This administration seems to be “playing government”, like little kids “play house”. Assuming a role without understanding what the role actually is, using words they’ve heard the grownups use without knowing what they mean, declaring new rules whenever they don’t like how the game is going.
I just hope the grownups come back before the kids burn the house down completely.
I once got scammed out of $350 for some speakers sold out of the back of a van, in traffic. I could not admit it for years. I kept pretending they were great, even in front of my audio engineer friends.
How do we bring our friends who got politically scammed, in from the cold? We all get scammed sometimes.
It's not very hard to admit when we're wrong. Some even consider it a power. From my experience working with Americans, you often have to drag them kicking and screaming to have any humility, let alone have them admit when they are categorically wrong.
Perhaps this cultural trait is one of the major reasons why the US is in the situation it's in.
> It's not very hard to admit when we're wrong. Some even consider it a power.
I consider it one my super powers. I am a big guy, and I've been told that I speak somewhat authoritatively in-person, even when I may have no business doing so. I don't mean it, but that's how I come off to people apparently.
Seeing the look in peoples' eyes when I readily admit ignorance or fault is lovely. I think I see a sign of relief. It has opened doors for me.
But being scammed... oof... that's a whole other thing that makes me feel emasculated as hell. I would prefer to never mention it anyone, thank you very much.
I am not saying this proudly, it's just my honest self-reflection. I get the feeling that I am not alone in this.
Nice try. Maybe when Democrats decide to uphold their own values and defend the working class, people will come back in from the cold. Until then, burning it all down is perfectly understandable. Betrayal stings and vengeance sometimes takes the form of scorched earth. At least with the Republican Party people know what they're getting.
As long as the Democratic Party keeps its current shape, people will continue to distrust it.
Thanks, wish I could say the same to you my friend.
What does the Democratic party have to do with the current US government, when the other party controls all three branches of the federal government? Unless I am misreading you, this seems like a complete non-sequitur.
Oh boy! As someone from another democracy (so far) who saw it happen exactly like this slightly over a decade ago, I'd say your Democratic Party has everything to do with it (just like our own equivalent). Republicans didn't win; Democrats handed that win on a platter, and that too when they had seen it play out once already just one term ago!
This is the kind of politely dismissive language that pushes the other side even further :)
Republicans won because Democrats sold out, and Americans feeling hurt by the powers that be would rather throw a wrench in the works (or a hand grenade in the case of Donald Trump) than keep voting Democrat
I agree that the establishment Dems would rather risk a Trump, than a Sanders. The fact that any of them have the gall to show their faces after the last 20 years of meh/pure failure is astounding. Where is the project 2028 plan? Crickets.
I would also like to point out that everyone else fell for anti-woke (McCarthyism spelled differently), fReE SpEaCh!, and Haitians eating your pets. So yeah, it's 100% the Dems' fault cause Genocide Joe!
The sooner we all admit that we are all easily programmed meat machines, myself included, the sooner we can move beyond the current insanity.
We all got played. Let's all admit it together. Is that really too much to ask?
I beg to differ. Far from claiming "both sides" or some similar malarkey: yet we are all humans, we all have our triggers, we are all easily fooled. This is as close to enlightenment as I will ever get.
If we cannot even admit this commonality, then we will continue to be divided and concurred by certifiable idiots.
> If we cannot even admit this commonality, then we will continue to be divided and concurred by certifiable idiots.
To continue my thought, we aren't all the same because:
1. Some can admit that they've been played, some can't.
2. Some think that fooling is easy to do, others are aware of the amount of effort and money thrown into it.
3. Some understand that people are different, some don't and hope for an imaginary uniform response.
> Far from claiming "both sides" or some similar malarkey
The question is, can the evidence for that be ignored as "malarkey" without careful investigation? Is there any rational basis for such an approach?
Outwardly, the two sides are not the same, they act according to different and rather rigid programs. However, before counting the number of bugs in each and assessing their scope, we can't claim that the sides are materially different.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have been spending a lot of time thinking about this. I have personal opinions/biases on all of this, and it seems to be the issue of our time.
There was a quote from a Montenegrin political blog-spammer back in 2015-2016 that has been stuck in my mind ever since. He lived in this village full of other nerds, and they made money by getting clicks based on political posts aimed at the USA, as that was where the adsense money was best. The village had a crazy amount of nice cars, and that brought international journalist interest. In an interview, the guy said "The Trump people are great, they will literally believe anything. The Sanders people are annoying, because they always want sources." Don't shoot the messenger, that was the reporting.
Back then, I was not very charitable on the topic. Later, I saw this happen in my own family. Even later, on the other side, I saw "genocide Joe" people on the left, under utterly insane banners like "trans jihad." I then became more charitable towards all people who had fallen under the spell of propaganda.
