This is fucking creepy no matter what.

If it’s true, it’s creepy.

I don’t think it’s true though, which in a way is even creepier.

The basic problem here is that this whole western fascist, white-supremacist technofeudalism thing is entirely divorced from reality. There’s no logic, no morality, no philosophy - nothing but emotive gibberish slaved to the shallow self-interest of lunatics. So they just spew whatever lunatic garbage they spew, because their brains are broken and they can’t do anything else, and their followers just sop it up, because their brains are also broken and they can’t do anything else either.

There’s much to criticize about past ideologies and religions (which IMO are just two variations on the same basic theme). They did a lot of harm and included a lot of stupidity and lunacy, but at least they made an effort to have some sort of moral and/or logical underpinnings - to have something solid around which they were built.

This one though? There’s nothing at all there. There’s no central philosophy - no underlying morality - nothing. There’s just gibberish and poison and junk and sludge. And the broken-brained assholes spewing it and the broken-brained assholes sopping it up.

And the rest of us, unable to even wrap our heads around the sheer scale of the lunacy, scrolling day after day in a constant state of “What the fucking fuck?!”

This is a perfect moment to note:

Unlike socialism or capitalism, fascism does not stipulate a specific economic system. However, there are some qualities that are consistently found under fascist systems, chief among which are a sort of “revolving door” between government and business, such that leaders in one field exert influence or even hold positions in the other as well, the (not coincidental) broad concept that what’s good for business is automatically good for the country, and the socialization of investment, risk and loss, while keeping profits entirely private.

Or in other words, exactly what’s happening here.

With Trump taking the spoiled child lead.

Though that’s a role he plays every day.

Another day, another tantrum from the Toddler-in-Chief.

He really should actually be a great big baby in a saggy diaper, sitting in a high chair with a big sippy cup of Diet Coke and a bunch of blocks to make ballrooms and arches out of, alternately stuffing hamburgers in his face, wailing and crying and saying things like, “But I want Greenland!” and “Stephen Colbert is a big fat meanie!” pooping in his already stinky diaper and randomly falling asleep.

So pretty much exactly like he is now, just without the suit.

And certainly you can trust the word of a grossly unqualified sycophant.

Thanks I guess for providing an example of one of the ways in which humanity needs to grow the fuck up - reach a point at which we generally actually think about things that people actually say rather than just being bitter slaves to our preconceptions and prejudices.

Hopefully your kids will do a better job of it. Or maybe their kids.

This neatly illustrates why I’m an anarchist - because institutionalized authority has made it such that the United States - a nation of 340 million people - is engaged in overtly destructive and internationally criminal violence and brutality not because the people have demanded it or even desired it, but because a handful of fucking psychopathic pieces of shit have managed to fight and claw and wheedle and lie their ways into positions from which they have the authority to make it so.

And that is, by any reasonable measure, insane.

Any system that allows for such a thing rather obviously should not exist. And that the United States, with its intricate system of checks and balances and its guaranteed freedoms and its strictly mandated adherence to the rule of law could reach this point clearly demonstrates that the problem is not how authority is institutionalized but merely if it is. If it is, then it can be, and sooner or later will be, abused for the questionable benefit of a few and to the detriment of all the rest of the world.

So it quite simply cannot be institutionalized. That’s the only sane approach.

So all that’s left is to wait for humanity to grow the fuck up - to evolve psychologically, sociologically and philosophically to the point that they no longer have or feel a need to have some institutional mommy and daddy to tell them how to and how not to behave.

Maybe in another few centuries…

When IDF soldiers were accused of gang-raping Palestinian prisoners, people staged protests and politicians gave speeches in support of the soldiers. And not with the position that the soldiers didn’t do it, but that the soldiers acted within their rights when they did.

That says everything anyone needs to know about the Israeli attitude toward the sexual assault of non-Israelis.

What’s a “Carrington” or a “Robinson” in the first place?

I wouldn’t presume to speak for anyone else, but I’m a human, and I thought the rest of us were too.

I don’t think whether or not they’re “good” people and the clients they end up representing have anything to do with each other.

It’s just a part of their job that they end up sometimes representing people who are charged with, and potentially even obviously guilty of, heinous crimes.

And their code of ethics specifically demands that they do their best to represent their client’s interests regardless of any and all other considerations.

So even just there, it could be the case that one defense attorney is a vile scumbag who gets off on the idea of freeing obvious criminals and it could just as easily be the case that another defense attorney is a veritable saint who sincerely believes that all people are fundamentally good and that it’s their purpose in life to help anyone who needs it, no matter who or what they’re deemed to be.

Both of those things undoubtedly exist, and pretty much any position one might imagine between the two, so I don’t think there’s any way to correlate who they represent and their own qualities.

Now all that said, I certainly couldn’t do what they do, and specifically because I couldn’t effectively represent someone who was certainly guilty. But that’s just me.

Funny how the Republicans, after four years of posing as the conscience of government, have gone completely silent on the subject of corruption.

Think it might be because their Republican president is already far and away the most corrupt president in US history, and likely at least in the running for the most corrupt national leader in human history?

IMO literally took his place.

My theory is that the DNC and the Dem establishment, in order to ensure that they can mouth leftist platitudes without the risk of actually advancing leftist interests and thereby alienating their big money donors, always have at least one or two ringers - people who, for one reason or another (most likely because they’re bribeable and bribed or extortable and extorted) can be counted on to, when necessary, cast the vote(s) that ensure that the Republicans don’t quite lose.

So Fetterman, just like Manchin (and Sinema) before him, is doing exactly what he’s supposed to do.

No.

My immediate reaction is that if it’s not genuinely sincere, it’s meaningless.

It doesn’t really matter if that’s true or not - the mere fact that that was my first reaction means that it’s a doubt that would continue to haunt me, and that’s more than enough of a problem all by itself.

Tyrants don’t come to power by mandating submission. They come to power by criminalizing dissent.

Quite seriously, as someone caring for a parent with dementia, that’s entirely typical behavior.

Well… you know… except the scale is a bit different for someone who isn’t the fucking president.

I just don’t make u-turns at busy intersections, specifically because they’re problematic.

If I need to go back the way I just came, I make a left into a parking lot, turn around there, then pull back out onto the street, or if that’s not possible, I simply go around the block.

My view is that doing unnecessary things that interrupt the flow of traffic is always a bad idea.

Of course. Gambling is a hallmark of civilizations in decline.

The Polymarket thing is a bit different though. It’s built on a foundation of saps hoping to strike it big, but it promarily benefits insiders, who are turning their knowledge into financial windfalls.

Just another of the privileges afforded the wealthy and empowered few.

Absolutely not - it’s a good idea

It would be a 2:1 ratio of kidney beans to black beans.

Perfect.

The Toddler-in-chief threatening to throw an apocalyptic tantrum over something that he fucked up in the first place.

He not only needs to be removed from office - he needs to be on a psych hold. He’s deranged and dangerous.

Methinks they doth protest too much

It’s increasingly obvious that the classified dicuments thing wasn’t just an oversight or even merely an attempt to profit, but a significant and almost certainly treasonous criminal act with sufficient evidence that they have no hope of fighting it, so can only try to bury it.