Episodes

  • The 60-Day Coup: How America Accidentally Gave Presidents a Blank Check for War

    The 60-Day Coup: How America Accidentally Gave Presidents a Blank Check for War
    Jan 5 2026
    Hello nerds.It’s been a while since I sat down and did what Nerds for Humanity was originally built for. Not shorts. Not algorithms. Not rage bait. But long-form, structural analysis of how power actually works in this country, and why things that feel shocking in the moment are often the predictable outcome of rules written decades ago.This livestream was about Trump’s military operation in Venezuela. But not in the way cable news framed it.I wasn’t interested in relitigating whether Trump is reckless, authoritarian, or dangerous. If you’re reading this Substack, you already know where you land on that. The more important question is this.How was he able to do it?How was a single president able to order a major military operation against a sovereign country, deploy massive air and naval assets, seize the country’s leader from its capital, and then inform Congress afterward?The uncomfortable truth is that Trump didn’t invent some new authoritarian power. He exploited one that has been sitting in plain sight for more than fifty years.And worse, he did so largely within the mechanics of existing law.The law that was supposed to stop thisIn 1973, in the shadow of Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution. Its purpose was simple. Presidents were not supposed to be able to drag the country into war on their own.The law created two central guardrails.First, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing US forces into hostilities.Second, unless Congress authorizes the action, those hostilities must end within 60 days, with an additional 30-day period allowed for withdrawal.At the time, this seemed reasonable. Military action moved slowly. Wars took time to prepare. You could not overthrow a government in a weekend. The assumption was that Congress would have ample opportunity to intervene before anything irreversible happened.As I said on the livestream,“At that time in 1973 the thinking was well, surely no one can invade a country and capture the head of state inside of 48 hours. They would need weeks to prepare for it.”That assumption is now dangerously obsolete.We are using 1973 traffic laws for modern warfareOne analogy I used resonated with a lot of people.Trying to govern modern warfare with the War Powers Resolution is like applying 1970s traffic rules to autonomous flying cars.The law was written for an era of B-52 bombers, carrier groups, and weeks-long mobilizations. It was not written for drones, cyber operations, special forces insertions, precision strikes, and operations capable of destabilizing or decapitating a regime in days or even hours.Today, a president can dramatically alter another country’s political reality before Congress has even finished debating whether the notification email landed in the right inbox.The time-based trigger is the flaw. It assumes time equals restraint. That is no longer true.As I put it during the stream,“This time-based system is flawed. It doesn’t work for a world where you can basically destabilize and replace a regime in a few hours.”Trump didn’t invent this powerIt is tempting to treat Trump as a unique aberration. He isn’t.Modern presidents of both parties have steadily expanded executive war-making authority.George H. W. Bush built up a massive military force in the Gulf before Congress voted, and then received authorization shortly before the 1991 Gulf War began.George W. Bush secured a separate 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force to invade Iraq, and the post-9/11 era normalized expansive readings of both congressional authorizations and Article II authority.The Obama administration conducted extensive drone campaigns and the Libya intervention without a formal declaration of war, arguing that certain operations did not meet the War Powers Resolution’s definition of “hostilities.”Every modern president has pushed the envelope. Trump simply sprinted through it.As I said on the livestream,“This has been a loophole that’s been used by many presidents. We just relied on them to exercise judgment and honor the office. That honor code is clearly gone.”A system that relies on voluntary restraint is not a system. It is a gamble.Language laundering: from war to “kinetic action”One of the most revealing shifts has been linguistic.Presidents learned that if you do not call something a war, you do not need a declaration of war.So we get euphemisms.“Kinetic action.”“Law enforcement operation.”“Targeted strike.”As I pointed out,“They don’t want to say we are conducting warfare. If you don’t call it a war, then you don’t need a declaration of war.”This is how large-scale military action against a sovereign state becomes a “police-like operation.”If another country flew dozens of military aircraft into Washington, DC and seized the US president, we would call it an act of war without hesitation. Euphemisms only work when we are the ones using them.The public ...
    Show More Show Less
    43 mins
  • December 26 2025 Nerd News Update

    December 26 2025 Nerd News Update
    Dec 26 2025



    This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com
    Show More Show Less
    1 min
  • This freaking guy

