Mark Brandriss

Hearings, subpoenas, votes that force Republicans to defend the indefensible, including impeachments of Trump and his criminals. It would be tragic if Democrats won the House and then said "impeachments are futile because the Senate won't convict anyone". Yesterday's grilling of Noem is encouraging.

We're at a strange juncture in history. Winning just a handful of seats in the midterms could bring Congress back into existence, like a ghost reclaiming human form. But it will only make a difference if Democrats do something with the powers they're granted.

For all practical purposes, Congress has ceased to exist. The only function they serve is to occasionally sign off on whatever the president wants. It's like the legislative body in a dictatorship, it exists strictly for show.

Thank you for your bluntness.

This is just a crazy level of combined incompetence and idiocy. Apparently not a single person involved in planning the debacle even thought of this.

She's sounding extremely Eichmann-ish. It's all about the efficient mass-disposal of human beings.

These are the seemingly normal people who turn out to be monsters when tested. 85 years ago, guys just like Bessent were saying "Gas chambers? Yes sir, right away sir, I'll call the contractors and make the arrangements."

Incompetence, idiocy, and callousness. It's exactly what we should expect from a president who left thousands of his own supporters stranded outdoors in bitterly cold weather after his campaign rallies.

They should all get together to decide on their lie, then stick with it.

"Just try it and see what happens." Words from my long-ago oxygen isotope lab mentor, on experimenting with new analytical techniques where the worst-case scenario was the loss of a few milligrams of rock sample. Good advice, but not for launching a war against Iran.

Possibility: he's still furious he didn't get a Nobel Peace Prize, so he's throwing a tantrum with bombs and missiles. After failing to receive the prize, he wrote to Norway's prime minister "I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace". Just killing people out of childish petulance.

This interpretation would be consistent with Trump's inability to provide any coherent rationale for the attack.

It's possible that Trump is attacking Iran because he's still furious about not getting a Nobel Peace Prize — a childish tantrum, but with bombs and missiles. After failing to receive the prize, he wrote to Norway's prime minister "I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace".

The Department of Labor: "Our Mission: To foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States." That's not something this administration actually wants do, so appointing a figurehead is intentional.

It makes sense that Trump's Labor Secretary intended to be nothing but a figurehead, since the Trump administration's goal is to dismantle government agencies rather than use them for their intended purposes.

If you replace "went on a popular vet podcast" with "said he was a longtime fan of a podcaster who frequently espouses antisemitic conspiracy theories", it makes more sense.

So, you're saying the president shouldn't do the exact opposite of what he promised to do in his campaign speeches? How dare you.

as always "how would the court rule on this case to maximally advance Republican interests" is a better barometer for SCOTUS' actions than "how should the law be reasonably applied based on past precedent"

If sets are unlimited, then my strategy is to continue playing until she decides to let me win a point so she can leave. I can probably speed it up by telling stupid jokes until she can't take it anymore.

In the course of three full sets, there's a finite chance that a huge bird could crash into Serena's face at the exact moment my serve clears the net. That's my strategy. Scoff if you want, but there are millions of huge birds swooping around at any given moment.

I think that means "our plan is to steal Iran's oil". Can anyone think of any other tangible feature of the Venezuela "plan"?

who made this

Okay, jumped the gun. Bolton is just opposed to THE WAY Trump is attacking Iran.

Tomorrow is another day!

My contempt for Donald Trump has no limits, the people who voted for him can interpret that however they want.

Translation: We have no plan, we're just winging it day-to-day based on President Trump's erratic whims.

The ultimate NYT Meaningless Tiny Non-Random Poll: we asked 6 Trump supporters in Texas how they feel about the attack on Iran!

John Bolton publicly declares his opposition to Trump's Iran war while the Democratic National Committee asks Trump for an explanation. Come on, DNC, just stand up for what's right. I promise you'll be richly rewarded by the electorate.

NYT today: "Trump Says War Could Last Weeks and Offers Contradictory Visions of New Regime". Good grief, just say it: "Trump Says War Could Last Weeks, Offers No Coherent Vision for Aftermath".

Statements like this do nothing more than reinforce the perception that Democrats are weak, ineffective, and utterly useless. Stop it! You sound pathetic! Democratic voters want leaders, not mealy-mouthed weaklings.