isaacspeer.bsky.social
Continuing Lecturer in UCLA's Sociology Department
1,012 posts
254 followers
282 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Yes, it is infuriating and shameful that Dems looked at public opinion polls on immigration and said "let's cater to nativism" rather than "let's forcefully fight against this and try to change public opinion"
comment in response to
post
It's not really the same. The problem with the "it's a distraction" line is that it isn't just used to dismiss things Trump has said, but to dismiss things GOP is actually doing.
comment in response to
post
This is a typical move of RW propaganda - reframe "elite" to refer to highly-educated people, and present tasteless rich people like Trump or Bezos as regular joes.
comment in response to
post
Do you want to know how democracy dies? By handing ICE what it needs to kill it.
comment in response to
post
Yes, it is racist and Islamophobic.
comment in response to
post
Political suicide. I'm not confident that they'd be acting any worse if they were a controlled opposition.
comment in response to
post
Right?!?! What happened to "it's a distraction"?
comment in response to
post
Yes, or at least repeating Islamophobic propaganda without doing any fact-checking of it, just assuming the worst is true...which is the same thing.
comment in response to
post
Mamdani declined to denounce the phrase "globalize the intifada", which the interviewer brought up. (not Mamdani). They are lying when they claim he said it.
comment in response to
post
Then post-election social media is flooded with posts blaming Muslims and/or Palestinians for Harris's loss, and saying Muslim voters are getting what they deserve. Now Dems are back to shouting "antisemite" at a Muslim candidate for NYC mayor over some made-up bullshit. Wtaf!
comment in response to
post
The first blue dot is for 2026.
comment in response to
post
This. It's just a rationale, or motivated reasoning, not a savvy decision to focus on battles they can win. They sound like depressed people who have given up on trying and are trying to justify their resignation as logical.
comment in response to
post
No, it's a bad chart. It does not even show NYC's minimum wage, it ends in 2019, and it's comparing inflation-adj numbers to non inflation-adj numbers.
comment in response to
post
Thx for clarifying!
comment in response to
post
Exactly. Thanks for chiming in!
comment in response to
post
Case in point, saying SC should "pick its spots"!!!:
bsky.app/profile/nbag...
comment in response to
post
Thanks for covering this awfulness. On a personal note, any idea if/how this ruling affects the injunction of the SAVE plan?
comment in response to
post
Logged in to double check my consolidated student loans status at MOHELA, and all are still in administrative forbearance because of a federal injunction blocking implementation of the Biden-era SAVE income contingency plan. Screenshot of banner in my payment portal as of 27 Jun 2025.
comment in response to
post
This rationale isn't even good for protecting U of VA, though. Bullies are emboldened by surrender, as we have seen with Trump's treatment of Columbia.
comment in response to
post
But they are totally wrong, and they need to face opprobrium or else more will capitulate.
comment in response to
post
Yes, maximal resistance IS the best option for dealing with bullies! That people act like it's savvy to pull their punches indicates that they have never successfully dealt with bullies before or are in denial about the severity of the crisis.
comment in response to
post
His logic seems to be that it was better to wait for a case where the underlying action was obviously unconstitutional. I am struggling to make sense of that logic, but I'm not a lawyer.
comment in response to
post
idk. yes, it's not something that's going to remove trump right now. but your voters are just desperate for some sign you give a shit. ducking impeachment votes says the opposite of that, no matter how you try to explain it.
comment in response to
post
the inescapable context here is that the president of the united states wants to leverage the power and authority of the office to illegally unravel constitutional protections.
comment in response to
post
The problem with an "injunctions are bad in principle" argument is that the SC waited until THIS CASE to strike them down. They were fine with injunctions when they were blocking Biden's agenda. Also, by not ruling on substance they've effectively authorized citizenship-stripping for the time being.