    This freaking guy
    Dec 23 2025



    This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com
    Show More Show Less
    1 min
  • The Vanishing Middle: Scott Santens on UBI, AI, and America’s Unfinished Awakening

    The Vanishing Middle: Scott Santens on UBI, AI, and America’s Unfinished Awakening
    Oct 11 2025
    Hello nerds.When I first started interviewing Scott Santens years ago during the Nerds for Yang era, he was one of the most relentless and articulate advocates for universal basic income (UBI) in America. Back then, it felt like the country was on the verge of something big. Andrew Yang was on the debate stage making “Freedom Dividend” a household phrase. Silicon Valley technologists were whispering about automation in the same breath as moral responsibility. Even Republican voters were entertaining the idea that direct cash transfers might be less bureaucratic and more empowering than sprawling social programs.Fast forward to 2025, and the conversation feels quieter. The pandemic-era stimulus checks are long gone. Washington has reverted to tribal warfare. Meanwhile, AI is advancing faster than anyone—maybe even Scott and Andrew —predicted. The irony is thick: the very forces that made UBI seem like a radical idea a decade ago are now transforming entire industries before our eyes. And yet, the movement feels stuck in neutral.So when Scott rejoined me on Nerds for Humanity this month from his new base in Washington, D.C., I wanted to know: What happened? Why did UBI lose its moment? And is there a realistic path back to the mainstream before millions of Americans get left behind?The Move to D.C. and the Lost MomentScott began by explaining why he left New Orleans for D.C. a few years ago. “It just seemed that UBI was really a bigger part of the conversation,” he said. “I thought if the Democrats came in again in 2024, I could actually get some traction.”He laughs a little when he says that now. “That didn’t end up happening,” he admitted, reflecting on how the Biden reelection froze the kind of idea competition that defined 2020. “The big problem was that Biden decided to run again, and there was no primary process. Then suddenly Kamala comes in and still no primary process. So there was no ideas competition. We really missed out on that.”That lack of competition, Scott argues, has a ripple effect. Political movements thrive on moments of contrast, when new ideas bump up against old dogmas and voters are forced to re-evaluate assumptions. The 2020 race—with Yang, Sanders, Warren, and others pitching structural reforms—was one of those rare idea-rich moments. 2024, by comparison, was a desert.As Scott put it bluntly: “We were close enough to taste it during the pandemic. It really felt like we were actually on the cusp of doing a monthly cash payment that could change things. But none of that happened.”He’s not wrong. The COVID checks were, in effect, a large-scale experiment in direct income support. Poverty temporarily plummeted. Families caught their breath. Consumer demand stayed strong. And then we let it all expire.AI Ate the Jobs While America SleptWhat’s striking about this quiet period, as I noted to Scott, is that the threat he and Yang warned about—the automation of work—is no longer hypothetical. Knowledge worker jobs are being eaten by AI faster than policy debates can catch up.“I’m a parent of two teenagers,” I told him. “Other parents are starting to wonder if a computer science degree is still the golden ticket. Should we be preparing our kids to be plumbers instead?”Scott nodded grimly. “It’s disheartening,” he said. “Now that these impacts are here… this is the stuff that we’ve been warning about. It’s not a sudden thing, but it does seem to already be impacting the entry-level job market.”He pointed to a convergence of pressures: corporate hiring freezes driven by uncertainty around tariffs, companies experimenting with AI productivity tools, and executives under shareholder pressure to “do more with less.” The result: stagnating headcount even in high-growth sectors.“We don’t really need people that we likely would have if AI had not been introduced,” he said. I observed from Silicon Valley, “What we’re seeing right now is that companies can grow revenue while keeping headcount flat.”It’s not a collapse. It’s a quiet deceleration—a slow bleed. And that’s arguably more dangerous because it doesn’t provoke a policy response. There’s no headline-grabbing “AI layoffs.” Just the invisible absence of opportunities for millions of new grads.Even top business schools are struggling to place students. “It’s like the hardest market in years,” Scott said, and I agreed. “If we hit a recession,” he warned, “that’s when all these businesses really lean into productivity. The recession ends, and they realize they don’t need those people back.”That scenario—automation accelerated by economic downturn—is the nightmare UBI advocates have been predicting for over a decade. Each downturn becomes a ratchet that permanently eliminates another layer of middle-class work.The Automation MirageWhen politicians talk about “bringing manufacturing jobs back,” Scott and I get visibly ...
    Show More Show Less
    48 mins
  • Nerds for Democracy: The Board Game That Makes Politics Fun—and Reveals Sobering Truths