The right in the USA is objectively entirely off the rails, 100% vibes, no sources. Every single talking point turns out to be a lie after you do 5 seconds of research. But the voters believe that they are protecting their families, maybe they are fed shit like "Haitians are eating your pets," but they are being played by assholes appealing to their misguided protective instincts.
But, even young trans Americans can get talked into thinking that they support "jihad" by some Twitch streamer, and not vote at all...? That's the kind of anti-self interest voting pattern that I had always only assigned to to right! Except in the Genocide Joe/Trans Jihad case, it's far worse!
Well, that's when I affirmed my belief that we are all easily programmed meat machines, across the board. Some more easily than others, some for noble reasons (based on my beliefs), and many more for dark reasons... but man, I am going to try to bring us all back together every chance I get. I won't get everyone, I might not get anyone, but even getting a single person to stop and think is worth a thousand typed comments.
It's how we got here. We had four years to know who Trump is. We (collectively) voted for him anyway. Why? At least partly because the Democrats have totally abandoned being the party of the working class.
Their message for the last ten years (plus or minus some) has been that if you think that an unborn baby deserves legal protection, if you don't think that trans people belong in womens' restrooms and on womens' sports teams, if you don't think that gay marriage is a good idea, then you are an irredeemable moral leper, and their goal is a complete destruction of your culture. If you're, say, poor and white and blue-collar, they still are totally against you, even though you're the people that they have, historically, represented.
A bunch of those people voted for Trump (or didn't vote at all), knowing what Trump was. They voted for the guy who at least pretended to care about them.
And, really, why did they expect a different outcome?
That's what the Democratic Party has to do with the current US government. Them abandoning their core constituency is a critical enabling step for us to be where we are.
Does that make it all their fault? No. But wow, did they ever bungle both the 2016 and 2024 campaigns.
> Their message for the last ten years (plus or minus some) has been that if you think that an unborn baby deserves legal protection, if you don't think that trans people belong in womens' restrooms and on womens' sports teams, if you don't think that gay marriage is a good idea, then you are an irredeemable moral leper, and their goal is a complete destruction of your culture. If you're, say, poor and white and blue-collar, they still are totally against you, even though you're the people that they have, historically, represented.
The opposite of your point is that I recall the GOP frequently calling anyone in favor of abortions murderers, people who are gay or transgender pedophiles and that non-whites are destroying our nation. This isn't even a recent phenomenon either, this was all stuff I heard decades ago just slightly less overt.
Mind you, I don't disagree that the Democratic Party is a complete waste, because they are. But you're arguing simultaneously that they had toxic core principles which alienated their voting base, but the reality is that they've never had any principles at all. They've had no issue for as long as I've been alive negotiating and watering down their platform into absolutely nothing for the sake of trying to cater to the people who vote for the GOP which is the actual reason why we're here today. And their plans for the future mostly involve doing the same thing: making concessions on abortion, throwing minorities under the bus etc for the sake of trying to appeal to people that will sooner vote for Bootstomper Jr provided that they make a pinky promise that they won't stomp on their head too hard.
> The opposite of your point is that I recall the GOP frequently calling anyone in favor of abortions murderers, people who are gay or transgender pedophiles and that non-whites are destroying our nation. This isn't even a recent phenomenon either, this was all stuff I heard decades ago just slightly less overt.
Yes, and they attract independent voters with that. (Though a big reason is that the GOP has exceptional information dominance - they can convince a large part of the public of whatever they want to say; the Dems are effectively silenced.)
> At least partly because the Democrats have totally abandoned being the party of the working class.
Who do the Dems represent? Milquetoast moderates who favor hiding their heads in the sand rather than address critical issues like freedom, democracy, rule of law, hate, disinformation, tech, etc ... ?
The Democrats are so afraid of conflict that they stand for nothing (quick, name what they stand for) - so afraid that the attack members of their own party, progressives, who fight for anything. So they are left with the above demographic, and with weak support from them because, it turns out, cowardice and ineffectiveness doesn't inspire people. And they get votes from people whose dislike of the GOP is enough that they'll vote for the Dems regardless.
They are also absurdly ineffective at communication. They can't even overcome the people who say Dems are child molesters and Obama was from Kenya. I read that a Dem Congressional livestream about the shutdown peaked at 1,000 (one thousand) viewers. :D
In the NY Times in recent days is a debate over what milquetoast policies will win a few extra percent of the vote - they say that moderation is the way! The Dem elite don't realize that the problem isn't policy - Trump does great with all-time bad, all-time extreme policy - the problem is them.
> At least partly because the Democrats have totally abandoned being the party of the working class.
What would it take for the Democrats to become the party of the working class? Do you think raising the minimum wage, universal pre-k and childcare, paid family and medical leave, ACA expansion, etc. are working class policies?
Either Republicans must be the party of the working class or being "pro working class" isn't necessary to win the elections. Which one is it?
