that as everything else.
Suzanne
@Matt McIrvin: Very happy to “see” you.
scav
@@mistermix.bsky.social: Even in dialog there are different degrees of battlefield. No reason to confuse public statements which are a bigger — at least in most overt — battlefield and what gets said more privately among the politicos — which is probably a battlefield with greater weight at certain times, including possibly now for a bit. Public opinion now is probably at its least importance. The votes were counted. The demos will probably be largely ignored until either a) the next election looms or b) the media needs something to print (and they’ll just choose / manufacture their public). The big politicos are probably facing the bigger media headwinds / gateways about getting reasonable shit out anyway in the pre-emptive honeymoon low-hanging stories circus Trump’s got going. For the moment, I’ve almost more hope for citizens making very clear to their neighbors how utterly beyond the pale this behavior is. (And we likely all know how slow going that is.) But that’s a quieter long-term battle and is no more sure than anything. But noise =/= action.
SiubhanDuinne
Heads up for those of you who are, like me, fans of Senator-elect Andy Kim: Jonathan Capehart has teased a lengthy* interview with him, scheduled to air on MSNBC beginning at 6:00 pm Eastern.
*I never know what they mean by “lengthy” — it might be pretty much the whole hour, it might be 8-10 minutes. I hope it’s the former: Kim has always struck me as a thoughtful, principled guy, and I’m eager to hear more from him.
Glory b
@hrprogressive: Action like what?
sab
I have been recording Ali Velshi’s weekend morning shows for years and watching them as I get the chance (husband is on new blackout, and his control of the remote was in our pre-nup 20+ years ago. //.) Velshi is as good as ever ( i.e. excellent.) He has been hammering the possible effects of the tariffs. He started out in financial reporting and he hasn’t lost his chops there. His parents grew up not white in South Africa. He’s not giving up on us.
There are still good news programs on MSNBC at night and weekend mornings. I agree that their weekday coverage is dreadful, the nights not so much. If we don’t watxh the good shows we really have no grounds for complaint about there not being liberal media. (The RWNJs didn’t bail on Faux when Trump lost in 2020.)
Bill Arnold
@Matt McIrvin:
A major power grab by the early USSC, with limited support in the text of the USA Constitution.
If Republicans want to play “Destroy the USA”, the Democrats should too.
Bill Arnold
@oldgold:
Contemporary power grabs by the USSC are no more proper than M v M was in 1803.
laura
@Matt McIrvin: Jeezus H Peezus. I’ve missed your commenting here and at LG&M. Glad to see your nym and whatnot.
catclub
@Matt McIrvin:
Sheer crankery is both Alito and Thomas’s favorite mode of argument.
terraformer
@RandomMonster: I’d bet good money that Maddow or O’Donnell or Wallace would do a *much better job*
But the thing is, no Republican, or T***p, would agree to be interviewed by them
and that should tell people something, but it never seems to