    Nerds for Democracy: The Board Game That Makes Politics Fun—and Reveals Sobering Truths
    Sep 2 2025
    It’s been a while since I hosted a long-form livestream on Nerds for Humanity. Between shorts, behind-the-scenes projects, and life’s chaos, I hadn’t sat down for a deep conversation in some time. That changed when I brought on two co-conspirators, Ram and Spidermang, both collaborators on our board game Nerds for Democracy. What started as a behind-the-scenes look at a passion project turned into a far-ranging and sobering discussion about U.S. politics, tariffs, debt, 2028 contenders, and the health of our democracy.This post is my attempt to distill that conversation into an essay for my fellow political junkies who couldn’t make the livestream. What follows is analysis, commentary, and reflection, peppered with direct quotes from Ram and Spidermang. If you lean center-left and find yourself both fascinated and horrified by American politics, you’ll find this read worthwhile.Part 1: From Board Game to Real PoliticsWe started with our board game, Nerds for Democracy. Ram, an AI researcher and avid game designer, recalled how our collaboration began:“I didn’t realize Tom was such a politics aficionado. Once I realized that, I pulled out an old concept I had and we started working on it.”The game itself is designed around the absurd, chaotic, and unpredictable nature of American politics. Players collect “choice cards,” face “major events,” and debate topics that range from serious policy to whether pineapple belongs on pizza. Spidermang summed it up well:“The universal feedback was that everybody had fun. Even people not into politics found it accessible. It’s a competition, stuff happens, you adapt, and you try to beat the other players.”What struck me in revisiting the design process was how much the game mirrored real politics. Unpredictable events. Media chaos. Shifting voter moods. And the constant need to adjust strategy. It was a fitting prelude to the heavier political conversation that followed.But more than a mirror, Nerds for Democracy is also an invitation. It’s a way for friends and families to engage with politics without the toxicity that dominates our newsfeeds. Instead of doomscrolling, you sit around a table, roll dice, argue passionately over whether trucks are better than SUVs, and maybe sneak in a debate on universal basic income. Along the way, you laugh. You groan. You cheer. You conspire with your allies and plot against your rivals.Ram highlighted how laughter was a constant during playtesting:“I have not been in a single play test where people were not laughing out loud. That’s the best part for me. People are enjoying playing the game.”That’s no small feat. Politics has become a source of dread for so many Americans. To take that same subject and design a game that sparks joy, humor, and connection—it’s something special. And it’s why I’m so proud of this project.We deliberately designed mechanics to keep everyone involved, even if they fall behind. As Spidermang noted, a player in last place isn’t doomed:“There are ways that they can influence and help another person win or sabotage the other person. That’s personally my favorite part.”This makes Nerds for Democracy different from many strategy games where early mistakes doom you to irrelevance. Instead, it reflects the reality of politics, where underdogs can play kingmaker and longshots can surprise everyone. That dynamic keeps the game competitive and fun until the very end.The art and design also add a layer of charm. From humorous “breaking news” cards to realistic “major event” scenarios, every deck in the game balances playability with wit. One round you might be forced to respond to a cyberattack; the next, you’re navigating a viral scandal about an unflattering beach photo. Sometimes you’re boosted forward, other times set back. Just like real campaigns.We’ve poured countless hours into refining the mechanics, incorporating feedback, and testing with a wide range of players. The result? A game that entertains political junkies while staying approachable for people who normally avoid political conversations. As I said on the livestream, this crossover appeal was a pleasant surprise. It means the game works not just as a hobby for nerds like me, but as a bridge for families, classrooms, and friend groups looking for something new to play together.And here’s the kicker: we’re offering a limited Founders’ Edition of the game. Not a mass-market cash grab, but a passion project produced in small batches. If you pick one up, you’re not just buying a board game—you’re joining the earliest circle of players who helped shape it, laughed through its debates, and maybe even get immortalized in future editions. This first print might well become a collector’s item, the kind of quirky artifact you pull off the shelf years from now and say, “I was there when it started.”If that appeals to you, shoot me an email at tom[at]nerdsforhumanity.com. ...
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 9 mins
  • A Century of Sanity: What Ireland Can Teach America About Fixing Democracy