> A bunch of those people voted for Trump (or didn't vote at all), knowing what Trump was. They voted for the guy who at least pretended to care about them.
Tons of farmers, small business owners, federal workers, women who believed IVF would be free would disagree with you on the first part. And for the "pretend" part, you mean lie, right? So do you think Democrats need to start outright lying?
All context and legal implications aside, this is just so embarrassing for Lindsey. The screenshots of the texts would be hard to read if they weren't so funny.
I do wonder how Signal deleting the texts automatically would be interpreted in a legal context.
Presumably the "case" was shopped around to various attorneys, until they finally found one who agreed to move forward with it. That she had never prosecuted a case before is probably just a coincidence.
I think that Halligan thinks that Anna Bower wrote the NYT piece she was commenting on. Our only hope really is that these people are too incompetent to actually do the whole dictatorship thing very effectively.
(The Thick of It, by Armando Ianucci - also the creator of Veep with Julia Louis-Dreyfus - is a political satire TV series about bumbling government employees).
I don't get it. The Trumpsters play it like it's already a dictatorship. You can't threaten the press like this so soon. That only works when you have a firm grip on power and a credible history of jailing and exiling journalists.
It's like she watched Hegseth drunk texting in Signalgate and thought, "which journalist could I add on Signal".
> The Trumpsters play it like it's already a dictatorship
I feel like a lot of them genuinely think that we’re past the point of no return and they will experience no repercussions. I’d have expected Halligan to have a different view given her legal training, but…
What does that "point of return" look like, and who's going to actually enforce it? The regime has ignored courts' orders... I feel like only a military coup can actually do anything now.
Because I expect the 2026 or 2028 elections to be held more with Russian, Turkish, or Hungarian standards rather than 80's Hollywood movie idea of America's standard. The Dems and courts are going to cry foul, and the regime will just laugh at their faces and continue to rule.
For what it is worth, this weekend was roughly the 7th or 8th peaceful protest I have attended so far this year. It was the first in which I did not directly see a government employee firing something at a peaceful protester.
I hope there'll be enough military service people who'll defy unlawful orders, but I fear they have "Follow your superiors" drilled into them from the very start.
I remember reading on forums a decade or two ago comments by some Americans who believed in their exceptionalism, that they would never be like Nazi soldiers who just followed orders...
Well, the resistance at his point is the Admiral in charge of Southern Command resigning.
Below is a video from an F-14 REO, and previous Fox News contributor, Ward Carroll. He explains exactly why Holsey resigned.
TL:DW; (But do watch!) Admiral Holsey protested to Secretary of War, Hegseth, that these killings broke all rules, and he would not stay on to follow illegal orders.
I always wondered about these things. On the one hand, Admiral Holsey keeps his honor and his resignation puts the spotlight on Trumps corruption and lawlessness.
On the other hand, isn't this a weeding mechanism? Eventually one will be promoted until one is found which is loyal only to MAGA and Trump, not the Constitution.
I recommend watching that video in full. Ward is true patriot to the US Constitution. He swore an oath and appears to be carrying through. He covers all possible responses that an officer has when given orders.
The percentage of the US population that voted for Trump went up roughly half a percentage point from 2020 to 2024 and most of American society has responded as if that makes him a permanent dictator. And it isn’t just his supporters, most Democratic politicians and ostensibly apolitical corporations are behaving that way too. I don’t get it.
I don't think that people are afraid that he will become a dictator because of his popular support so much as because no one is standing up to his abuse of power.
There's also the fact that MAGA is putting their thumb more and more on the election scales. I'm already not sure I think the next election will be fair considering how much MAGA has cheated already.
>I don't think that people are afraid that he will become a dictator because of his popular support so much as because no one is standing up to his abuse of power.
This is frustratingly self-reinforcing. Why is "no one... standing up to his abuse"? Because "no one is standing up to his abuse".
It's trendy on the left, including among leaders, to resign, to talk about being powerlessness and afraid, etc. Today's NY Times had an article interviewing pro-Palestinian protestors mostly saying it.
What a bunch of losers. And who would support them? Who is going to advocate for people who won't advocate for themselves?
Have you ever heard a leader talk like that? Is that what they remember Churchill saying, standing alone against the Germans? MLK facing the overwhelming racist power structure, law enforcement, etc.? Washington at Valley Forge - 'to my soldiers, I feel really hopeless. The Brits are the most powerful military in the world and we're just a ragtag, irregular local force. There's nothing we can do. I'm going to resign, cross the Delaware, and return to my farm to wait out the war with my family.'
It’s not entirely without reason. Just look at the electoral map proposed in NC: Trump won 51% of the vote, the GOP will be set to control over 80% of the NC House. And the Supreme Court gives permission to do whatever.
