April 19, 2026 at 8:09 PM
also trump is always deferential to celebrities and mamdani is a celebrity bsky.app/profile/atru...
Q: would you feel comfortable living in NYC under a Mamdani administration ?
TRUMP: I would. I really would.
TRUMP: I would. I really would.
November 21, 2025 at 9:25 PM
also trump is always deferential to celebrities and mamdani is a celebrity bsky.app/profile/atru...
Yikes. Gov. Wes Moore awful chummy with/deferential to Trump’s DHS Secretary.
August 2, 2026 at 1:02 AM
Yikes. Gov. Wes Moore awful chummy with/deferential to Trump’s DHS Secretary.
i was just thinking about this. when a fascist squeaks by, it’s a mandate. when a progressive wins by a landslide, he needs to be deferential. it’s such bullshit.
as a texan i'll spare people zohran takes but one thing i think we're going to see even more of now that he's mayor is mainstream media shift the goal posts of what having a mandate is. trump had a mandate when he narrowly won but zohran has to reach out to all these factions no matter what
January 2, 2026 at 12:19 AM
i was just thinking about this. when a fascist squeaks by, it’s a mandate. when a progressive wins by a landslide, he needs to be deferential. it’s such bullshit.
Why is your headline so deferential to Trump?
February 11, 2025 at 9:53 PM
Why is your headline so deferential to Trump?
The animating force at the heart of US conservatism currently is incandescent rage at the mere idea of women's autonomy and independence. An image of a smiling woman who looks insufficiently deferential for their tastes riles them up enough to tear up the social contract.
this is all it’s really about for them. Not domestic policy, not “economic anxiety”, just an endless desire to punish stand-ins for the Mommy who forced them take a bath, even if it tanks their own quality of life.
January 12, 2026 at 7:17 AM
The animating force at the heart of US conservatism currently is incandescent rage at the mere idea of women's autonomy and independence. An image of a smiling woman who looks insufficiently deferential for their tastes riles them up enough to tear up the social contract.
y'all should be more deferential to my dogshit takes
March 9, 2025 at 3:02 PM
y'all should be more deferential to my dogshit takes
"NBC’s Softball Trump Interview Normalized an Abnormal President"
I fact-checked Tom Llamas’s deferential interview with the president, in which the 'NBC Nightly News' anchor did not ask him even a single question about the Epstein files.
I fact-checked Tom Llamas’s deferential interview with the president, in which the 'NBC Nightly News' anchor did not ask him even a single question about the Epstein files.
NBC’s Softball Trump Interview Normalized an Abnormal President
I fact-checked Tom Llamas’s deferential interview with the president, in which the NBC Nightly News anchor did not ask him even a single question about the Epstein files.
zeteo.com
February 6, 2026 at 2:09 AM
"NBC’s Softball Trump Interview Normalized an Abnormal President"
I fact-checked Tom Llamas’s deferential interview with the president, in which the 'NBC Nightly News' anchor did not ask him even a single question about the Epstein files.
I fact-checked Tom Llamas’s deferential interview with the president, in which the 'NBC Nightly News' anchor did not ask him even a single question about the Epstein files.
Joe Scarborough sound likes he’s AFRAID of Homan. Deferential, meek low energy Joe #MorningJoe is complicit
April 18, 2025 at 11:39 AM
Joe Scarborough sound likes he’s AFRAID of Homan. Deferential, meek low energy Joe #MorningJoe is complicit
times like this are when you’d expect someone—anyone—in the government to go rogue. but this transition is decidedly un-rogue. quiet. deferential. a surrender.
January 14, 2025 at 6:19 AM
times like this are when you’d expect someone—anyone—in the government to go rogue. but this transition is decidedly un-rogue. quiet. deferential. a surrender.
This language is more deferential to Congressional authority than the past few weeks’ fare.
SCOOP: Now that Linda McMahon is confirmed/sworn in as secretary, Trump will be imminently issuing an executive order eliminating the Department of Education.