    A Century of Sanity: What Ireland Can Teach America About Fixing Democracy
    Jul 14 2025
    What if I told you that in a country not much larger than Indiana, you could vote in a national election where your ballot didn’t force you to choose just one imperfect candidate? Where campaigns cost $50K instead of $500 million? Where politicians knock on your door more often than they show up on CNN? And what if I told you that this system has been working just fine—for over 100 years?That’s not a political utopia. That’s Ireland.In my latest Nerds for Humanity livestream, I had the chance to talk with Alana Rush, an American-Irish dual citizen now living in Dublin. Alana is one of the few Americans who has both a deep understanding of ranked choice voting (RCV) and the rare experience of watching it operate at the national level in a functioning democracy. Our conversation turned into a sobering and often jaw-dropping look at how different things could be—if America had the courage to reform how we vote, how we campaign, and how we govern.This post will walk you through Alana’s observations and insights, along with my reflections on what it means for us here in the United States. Spoiler: it’s not all roses across the Atlantic, but there’s a lot to learn.A Voter’s Menu, Not a Single OptionBefore she moved to Ireland, Alana admits she didn’t understand much about how the Irish political system worked. “It’s nearly embarrassing given that I have citizenship here,” she laughed. But after five years of living in Dublin and getting involved in politics—including campaigning in a general election—she now sees what the U.S. is missing.Ireland uses a system called proportional ranked choice voting. Each constituency (analogous to a congressional district) elects multiple representatives—typically 3 to 5—using RCV. Instead of choosing just one candidate, voters rank their preferences.This seemingly simple change has powerful consequences.“When I went into the ballot box for the first time, there were candidates from nine different parties,” Alana explained. “It wasn’t just binary Democrat vs. Republican. There were shades of left, right, and center. It felt like I could vote for someone who actually aligned with me, rather than just the lesser of two evils.”This multi-representative, ranked choice system protects minority voices and prevents the all-or-nothing dynamics we’ve come to expect in U.S. elections. Because voters can express multiple preferences, it discourages vote-splitting and strategic voting. It encourages coalition-building and reduces the pressure to cast a so-called “wasted vote.”And perhaps most importantly, it changes the tone of campaigns.Campaigns Without Character AssassinationIn Ireland, attacking your opponent doesn’t win you votes—it can actually lose them. Because second- and third-preference votes matter so much in RCV, candidates have a direct incentive not to alienate voters who already favor someone else.“We’d knock on someone’s door, and they’d say, ‘I’m voting for Candidate X,’” Alana told me. “Even if that candidate was the opposite end of the spectrum from our campaign, we’d say, ‘Great—what issues matter most to you?’ Then we’d try to earn their second preference.”This nuance-rich campaigning is reinforced by Ireland’s strict campaign finance laws. Campaigns are limited to spending about $40,000 to $50,000 total. There are no TV ads. No Super PACs. No billionaires bankrolling disinformation blitzes.“You can’t really buy your way in here,” Alana said. “If you’re not knocking on doors, you’re not winning votes.”Let that sink in: in Ireland, all politicians, including the equivalent of their Prime Minister, go door-to-door. Voters expect it. “I’ve seen voters put Post-it notes on their door with questions for candidates,” she told me. “People are engaged because they know their voice matters.”As an American who’s worked on primary campaigns in New Hampshire, I found this retail politics culture deeply familiar—and inspiring. But in Ireland, it’s not just for presidential primaries every four years. It’s baked into every election.The result? A culture where politicians are more accountable, more accessible, and more focused on policy than on personality cults.From Pendulums to CoalitionsWe’ve all seen the swing: red wave, blue wave, repeal, reverse, gridlock, repeat. America’s political pendulum is whiplash-inducing. Every few years, the country veers dramatically in one direction, only to lurch back again—undoing reforms, re-litigating the past, and paralyzing progress.Not so in Ireland.Because the government is typically made up of a coalition of multiple parties, wild ideological swings are rare. “There’s always an opposition, and they play an important role,” Alana said. “But because you need coalitions to govern, parties are incentivized to work together.”That doesn't mean Ireland has no conflict or partisanship—of course it does. But ...
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 22 mins
  • Democracy on Demand: Can Technology Fix What Politics Has Broken?