You’re right to call out Democrats too. It baffles me. Like Trump destroying the East wing of the White House. Universally not popular (not necessarily unpopular with all but no one is cheering it). Where are the press conferences being held outside to highlight it and show the people how little regard Trump has for the “People’s House”. It’s an easy lay up.
>> Where are the press conferences being held outside to highlight it and show the people how little regard Trump has for the “People’s House”. It’s an easy lay up.
Its also largely irrelevant. Maybe the left is starting to focus on stuff that matters instead of just trying to create outrage?
> Maybe the left is starting to focus on stuff that matters instead of just trying to create outrage?
The rule of law, democracy, freedom, justice - these things don't matter? They not only matter, they are the foundations of the U.S. and have inspired people for centuries, all over the world. Only the Democratic Party could fail to sell them to the public - they couldn't give candy to a baby.
It’s a thing people care about when they’re shown it. Showing it to more people means more people feel negatively about Trump. If you oppose Trump, that’s a good thing.
It’s possible to overthink politics sometimes. No one is saying “ugh, why are people pointing out that Trump is destroying the White House?”. It’s obvious why.
> most Democratic politicians and ostensibly apolitical corporations are behaving that way too. I don’t get it.
If the group in charge has made their dictatorial ambitions clear, the only rational approach for the opposition to take is to treat that seriously. Do we just pretend like they're kidding?
Try reading the whole sentence next time. I specifically chose to not use the percentage of votes cast because inconsistent turnout changes the denominator in a way that can be misleading. The numbers you cited imply that Trump got more popular, but the actual reason he won in 2024 instead of losing like 2020 is because his opponent was less popular. If you look at the number of votes Trump received, his 2020 and 2024 totals are incredibly close after accounting for population growth. That is why I explicitly phrased my comment in terms of "The percentage of the US population that voted for Trump".
> The percentage of the US population that voted for Trump went up roughly half a percentage point from 2020 to 2024 and most of American society has responded as if that makes him a permanent dictator. And it isn’t just his supporters, most Democratic politicians and ostensibly apolitical corporations are behaving that way too. I don’t get it.
People are fighting it, but it's not being covered. For example, the fact that legal cases are in the courts at all is because a bunch of Attorney Generals from many states were working together to file them even before Trump got elected. How big were the protests this last weekend near you? Were they covered at all? etc.
But that kind of stuff is boring--no engagement metric inflation here; so no coverage.
Perhaps now that government is actually shut down people will start paying attention. But I doubt it ...
Agreed that it's generally intended to be condescending, but when the rest of the comment is reasonable I'll assume good faith; maybe the person has seen it used elsewhere and doesn't realize how it comes across. Or maybe they even know its condescending, but not that it undermines their other points. Either way I felt a bit of push-back couldn't hurt.
As someone who has spent decades having written conversations on the internet, it really seems like basic reading comprehension skills have plummeted recently. It's frustrating how many responses are replying to some objectively incorrect reading of what was written.
Here's the definition of "ostensibly"[1].
>in a way that appears or claims to be one thing when it is really something else
The correct reading of "ostensibly apolitical corporations" is "corporations that claim to be apolitical but in reality aren't". Not only is it not an indication of naïveté, it is closer to the exact opposite.
In her defense, she's an insurance lawyer who got onto Trump's good side by bad-mouthing how woke The Smithsonian is. She doesn't exactly have a depth of criminal justice experience to draw from.
It’s a commitment device: if the only way you’ll stay out of jail is if Trump is elected, you do anything you can, break any laws, whatever, to get Trump elected.
This entire admin functions like giving the worst posters on a forum unbridled power. The only thing they care about is owning their perceived enemies. When you look at it that way, the fact that all of them behave like children and make the dumbest decisions possible all make sense.
What's cause and what's effect there? The fact that they have the emotional (and sometimes intellectual) intelligence of 6 years olds means what they mostly care about is the "pwnage"...
It's bizarre to me how many professionals turn into raving idiots working for the Trump movement. Look at Gulianni, and many more who have filed error-riddled court cases and made absurd arguments.
There is something politically tactical about making extreme claims - it shifts norms, signals extremism to followers, etc. - but why shoot yourself in the foot like Halligan and many others?
This is an administration of Karens (sorry if your name is actually Karen). They want to bitch and moan about perceived injustices and have been given an immense power to prosecute those "injustices", regardless of justification. The people who are supposed to reign in those actions have abdicated responsibility in its entirety.
The problem with Russia gate is that even if it was fabricated by the FBI as partisan politics, prosecuting the guilty will look like partisan politics from the other side.
The crux of it is that it was extremely unusual that it even happened and then that the messages have a cringe level of circular nonsense replies from Halligan. The contents are almost irrelevant - it's her overall behavior that raises questions. There are many many worse things happening in his administration, this is just a data point for understanding their intellects.