I’ve obtained a draft of an email that McMahon will be sending to staff re: the EO and the department’s “final mission”.
Here is a portion:
I’ve obtained a draft of an email that McMahon will be sending to staff re: the EO and the department’s “final mission”.
Here is a portion:
![After President Trump's inauguration last month, he has steadily signed a slate of executive orders to keep these education promises: combatting critical race theory, DEl, gender ideology extremism, and discrimination in admissions. President Trump has also been focused on eliminating wasteful bureaucracy and harmful programs in the federal government. To that end, today he signed [Executive Order XYZ, entitled "Eliminating the Department of Education,] which has given us a clear and final mission.
We are to identify which of the Department's functions, programs, and offices are not mandated by statute, and eliminate them. This reorganization will impact staff, budgets, reporting, and more —and in coming months, we will determine how it can be accomplished with minimal delay and disruption. The President further tasked us with creating a plan to reallocate and reassign functions of the Department of Education that would be more effectively managed by other agencies. This plan will offer Congress a road map toward fulfilling the expectations of the President and the American people.
The new vision—which I hope each of you will embrace going forward—can be expressed as four main convictions:
Parents are the primary decision makers in their children's education.
Students deserve to be protected from physical violence, racial discrimination, medical tyranny, and gender extremism ideology on campus.
Postsecondary education should be a path to a well-paying career aligned with workforce needs.
Taxpayer-funded education should refocus on meaningful learning: proficiency in math, reading, and core subjects, and patriotism in American history and civics.
As we move to reduce the Department's middleman role in education, these four convictions must guide us toward conscientious and pragmatic action. The elimination of bureaucracy should free us, not limit us, in our pursuit of these goals
Removing red tape and bureaucratic barriers will empower parents to make th](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ejihld4sywvvqwe67cdkn4jq/bafkreictcxubqhd7foyjwbms62bj3cxmfyepqk2ms3l6ctabsa6fvpm5ju)
March 4, 2025 at 12:25 AM
This language is more deferential to Congressional authority than the past few weeks’ fare.
It fits well if one imagines that coverage of this Supreme Court should be worshipful and deferential, for profe and ideological reasons
September 25, 2026 at 12:01 PM
It fits well if one imagines that coverage of this Supreme Court should be worshipful and deferential, for profe and ideological reasons
But we've been structuring our society for as long as anyone can remember to be deferential to the rich.
September 28, 2026 at 3:59 AM
But we've been structuring our society for as long as anyone can remember to be deferential to the rich.
The 9th C basically decided 4 things:
1) Can the court review? Yup.
2) What's the standard? Very deferential.
3) WHEN TRUMP DEPLOYED THE TROOPS, did he meet that deferential standard? Yup.
4) Did Trump go THROUGH Newsom? Eh, doesn't really matter.
I could see CA appealing #4.
1) Can the court review? Yup.
2) What's the standard? Very deferential.
3) WHEN TRUMP DEPLOYED THE TROOPS, did he meet that deferential standard? Yup.
4) Did Trump go THROUGH Newsom? Eh, doesn't really matter.
I could see CA appealing #4.
June 20, 2025 at 7:07 AM
The 9th C basically decided 4 things:
1) Can the court review? Yup.
2) What's the standard? Very deferential.
3) WHEN TRUMP DEPLOYED THE TROOPS, did he meet that deferential standard? Yup.
4) Did Trump go THROUGH Newsom? Eh, doesn't really matter.
I could see CA appealing #4.
1) Can the court review? Yup.
2) What's the standard? Very deferential.
3) WHEN TRUMP DEPLOYED THE TROOPS, did he meet that deferential standard? Yup.
4) Did Trump go THROUGH Newsom? Eh, doesn't really matter.
