Scott Fenstermaker

Abby Elliott holy shit…

#ActorAwards

It was on a bullet about simplicity, and removing the unnecessary. I thought it had finally learned to be funny.

“By the time they see all the files, I will have brought peace in the Middle East, and no one will stop my legacy!!!”

“We’ll assassinate the dude, and then you guys do some shit.”

I think this was roughly the same level of thinking when we tried to give Castro an exploding cigar.

It used to be that the U.S. could claim, as a serious moral differentiator, that it attempts to avoid civilian casualties instead of maximizing them.

That’s was before we blew up a girls’ school.

“…well, I agree with his policy.”

His policy is to use American service members’ lives to dog-wag his way out of accountability for pedophilia.

If you support this, that’s what you’re supporting.

The outcomes are irrelevant when undertaken in manifest bad faith.

You go to war with the dog-wagging beshitted pedophile moron you have, not the dog-wagging beshitted pedophile moron you want.

Hahahahaha

Top officials of the Trump regime are not talking publicly about their war against Iran because they don't really give a crap what the American people think.

It’s probably the case that both parties historically enabled long-term leadership cliques until the Tea Party, when R ideologues started primarying institutionalists left and right.

Dems are more fractured, and so its harder to dislodge incumbents.

There may come accidental positive outcomes from this…

But the heart of what’s going on is that Netanyahu wants to avoid prison by cosplaying King David, and Trump wants to change the subject and erase the Obama administration by achieving “peace in the Middle East.”

No credit should accrue.

a man says there 's something very familiar about all this in front of a diner ALT: a man says there 's something very familiar about all this in front of a diner

“Preemptive” military operations
No coalition support
No Congressional declaration of war
No meaningful Congressional checks
No strategic military goals
No realistic succession plan
No exit strategy
No competent civilian military oversight
No competent Commander in Chief

If the executive operates in manifest bad faith, everything he does must be opposed whether you like the policy or not.

All positive outcomes are accidental byproduct of self-enrichment., and simply empower more bad faith.

He didn’t win two?

Would have also accepted “10-year-old gamer.”

Cool, cool.

“You have no curfew, son. Just tell me if you’re going to go out and drink.”

Here’s my theory on why no one should be on social media:

The people who I wouldn’t be without, like Dare, are people I would encourage to care for their mental health and well-being. Why subject yourself to invectives from morondom?

The people who I COULD do without can fuck off by definition.

Shouldn’t you have to approve and fund this shit?

Everyone who wants everything both ways: “Well, Trump is kinda not good but I like his policies…”

Once you are acting in manifest bad faith, it doesn’t fucking matter the outcome. You have any idea how many pesos Juan Peron gave to poor people?

I’ll do you one better: the U.S. gov’t is best understood as an enormous risk mitigation apparatus for risks too big for the lower levels: defense, elderly health, inflation, cyber threat, etc.

When you dismantle it to unify the executive, all the risks start mutually amplifying. That’s this.

Conservatives in the U.S., contrary to their own narrative, have never changed.

They are simply operating under a more authentic brand.

🎯

Exactly right.

All the more reason to believe Trump wants the operation, or the resulting empowerment that might accrue to him, in time for the election.

Highly likely. Easiest move that doesn’t involve handing it back to a different Ayatollah.

Charlie Kirk called it insane precisely because he thought it more likely from a Democratic administration.

Had Trump campaigned on war with Iran, Kirk would have been his most vocal supporter.

Republican. Noun:

2006: “one who breaks the government to run on how broken it is”

2026: “one whose leader has to be a pedophile before they withdraw support, and not even then”

One thing is highly probable: when Trump starts interfering with elections, it will be on the states grounds of preventing interference.

With Rs, every accusation is a projection.

Example: Trump tries having OFAC designate major Dem PACs for asset freezing, on the grounds that they receive funds from Palestinian activists, which in some cases they can demonstrate may originate from Iran.

Crazy, yes. Partisan, yes. But SCOTUS could easily slow-walk review if it wanted.

If Trump decides to assume some kind of war or emergency power to influence the midterms, it’s important to note that time is on his side.

Power assumptions depend on interpretations. Even if enjoined, SCOTUS could lift it on the Shadow Docket and simply slow-walk the underlying case.