It's not that there's a single money shot message, it's that the conversation throughout is just stuff that no normal prosecutor would ever say anything but "no comment" about in regard to an active case.
The prosecutor is not supposed to be disclosing information from the grand jury, and then spends a shockingly long signal thread talking on record with a journalist that constantly implicitly discusses/confirms information they aren't supposed to be talking about at all.
It doesn't reach the same level as the Hegseth Signal leak, but it's really bizarre stuff.
> It doesn't reach the same level as the Hegseth Signal leak, but it's really bizarre stuff.
A lot like Signalgate, it's the fact of the messages as much as (if not more) than the messages themselves that matter. It demonstrates unprofessional behavior. In Signalgate, discussing what should have been classified details in an inappropriate forum and without ensuring only authorized people were present (still wrong to use Signal, but at least not broadcast to a journalist). In this case, just everything about it is unprofessional. Reaching out to a reporter who highlighted details from other reports asking her to correct details but not saying what should be corrected. None of it is professional and the "it was all off the record" at the end is a comical display of incompetence. This is sitcom stuff, but real life.
Prosecutors talk about their cases all the time. They hold press conferences and everything.
I don't think these messages are all that unusual. Well usually they have the sense to go off the record at he beginning instead of the end. But off the record complaints about reporting doesn't seem out of the ordinary.
Prosecutors talk about cases all the time. But they specifically don't talk about matters occurring before a grand jury because it's illegal for them to do so. Grand jury secrecy means they are supposed to never disclose what happened inside the grand jury room even after the case has concluded.
It is not illegal for witnesses to disclose things from their own testimony. But in this conversation, Halligan is directly commenting on things disclosed by other parties thus making indirect disclosures of her own by implication.
It's incredibly risky ground to be treading, that she is doing for no apparent reason, having reached out to a reporter who wasn't even actively reporting on the case. It's pretty wtf.
This administration seems to be “playing government”, like little kids “play house”. Assuming a role without understanding what the role actually is, using words they’ve heard the grownups use without knowing what they mean, declaring new rules whenever they don’t like how the game is going.
I just hope the grownups come back before the kids burn the house down completely.
The grownups have left the building, and the brats have guns.
You thought politicians were bad? We gave TV personalities the nuclear codes! But hey, woke is dead!?
Actual photo of the historic East Wing of the White House today: https://i.redd.it/vchtk38rijwf1.jpeg
___
I once got scammed out of $350 for some speakers sold out of the back of a van, in traffic. I could not admit it for years. I kept pretending they were great, even in front of my audio engineer friends.
How do we bring our friends who got politically scammed, in from the cold? We all get scammed sometimes.
It's not very hard to admit when we're wrong. Some even consider it a power. From my experience working with Americans, you often have to drag them kicking and screaming to have any humility, let alone have them admit when they are categorically wrong.
Perhaps this cultural trait is one of the major reasons why the US is in the situation it's in.
> It's not very hard to admit when we're wrong. Some even consider it a power.
I consider it one my super powers. I am a big guy, and I've been told that I speak somewhat authoritatively in-person, even when I may have no business doing so. I don't mean it, but that's how I come off to people apparently.
Seeing the look in peoples' eyes when I readily admit ignorance or fault is lovely. I think I see a sign of relief. It has opened doors for me.
But being scammed... oof... that's a whole other thing that makes me feel emasculated as hell. I would prefer to never mention it anyone, thank you very much.
I am not saying this proudly, it's just my honest self-reflection. I get the feeling that I am not alone in this.
Nice try. Maybe when Democrats decide to uphold their own values and defend the working class, people will come back in from the cold. Until then, burning it all down is perfectly understandable. Betrayal stings and vengeance sometimes takes the form of scorched earth. At least with the Republican Party people know what they're getting.
As long as the Democratic Party keeps its current shape, people will continue to distrust it.
> Nice try.
Thanks, wish I could say the same to you my friend.
What does the Democratic party have to do with the current US government, when the other party controls all three branches of the federal government? Unless I am misreading you, this seems like a complete non-sequitur.
> What does the Democratic party have to do with the current US government
Murc's Law - The widespread assumption that only Democrats have any agency or causal influence over American politics.
Oh boy! As someone from another democracy (so far) who saw it happen exactly like this slightly over a decade ago, I'd say your Democratic Party has everything to do with it (just like our own equivalent). Republicans didn't win; Democrats handed that win on a platter, and that too when they had seen it play out once already just one term ago!
This is the kind of politely dismissive language that pushes the other side even further :)
Republicans won because Democrats sold out, and Americans feeling hurt by the powers that be would rather throw a wrench in the works (or a hand grenade in the case of Donald Trump) than keep voting Democrat
At least that's my interpretation
I agree that the establishment Dems would rather risk a Trump, than a Sanders. The fact that any of them have the gall to show their faces after the last 20 years of meh/pure failure is astounding. Where is the project 2028 plan? Crickets.
