DL Open Thread: Friday, September 19, 2025
Fascist Takeover Reaches Fever Pitch:
President Trump said on Thursday that regulators should consider revoking the licenses of broadcasters that air negative coverage or commentary of him, indicating that his assault on critics’ language is motivated at least in part by personal animus.
The comments were a remarkable escalation in a coordinated attack by Mr. Trump and his top aides, who are using the threat of the power of the American government to silence criticism or dissent following the assassination of the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
In the last week, White House has moved to target the tax status of liberal groups, monitor online speech, deny visas and threaten to designate certain groups as domestic terrorists. The administration has argued such measures are necessary to crack down on hate speech that could incite violence, even as Democrats and others warn that it amounts to a crackdown on opposing views.
On Wednesday, ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel’s show “indefinitely” after pressure from the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, over the late-night host’s comments about Mr. Kirk.
Mr. Trump on Thursday indicated that Mr. Carr should go even further and scrutinize the broadcast licenses of local television stations that run programming from the major networks, suggesting that both their news coverage and late-night comedy shows were unfairly tilted against him. “They give me only bad publicity,” he said.
“It will be up to Brendan Carr,” the president said, calling him “a patriot” and “a tough guy.”
Of course, Trump has used media merger-mania to his advantage, making approvals contingent on self-censorship:
Much like fellow late-night host Stephen Colbert, the circumstances surrounding Jimmy Kimmel’s removal from the airwaves involve a company in the midst of a merger and under scrutiny from the FCC.
Nexstar Media Group is in the middle of a $6.2 billion merger with media company Tegna. Nexstar, which owns or partners with more than 200 television stations, would acquire about 65 more under the deal. The two companies entered into a definitive agreement for the merger last month, but it remains subject to regulatory approval from the FCC, currently chaired by Brendan Carr.
On Wednesday, Nexstar condemned “recent comments” made by Kimmel and announced that JKL would be pre-empted on its stations “for the foreseeable future.”
A corporate merger awaiting FCC approval also sat at the center of CBS’s unexpected cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert just two months ago to the day.
While CBS called that decision a “purely financial” one made “against a challenging backdrop in late night,” the network has been widely accused—by civilians and politicians alike—of cutting the show to curry favor with President Donald Trump amid the pending merger of its parent company Paramount with Skydance Media. Skydance founder and CEO David Ellison is often seen as a close ally of Trump. At the time, the Paramount-Skydance deal also required approval from Carr’s FCC. Carr, like Ellison, has been an oft-cited Trump ally. Days before his cancellation, Colbert had called CBS’s settlement with Trump in its 60 Minutes lawsuit “a big fat bribe.”
Carr’s FCC approved the Paramount-Skydance merger the following month.
Cause, meet effect.
And Then There’s TikTok. Delaware’s Dan Pfeiffer outlines the tik-ing time bomb:
Earlier this week, Donald Trump once again suspended enforcement of the TikTok ban. It’s easy to forget, but in 2024, Congress—in a rare bipartisan action—voted to ban TikTok in the United States. President Biden signed the ban into law. The legislation required TikTok to be sold to a non-Chinese entity or removed from app stores. Since taking office, Trump has repeatedly delayed enforcement while searching for a U.S. buyer.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. government is on the cusp of a deal that would give American investors majority control of TikTok. The agreement, expected as part of broader trade negotiations with China, reportedly looks like this:
- TikTok’s U.S. business would be controlled by a consortium including Oracle, Silver Lake, and Andreessen Horowitz.
- A new U.S. entity would operate the app, with American investors holding about 80% of the stake.
- The company’s board would be dominated by Americans, with one seat designated by the U.S. government.
Silver Lake is a Silicon Valley private equity firm. Oracle is the tech giant run by Larry Ellison—one of the richest men in the world and a major Trump supporter. Andreessen Horowitz is a massive venture capital firm led by Marc Andreessen, another vocal Trump ally.
If this deal closes, the fastest-growing social media platform—and a primary news source for younger Americans—will fall under the control of Trump’s allies.
You may think this sounds paranoid. But whoever controls an algorithm-driven social media platform wields immense influence. The original TikTok ban was driven by fears that the Chinese government was manipulating the algorithm to shape American opinion before the election. Now, that same powerful algorithm could be in the hands of people financially and politically incentivized to root for Trump and the MAGA movement.
What’s happened at Twitter/X under Elon Musk is a clear warning. Since taking over, Musk has tilted the platform hard to the right. The algorithm now amplifies MAGA voices and sidelines traditional news sources. It’s simple: Elon supports Trump, Elon owns X, and X promotes pro-MAGA content.
Why wouldn’t we expect the same from TikTok if Trump’s allies take control?
And you thought that a Fascist takeover of the media would be difficult.
Stop and digest that: 300 new offices, 10,000 new storm troopers. Any concerns, Chris? LBR? Sarah?
These are perilous times. We can’t afford feckless (some possible synonyms: useless, worthless, incompetent, inefficient, ineffectual, counterproductive, good-for-nothing, ne’er-do-well, idle, slothful, indolent (I like that one), shiftless, spiritless (I prefer ‘soulless’), apathetic (feel free to drop the first ‘a’) representation in DC or in Dover. If you agree, run for something.