I could see CA appealing #4.
i wish cable hosts like Pamela Brown wouldn't be so deferential to Republicans who are smearing and demeaning them live on air, like Byron Donalds is doing here
March 6, 2025 at 4:57 PM
i wish cable hosts like Pamela Brown wouldn't be so deferential to Republicans who are smearing and demeaning them live on air, like Byron Donalds is doing here
There is no crime worse than being insufficiently deferential to an @theatlantic.com writer.
honestly correct that this site has a dogpile problem but it’s still funny to complain about it after coming out swinging like this
August 11, 2026 at 3:15 AM
There is no crime worse than being insufficiently deferential to an @theatlantic.com writer.
Deferential whimpers, desperate pleading, shameless begging, and uncontrollable, room-shaking belches. 🥰
January 23, 2025 at 2:42 PM
Deferential whimpers, desperate pleading, shameless begging, and uncontrollable, room-shaking belches. 🥰
Reporters: stop using the deferential term "detaining" when talking about ICE goons' abduction of innocent people from US streets. You proper term would indeed by "abduction", but if you want to pretend neutrality you could use "capture", which at least says nothing about the captors' motives.
October 11, 2025 at 5:22 PM
Reporters: stop using the deferential term "detaining" when talking about ICE goons' abduction of innocent people from US streets. You proper term would indeed by "abduction", but if you want to pretend neutrality you could use "capture", which at least says nothing about the captors' motives.
there is a point here i want to amplify. the free speech defenders of the mainstream seem to have no awareness that actual free speech is often more fractious and destabilizing than civil and respectful. a society where speech is genuinely free isn’t the deferential space they want it to be.
September 21, 2025 at 2:10 PM
there is a point here i want to amplify. the free speech defenders of the mainstream seem to have no awareness that actual free speech is often more fractious and destabilizing than civil and respectful. a society where speech is genuinely free isn’t the deferential space they want it to be.
The underpaid workers at the dying chain store weren’t deferential enough to me
January 4, 2025 at 4:09 PM
The underpaid workers at the dying chain store weren’t deferential enough to me
This is indeed incredible. “Conservative judge” doesn’t quite cut it as a description of Wilkinson. He is one of the most deferential-to-government-power judges in the country. When he writes like Justice Sotomayor it’s signs-and-wonders level.
INCREDIBLE opinion by Wilkinson refusing to stay Judge Xinis's orders in the Abrego Garcia case, condemning DOJ's arguments as "shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear."
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
April 17, 2025 at 8:49 PM
This is indeed incredible. “Conservative judge” doesn’t quite cut it as a description of Wilkinson. He is one of the most deferential-to-government-power judges in the country. When he writes like Justice Sotomayor it’s signs-and-wonders level.
not even "rude" per se but just like, insufficiently deferential
September 2, 2025 at 11:30 PM
not even "rude" per se but just like, insufficiently deferential
Wells is talking about the 9th Circuit's Newsom v. Trump ruling, finding that courts have to be "highly deferential" to the president when it comes to this law.
Wells says the 9th Circuit was "clearly too deferential."
Wells says the 9th Circuit was "clearly too deferential."
October 9, 2025 at 6:21 PM
Wells is talking about the 9th Circuit's Newsom v. Trump ruling, finding that courts have to be "highly deferential" to the president when it comes to this law.
Wells says the 9th Circuit was "clearly too deferential."
Wells says the 9th Circuit was "clearly too deferential."
It's funny to think that Protestants used to fear that Catholic elected officials would be too deferential to the Pope. It turns out, they're not deferential enough!
April 13, 2026 at 11:27 PM
It's funny to think that Protestants used to fear that Catholic elected officials would be too deferential to the Pope. It turns out, they're not deferential enough!
I have lost count of how many times Hamilton has said that Perry must use a "highly deferential standard of review" when determining whether the president is acting lawfully.
October 9, 2025 at 5:18 PM
I have lost count of how many times Hamilton has said that Perry must use a "highly deferential standard of review" when determining whether the president is acting lawfully.