I would also like to point out that everyone else fell for anti-woke (McCarthyism spelled differently), fReE SpEaCh!, and Haitians eating your pets. So yeah, it's 100% the Dems' fault cause Genocide Joe!
The sooner we all admit that we are all easily programmed meat machines, myself included, the sooner we can move beyond the current insanity.
We all got played. Let's all admit it together. Is that really too much to ask?
> The sooner we all admit that we are all easily programmed meat machines
All is big word and needs to be used properly, like - we are not all the same.
> the sooner we can move beyond the current insanity.
To where? Historically it's been, meet the new insanity the same as the old insanity.
> We all got played. Let's all admit it together. Is that really too much to ask?
Before, after or without an admission, those who did get played together with those who didn't, would be entitled to ask "And then what?"
> we are not all the same.
I beg to differ. Far from claiming "both sides" or some similar malarkey: yet we are all humans, we all have our triggers, we are all easily fooled. This is as close to enlightenment as I will ever get.
If we cannot even admit this commonality, then we will continue to be divided and concurred by certifiable idiots.
> If we cannot even admit this commonality, then we will continue to be divided and concurred by certifiable idiots.
To continue my thought, we aren't all the same because:
1. Some can admit that they've been played, some can't.
2. Some think that fooling is easy to do, others are aware of the amount of effort and money thrown into it.
3. Some understand that people are different, some don't and hope for an imaginary uniform response.
> Far from claiming "both sides" or some similar malarkey
The question is, can the evidence for that be ignored as "malarkey" without careful investigation? Is there any rational basis for such an approach?
Outwardly, the two sides are not the same, they act according to different and rather rigid programs. However, before counting the number of bugs in each and assessing their scope, we can't claim that the sides are materially different.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have been spending a lot of time thinking about this. I have personal opinions/biases on all of this, and it seems to be the issue of our time.
There was a quote from a Montenegrin political blog-spammer back in 2015-2016 that has been stuck in my mind ever since. He lived in this village full of other nerds, and they made money by getting clicks based on political posts aimed at the USA, as that was where the adsense money was best. The village had a crazy amount of nice cars, and that brought international journalist interest. In an interview, the guy said "The Trump people are great, they will literally believe anything. The Sanders people are annoying, because they always want sources." Don't shoot the messenger, that was the reporting.
Back then, I was not very charitable on the topic. Later, I saw this happen in my own family. Even later, on the other side, I saw "genocide Joe" people on the left, under utterly insane banners like "trans jihad." I then became more charitable towards all people who had fallen under the spell of propaganda.
The right in the USA is objectively entirely off the rails, 100% vibes, no sources. Every single talking point turns out to be a lie after you do 5 seconds of research. But the voters believe that they are protecting their families, maybe they are fed shit like "Haitians are eating your pets," but they are being played by assholes appealing to their misguided protective instincts.
But, even young trans Americans can get talked into thinking that they support "jihad" by some Twitch streamer, and not vote at all...? That's the kind of anti-self interest voting pattern that I had always only assigned to to right! Except in the Genocide Joe/Trans Jihad case, it's far worse!
Well, that's when I affirmed my belief that we are all easily programmed meat machines, across the board. Some more easily than others, some for noble reasons (based on my beliefs), and many more for dark reasons... but man, I am going to try to bring us all back together every chance I get. I won't get everyone, I might not get anyone, but even getting a single person to stop and think is worth a thousand typed comments.
> but they are being played by assholes appealing to their misguided protective instincts.
Underestimating "protective instincts" is the political kiss of death.
And it doesn't matter in the slightest if they're misguided or not.
>But, even young trans Americans can get talked into thinking that they support "jihad" by some Twitch streamer, and not vote at all...?
The point wasn't to convince young trans Americans to jihad instead of vote.
The entire point all along, was to convince you, the vooter, how thit is exactly what's going on.
And thus, that you've cracked the code correctly; you've outsmarted that damn television set and all it stands for!
Then, you are expected to realize, under your own initiative, that you're on a life mission to "bring us all back together" (i.e. another jihad).
And indeed, that's great for us. Just not for yall.
Viva Montenegro.
It's how we got here. We had four years to know who Trump is. We (collectively) voted for him anyway. Why? At least partly because the Democrats have totally abandoned being the party of the working class.
Their message for the last ten years (plus or minus some) has been that if you think that an unborn baby deserves legal protection, if you don't think that trans people belong in womens' restrooms and on womens' sports teams, if you don't think that gay marriage is a good idea, then you are an irredeemable moral leper, and their goal is a complete destruction of your culture. If you're, say, poor and white and blue-collar, they still are totally against you, even though you're the people that they have, historically, represented.
A bunch of those people voted for Trump (or didn't vote at all), knowing what Trump was. They voted for the guy who at least pretended to care about them.