Sometimes, these Open Threads write themselves. Today is such a day. I hope that many of you reflect on just where we are now, and that you take action to stem the tide.
What do you want to talk about?
Since Trump is unlikely to win the Nobel Peace Prize, maybe they can placate him with a new Nobel Piece of Shit Prize. He’s a shoo-in.
I really want SNL to do an entire show of Trump impersonations where he just says actual stupid shit trump has said so when he yells and screams about it and wants them pulled from the air it’s nothing more than a news story with quotes
The REV’s Bunker Podcast endorses Adriana Leela Bohm for the SD 1 seat:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/e363-this-is-way-139184878?utm_campaign=patron_engagement&utm_source=post_link&post_id=139184878&utm_id=0e99103c-1ec8-4466-86b9-2b246f24896c&utm_medium=email
Apropos of today’s Open Thread theme, we need Delaware elected officials who will fight to keep Trump from running roughshod over our state. Better the fighter from the ACLU than the part-time corporate guy who lives, at best, part-time in the district.
FAR better, in fact.
We need to name names of the people on those Democratic committees who are working against the will of the people. Many of them are registered lobbyists and some of them are of the same family. Nearly all of them are lobbyists, registered or not. If they want to feel important then we should give them the attention they deserve. I’m not calling for doxxing but I am calling for transparency. And one thing that Evelyn Brady could do is propose that no registered lobbyist can be a voting member of these democratic committees.
Your description sounds like the RD 6 committee. Uber-lobbyists Bobby Byrd and Kim Gomes are on that one as are three (or is it four?) members of the same Delaware Way family.
I assume that this would disenfranchise lobbyists from Sierra Club, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, organized labor, etc., in addition to banks, polluters, AIPAC and mega-corporations. Is this the plan?
I don’t know how that breaks down by in-state v. out-of-state lobbyists, but this might not be the effect that you are going for.
Yes. That’s the plan.
I love the phrase “disenfranchise lobbyists” and I’ll steal it. Thanks for the contribution to the cause.
And while I like some of those organizations and causes, I still don’t think their lobbyists should be picking the elected officials that they will then lobby. Seems crooked to me but I understand you’re looking for human shields.
I am suggesting that there are bad lobbyists and good lobbyists (Dustyn Thompson from Sierra Club or James Wilson from Bike Delaware, for example) would be unable to serve on a committee. They are taking on issues that are valuable to our big D-Democratic values.
Whereas, the lobbyists for a polluter might be a Republican from DC. They don’t give a shit about trying to contribute to a more progressive Delaware politics. And a rule like this wouldn’t touch them in the least.
he principle at stake here is universality. Many progressive figures at the federal level (Senator Warren, for example) have drawn clear lines by refusing contributions from federal lobbyists, regardless of who their clients are. That standard exists for good reason.
Supporters, volunteers, and employees of various causes already have avenues to participate in the process and make their views heard. That doesn’t require committee seats for lobbyists themselves.
Committee membership is meant to represent tens of thousands of Democrats, yet too often it fails to do so. What happened in the 6th district is a prime example of how unrepresentative and damaging the process can be. If the party is as large and dynamic as it claims, there’s no shortage of qualified Democrats to fill seats without relying on entrenched lobbyists.
Excluding registered lobbyists from using party committees as a vehicle to install their preferred candidates is hardly radical. Membership in the Democratic Party should mean more than simply seeking proximity to power. Figures like Kim Gomes and Bobby Byrd illustrate the problem: they aren’t Democrats to advance the platform, they’re Democrats because it gives them access. The result is a system where politics is treated like a social club, not a movement.
Even candidates who may appear personable—like Dan Cruce, or previously Bethany Hall-Long—become favored precisely because they are seen as pliable, empty vessels. That dynamic serves lobbyists well but has failed Delaware. At some point, “business as usual” ceases to be tolerable.
Admittedly, this reform won’t be taken up easily. It threatens the interests of those most invested in keeping things the way they are. But the Democratic Party, in Delaware and nationally, cannot keep claiming to be the party of working people while tethering itself so tightly to commercial interests. It’s unlikely to change soon but it should.
Support for genocide even reaches Delaware. Looks like Trey Paradee, Bryan Shupe, Darius Brown, and Melissa Ross Levin, are out showing their support in Israel …. https://x.com/liorhaiat/status/1967923281962619318?s=46
Oh, yeah, we highlighted that a couple of days ago:
https://delawareliberal.net/2025/09/17/dl-open-thread-wednesday-september-17-2025/
Sarah McBride voted yes on this
https://apnews.com/article/charlie-kirk-congress-democrats-d081cf80ff514310f307590ff1d75f04
And
https://www.notus.org/house/house-passes-resolution-honoring-charlie-kirk-democrats-split
I saw a chart linked on social media but can’t find it in the wild.
.
I can’t even… WTAF
Sarah has been very unimpressive
What has she actually done. She seems like LBR Duce
Yeah, it’s centrism for centrism’s sake. Maybe she thinks that, considering how she’s treated by her Republican colleagues, she can win them over by being unthreatening.
Sadly, that never works. We don’t need another Coons.