    Democracy on Demand: Can Technology Fix What Politics Has Broken?
    May 26 2025
    If you told me two years ago that one of the most compelling answers to America's broken democracy would come from a blockchain-savvy military veteran out of Orlando, I probably wouldn’t have guessed it. But that's exactly what I discovered in my recent conversation with Ramon Perez, founder of the Digital Democracy Project (DDP), during a Nerds for Humanity livestream that still has me thinking.Perez is no idealist with a half-baked startup pitch. He's a 13-year military officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s also a data and AI consultant with a deep understanding of both how government works—and how it fails. And after January 6th, he knew he had to do something more.“It was hard to stomach this sense that we’d spent 20 years trying to build democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Perez told me, “and we were watching it fall apart here in the United States.”From the Battlefield to the BallotThat dissonance lit a fire under Perez. Leveraging his background in cybersecurity and AI, he partnered with a Boston-based startup called Voatz—best known for their blockchain-secure mobile voting platform. While Voatz originally focused on allowing military voters abroad to securely cast ballots from their phones, Perez saw a broader application.“Why should we wait every four years to weigh in on public policy?” he asked. “Why not let people tell their representatives what they want, when they want?”The result is the Digital Democracy Project. DDP allows voters to view active legislation in their state or in Congress, weigh in directly through the Voatz app, and see how their elected officials vote in comparison. No spin. No party filter. Just data.How It WorksWhen you register on the app, your identity is verified using photo ID and facial recognition, cross-checked with your voter file. Then, you get access to real legislation and can vote on bills before they reach the floor.Once the legislature acts, DDP matches each representative’s vote with the will of their constituents and gives every lawmaker a public scorecard. Think baseball cards for politicians, but instead of batting averages, you get alignment with the people.As of this year, DDP is going national. What started as a Florida pilot will be scaled to all 50 states, with the potential to reshape civic engagement in America.When the Will of the People Meets the Wall of PowerWhat happens when data shows that your representative consistently votes against the will of their constituents? You get names."Matt Gaetz was at the bottom of our Florida Congressional leaderboard," Perez said, with characteristic deadpan.Interestingly, the divergence isn't always partisan. In the Florida State Legislature, Democrats often aligned more with constituent sentiment than Republicans. But at the federal level, party lines blurred. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican, scored near the top. Progressive darling Maxwell Frost? Near the bottom.This discrepancy, Perez argues, proves that our tidy left-right dichotomy is mostly fiction.“Party affiliation is an intellectual construct. It doesn't exist in the real world,” he said. “That’s not how most people think, and it’s not even how many legislators vote.”A Quiet Threat to the Political-Industrial ComplexYou might think lawmakers would run from a project that holds them this accountable. And some do. But others see it differently.“We actually received bipartisan budget support in Florida—a Republican and a Democrat co-sponsored our funding bill,” Perez told me.That bill passed the legislature. It was then vetoed by Governor Ron DeSantis.“Who knows why,” Perez said. But the potential was clear: when citizens gain power, entrenched interests push back.And it’s not just DDP feeling the pressure.Rank My Vote Florida: Buried Before It BloomedPerez also leads Rank My Vote Florida, which advocates for ranked choice voting (RCV). After local municipalities began adopting RCV and seeing positive results, the state legislature stepped in—and banned it.“They smothered the infant in its crib,” Perez said.Why? Because RCV helps consensus candidates win. In traditional elections, candidates can win with a mere plurality. That means you can become a member of Congress, or even governor, with just 20-30% support—if the field is crowded enough. RCV requires majority support and rewards broad appeal.Case in point: Sarah Palin's loss in Alaska.“In a first-past-the-post system, she likely would've won. But Alaska used RCV, and the voters chose someone else,” Perez explained. “That scared people.”So ALEC, a conservative policy organization, began circulating bills to preemptively ban RCV. Florida, Tennessee, and a dozen other states have already adopted those bans.Building a Parallel SystemSince state legislatures have closed the door, Perez is working on building a window. He's exploring the idea of a "citizens election" in Florida—a parallel, unofficial election using ...
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 2 mins
  • The Jet, The Deal, and the Delusion: What the Trump-Qatar Saga Reveals About America's Political Decay