And, really, why did they expect a different outcome?
That's what the Democratic Party has to do with the current US government. Them abandoning their core constituency is a critical enabling step for us to be where we are.
Does that make it all their fault? No. But wow, did they ever bungle both the 2016 and 2024 campaigns.
> Their message for the last ten years (plus or minus some) has been that if you think that an unborn baby deserves legal protection, if you don't think that trans people belong in womens' restrooms and on womens' sports teams, if you don't think that gay marriage is a good idea, then you are an irredeemable moral leper, and their goal is a complete destruction of your culture. If you're, say, poor and white and blue-collar, they still are totally against you, even though you're the people that they have, historically, represented.
The opposite of your point is that I recall the GOP frequently calling anyone in favor of abortions murderers, people who are gay or transgender pedophiles and that non-whites are destroying our nation. This isn't even a recent phenomenon either, this was all stuff I heard decades ago just slightly less overt.
Mind you, I don't disagree that the Democratic Party is a complete waste, because they are. But you're arguing simultaneously that they had toxic core principles which alienated their voting base, but the reality is that they've never had any principles at all. They've had no issue for as long as I've been alive negotiating and watering down their platform into absolutely nothing for the sake of trying to cater to the people who vote for the GOP which is the actual reason why we're here today. And their plans for the future mostly involve doing the same thing: making concessions on abortion, throwing minorities under the bus etc for the sake of trying to appeal to people that will sooner vote for Bootstomper Jr provided that they make a pinky promise that they won't stomp on their head too hard.
> The opposite of your point is that I recall the GOP frequently calling anyone in favor of abortions murderers, people who are gay or transgender pedophiles and that non-whites are destroying our nation. This isn't even a recent phenomenon either, this was all stuff I heard decades ago just slightly less overt.
Yes, and they attract independent voters with that. (Though a big reason is that the GOP has exceptional information dominance - they can convince a large part of the public of whatever they want to say; the Dems are effectively silenced.)
> At least partly because the Democrats have totally abandoned being the party of the working class.
Who do the Dems represent? Milquetoast moderates who favor hiding their heads in the sand rather than address critical issues like freedom, democracy, rule of law, hate, disinformation, tech, etc ... ?
The Democrats are so afraid of conflict that they stand for nothing (quick, name what they stand for) - so afraid that the attack members of their own party, progressives, who fight for anything. So they are left with the above demographic, and with weak support from them because, it turns out, cowardice and ineffectiveness doesn't inspire people. And they get votes from people whose dislike of the GOP is enough that they'll vote for the Dems regardless.
They are also absurdly ineffective at communication. They can't even overcome the people who say Dems are child molesters and Obama was from Kenya. I read that a Dem Congressional livestream about the shutdown peaked at 1,000 (one thousand) viewers. :D
In the NY Times in recent days is a debate over what milquetoast policies will win a few extra percent of the vote - they say that moderation is the way! The Dem elite don't realize that the problem isn't policy - Trump does great with all-time bad, all-time extreme policy - the problem is them.
> At least partly because the Democrats have totally abandoned being the party of the working class.
What would it take for the Democrats to become the party of the working class? Do you think raising the minimum wage, universal pre-k and childcare, paid family and medical leave, ACA expansion, etc. are working class policies?
Either Republicans must be the party of the working class or being "pro working class" isn't necessary to win the elections. Which one is it?
> A bunch of those people voted for Trump (or didn't vote at all), knowing what Trump was. They voted for the guy who at least pretended to care about them.
Tons of farmers, small business owners, federal workers, women who believed IVF would be free would disagree with you on the first part. And for the "pretend" part, you mean lie, right? So do you think Democrats need to start outright lying?
All context and legal implications aside, this is just so embarrassing for Lindsey. The screenshots of the texts would be hard to read if they weren't so funny.
I do wonder how Signal deleting the texts automatically would be interpreted in a legal context.
Presumably the "case" was shopped around to various attorneys, until they finally found one who agreed to move forward with it. That she had never prosecuted a case before is probably just a coincidence.
She was one of Trump's personal attorneys, and then a senior associate staff secretary.
I think that Halligan thinks that Anna Bower wrote the NYT piece she was commenting on. Our only hope really is that these people are too incompetent to actually do the whole dictatorship thing very effectively.
Haha holy smokes, got to the end of the article and it reminds me of this: mhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Hf_BKEfnY
(The Thick of It, by Armando Ianucci - also the creator of Veep with Julia Louis-Dreyfus - is a political satire TV series about bumbling government employees).
These fictional characters seem so normal compared to the actual real life dorks we have now. How do you even do satire now?
No takesies-backsies, Anna Lindsey Halligan! :-D
I don't get it. The Trumpsters play it like it's already a dictatorship. You can't threaten the press like this so soon. That only works when you have a firm grip on power and a credible history of jailing and exiling journalists.
