Veronica Tash
@veronicatash.bsky.social
PhD student at Wayne State University in Political Theory
Youtube - https://youtube.com/@veronicatash777
Website - www.yttribune.com
Youtube - https://youtube.com/@veronicatash777
Website - www.yttribune.com
Perhaps I was thinking too narrowly - I was thinking Trump Admin when I said that because we're talking about Trump. But, fine - there are people who exist in the private sector who can make your life miserable over Trump-related stuff.
December 19, 2025 at 10:00 PM
Perhaps I was thinking too narrowly - I was thinking Trump Admin when I said that because we're talking about Trump. But, fine - there are people who exist in the private sector who can make your life miserable over Trump-related stuff.
No they can't. I had a Weingarten meeting for leaking. I mocked the agency during that meeting. Nothing came of it.
They can only ruin your life if you let them.
They can only ruin your life if you let them.
December 19, 2025 at 9:26 PM
No they can't. I had a Weingarten meeting for leaking. I mocked the agency during that meeting. Nothing came of it.
They can only ruin your life if you let them.
They can only ruin your life if you let them.
But your 14th favorite president disagrees.
December 19, 2025 at 9:23 PM
But your 14th favorite president disagrees.
That was a bad one, but I'm unsure it was enough. The Roberts court outright threw out the rule of law. I'd be willing to hear arguments on how Bush v. Gore was sufficiently delegitimizing though.
December 19, 2025 at 7:45 PM
That was a bad one, but I'm unsure it was enough. The Roberts court outright threw out the rule of law. I'd be willing to hear arguments on how Bush v. Gore was sufficiently delegitimizing though.
Only if you accept the Roberts court as legitimate. You can't just assume legitimacy.
December 19, 2025 at 7:30 PM
Only if you accept the Roberts court as legitimate. You can't just assume legitimacy.
I don't think that is the intent of @rbreich.bsky.social , but he is an economist, not a political scientist. His training includes misuse of terminology by the people who freed the beast from the regulations of the New Deal. I don't think he realizes the damage this catchy slogan does long term.
December 19, 2025 at 7:27 PM
I don't think that is the intent of @rbreich.bsky.social , but he is an economist, not a political scientist. His training includes misuse of terminology by the people who freed the beast from the regulations of the New Deal. I don't think he realizes the damage this catchy slogan does long term.
It takes the idea of the self employment of the working class through economic democracy off the table and ensures the continuation of this system of exploitation which, as we should have learned from the past century, will gradually free itself regulation creating a third Gilded Age.
December 19, 2025 at 7:27 PM
It takes the idea of the self employment of the working class through economic democracy off the table and ensures the continuation of this system of exploitation which, as we should have learned from the past century, will gradually free itself regulation creating a third Gilded Age.
I am not missing his point - @rbreich.bsky.social is misusing the term in a damaging way. Misusing the term socialism in that way has the effect of narrowing the Overton window. Though people see "socialism" as something possible, using it this way makes them think welfare capitalism.
December 19, 2025 at 7:27 PM
I am not missing his point - @rbreich.bsky.social is misusing the term in a damaging way. Misusing the term socialism in that way has the effect of narrowing the Overton window. Though people see "socialism" as something possible, using it this way makes them think welfare capitalism.
Notably, your definition makes every single nominal democracy socialism since all governments regulate. You cannot have a market without regulation. It is a worthless definition based upon the ramblings of far right grifters in economics.
December 19, 2025 at 5:48 PM
Notably, your definition makes every single nominal democracy socialism since all governments regulate. You cannot have a market without regulation. It is a worthless definition based upon the ramblings of far right grifters in economics.
You found this definition where? Grok? I get my answer from nearly 3 decades studying sociaist thought, but lets look at some dictionary definitions.
December 19, 2025 at 5:48 PM
You found this definition where? Grok? I get my answer from nearly 3 decades studying sociaist thought, but lets look at some dictionary definitions.
Note the word "all."
December 19, 2025 at 5:13 PM
Note the word "all."
You can't know that until we know who will be president. There may be 103 US presidents alive now
December 18, 2025 at 10:18 PM
You can't know that until we know who will be president. There may be 103 US presidents alive now
Socialism is collective ownership and control of the means of production, not free stuff.
December 17, 2025 at 11:23 PM
Socialism is collective ownership and control of the means of production, not free stuff.
Will it be before or after the Supreme Court rules the tarriffs illegal?
December 17, 2025 at 9:13 PM
Will it be before or after the Supreme Court rules the tarriffs illegal?
It wouldn't be bad at all because AI George Washington cannot tell a lie. We can believe him because a guy I know said he said it.
December 17, 2025 at 8:25 PM
It wouldn't be bad at all because AI George Washington cannot tell a lie. We can believe him because a guy I know said he said it.
I'm not trusting investigative reporting from an LLM.
December 17, 2025 at 8:08 PM
I'm not trusting investigative reporting from an LLM.
She has deep regrets that she never said she would appoint a Republican to her cabinet.
www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...
www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...
Harris says she would appoint a Republican to her Cabinet if elected
In a clip of a CNN interview scheduled to air in full Thursday night, Harris said she was committed to welcoming diverse points of view.
www.nbcnews.com
December 16, 2025 at 12:04 AM
She has deep regrets that she never said she would appoint a Republican to her cabinet.
www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...
www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...
This is why there is a constitutionally mandated decadely apportionment.
However, if we instead created one national district with 435, 500, or 1000 seats and assigned them based upon party, rather than geographic area, then there iz no need for apportionment.
However, if we instead created one national district with 435, 500, or 1000 seats and assigned them based upon party, rather than geographic area, then there iz no need for apportionment.
December 8, 2025 at 12:57 AM
This is why there is a constitutionally mandated decadely apportionment.
However, if we instead created one national district with 435, 500, or 1000 seats and assigned them based upon party, rather than geographic area, then there iz no need for apportionment.
However, if we instead created one national district with 435, 500, or 1000 seats and assigned them based upon party, rather than geographic area, then there iz no need for apportionment.
Yes it can be avoided. The Constitution is not a set of natural laws which govern the universe, but rather manmade law. It is not immutable, but rather can be changed.
Currently, we have single seats which can be rather arbitrarily assigned within state borders.
Currently, we have single seats which can be rather arbitrarily assigned within state borders.
December 8, 2025 at 12:57 AM
Yes it can be avoided. The Constitution is not a set of natural laws which govern the universe, but rather manmade law. It is not immutable, but rather can be changed.
Currently, we have single seats which can be rather arbitrarily assigned within state borders.
Currently, we have single seats which can be rather arbitrarily assigned within state borders.
That information is top secret.
December 5, 2025 at 9:32 PM
That information is top secret.