    The Jet, The Deal, and the Delusion: What the Trump-Qatar Saga Reveals About America's Political Decay
    May 13 2025
    Hello nerds,After a steady stream of YouTube shorts and weekend content, I finally hopped back on the Nerds for Humanity livestream, and what a storm of absurdity we had to break down. If you're a center-left policy wonk, what follows may not make you feel better about the future of this country, but it'll make you feel like you're not going crazy for being outraged.We covered three stories. Each was a peek through the cracked window of American democracy, filtered through the bizarre prism of the Trumpist revival. From the Qatari jet that smells like a bribe, to a trade "deal" that undoes Trump's own blunder, to a shockingly good policy idea on pharma that no one—including the New York Times—bothered to cover. Let me walk you through each.Story 1: The $400 Million Jet From QatarImagine the headlines if President Biden accepted a half-billion-dollar luxury jet from the Saudi royal family to use as Air Force One. Now imagine if that jet was offered as a "gift" from a foreign government with ties to Hamas, with the only assurance being that it would later be displayed at the Trump Presidential Library. Sound plausible? That's what’s on offer from Qatar to Donald Trump."You're going to disobey the order of the Supreme Court, deport people without due process, and accept a $400 million plane from a foreign government? That hurts your brain." — Me, in stunned disbeliefTrump defenders say it's a harmless donation. But even MAGA forums seemed uneasy. Fox News barely covered the story, and when they did, they quickly buried it. The idea that the future Air Force One—a flying command center during national crises—could be a foreign-made gift? That’s not just sus. It’s a Trojan Horse with wings."Didn’t the Trojans give a gift, too?" — My live commentaryThe irony? This is the same base that cries foul about Hunter Biden’s art sales and corruption. Yet when Trump auctions face-time dinners via a crypto coin and deregulates crypto enforcement, it's apparently savvy business. When he accepts a potentially compromised aircraft from a regime that also hosts Taliban leaders, it’s not treason—it's branding.Story 2: The Uncelebrated Win on Drug PricingCredit where it's due. In a rare moment of policy lucidity, Trump proposed a Most Favored Nation (MFN) pricing strategy for pharmaceuticals. The idea? The U.S. shouldn't pay more than other countries for the same drug. If this actually gets done—really done, not just tweeted and forgotten—it would be a substantive victory for Americans crushed by high drug costs."Obama talked about it, Biden tried Medicare negotiation, but Trump just said: screw it, we’re not paying more than Canada or the U.K."Surprisingly, no one wanted to talk about it. Not Fox. Not the New York Times. The former, presumably because Trump’s win wasn’t culture war red meat. The latter? Maybe it doesn’t fit the preferred narrative."Poopy stinky. Freaking New York Times had Belichick’s girlfriend on the homepage before the pharma deal."When both major media outlets fail to cover a story that affects the lives of tens of millions of Americans, it’s not just media bias—it’s systemic rot. We’d rather scream about TikTok bans and border clashes than do the hard work of evaluating policy.Story 3: The China Deal That Wasn’tTrump declared a "historic trade win" with China. The truth? He rolled back tariffs he imposed just a month prior. The markets cheered, but not because of a deal—because Trump stopped hurting them. There was no grand negotiation, no concession from China, just a chaotic game of poker where Trump folded and called it a win."This is your guy? The art of the deal? It's like he declared mango Gatorade the best flavor and MAGA was like ‘Oh yeah I’ve always loved mango.’"What’s worse is the White House crowed about this as if it were the new Marshall Plan. It wasn’t. It was a Ctrl-Z of his own failed policy."The only people who thought this was a win were Trump and the Fox chyron writers."The Real TakeawayLet me be painfully honest: we're living in an era of selective outrage and performative governance. One side celebrates crimes if it’s their guy. The other side buries policy wins if it contradicts their narrative. Both parties play to their base, and media outlets amplify the rage bait because nuance doesn’t generate clicks."Flooding the zone isn't just a Bannon tactic. It’s a way to make Americans so overwhelmed they stop caring."We should care. Because accepting a luxury plane from a foreign adversary is not normal. Because a policy that could reduce your grandma’s insulin cost should be front-page news. And because calling a self-inflicted trade mess a triumph is gaslighting the electorate.Final ThoughtsThree takeaways, nerds:* Yes to the Pharma Deal. If Trump can actually execute on MFN pricing and codify it into law, that would help millions. I’ll cheer it. Just don’t let it be another Trumpcare or wall that never gets ...
    Show More Show Less
    47 mins