It's like she watched Hegseth drunk texting in Signalgate and thought, "which journalist could I add on Signal".
> The Trumpsters play it like it's already a dictatorship
I feel like a lot of them genuinely think that we’re past the point of no return and they will experience no repercussions. I’d have expected Halligan to have a different view given her legal training, but…
What does that "point of return" look like, and who's going to actually enforce it? The regime has ignored courts' orders... I feel like only a military coup can actually do anything now.
Because I expect the 2026 or 2028 elections to be held more with Russian, Turkish, or Hungarian standards rather than 80's Hollywood movie idea of America's standard. The Dems and courts are going to cry foul, and the regime will just laugh at their faces and continue to rule.
I think the protests over the weekend show that if the 2026 election were subverted then a lot of the population would take to the streets.
Once the army fires on peaceful protestors protesting a corrupt election? That’s the point of no return.
>Once the army fires on peaceful protestors
For what it is worth, this weekend was roughly the 7th or 8th peaceful protest I have attended so far this year. It was the first in which I did not directly see a government employee firing something at a peaceful protester.
I hope there'll be enough military service people who'll defy unlawful orders, but I fear they have "Follow your superiors" drilled into them from the very start.
I remember reading on forums a decade or two ago comments by some Americans who believed in their exceptionalism, that they would never be like Nazi soldiers who just followed orders...
Well, the resistance at his point is the Admiral in charge of Southern Command resigning.
Below is a video from an F-14 REO, and previous Fox News contributor, Ward Carroll. He explains exactly why Holsey resigned.
TL:DW; (But do watch!) Admiral Holsey protested to Secretary of War, Hegseth, that these killings broke all rules, and he would not stay on to follow illegal orders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjtgDKmPvoU
Oops, meant RIO. I will never live this down.
I always wondered about these things. On the one hand, Admiral Holsey keeps his honor and his resignation puts the spotlight on Trumps corruption and lawlessness.
On the other hand, isn't this a weeding mechanism? Eventually one will be promoted until one is found which is loyal only to MAGA and Trump, not the Constitution.
I recommend watching that video in full. Ward is true patriot to the US Constitution. He swore an oath and appears to be carrying through. He covers all possible responses that an officer has when given orders.
I watched it now. He’s honorable. The same concern was in the video. Whittling down officers until only the ones ready to follow unlawful orders.
The percentage of the US population that voted for Trump went up roughly half a percentage point from 2020 to 2024 and most of American society has responded as if that makes him a permanent dictator. And it isn’t just his supporters, most Democratic politicians and ostensibly apolitical corporations are behaving that way too. I don’t get it.
I don't think that people are afraid that he will become a dictator because of his popular support so much as because no one is standing up to his abuse of power.
There's also the fact that MAGA is putting their thumb more and more on the election scales. I'm already not sure I think the next election will be fair considering how much MAGA has cheated already.
>I don't think that people are afraid that he will become a dictator because of his popular support so much as because no one is standing up to his abuse of power.
This is frustratingly self-reinforcing. Why is "no one... standing up to his abuse"? Because "no one is standing up to his abuse".
It's trendy on the left, including among leaders, to resign, to talk about being powerlessness and afraid, etc. Today's NY Times had an article interviewing pro-Palestinian protestors mostly saying it.
What a bunch of losers. And who would support them? Who is going to advocate for people who won't advocate for themselves?
Have you ever heard a leader talk like that? Is that what they remember Churchill saying, standing alone against the Germans? MLK facing the overwhelming racist power structure, law enforcement, etc.? Washington at Valley Forge - 'to my soldiers, I feel really hopeless. The Brits are the most powerful military in the world and we're just a ragtag, irregular local force. There's nothing we can do. I'm going to resign, cross the Delaware, and return to my farm to wait out the war with my family.'
The control of the supreme court as well as the demonstrated willingness to support a coup make the threat seem real.
It’s not entirely without reason. Just look at the electoral map proposed in NC: Trump won 51% of the vote, the GOP will be set to control over 80% of the NC House. And the Supreme Court gives permission to do whatever.
You’re right to call out Democrats too. It baffles me. Like Trump destroying the East wing of the White House. Universally not popular (not necessarily unpopular with all but no one is cheering it). Where are the press conferences being held outside to highlight it and show the people how little regard Trump has for the “People’s House”. It’s an easy lay up.
>> Where are the press conferences being held outside to highlight it and show the people how little regard Trump has for the “People’s House”. It’s an easy lay up.
Its also largely irrelevant. Maybe the left is starting to focus on stuff that matters instead of just trying to create outrage?
> Maybe the left is starting to focus on stuff that matters instead of just trying to create outrage?
The rule of law, democracy, freedom, justice - these things don't matter? They not only matter, they are the foundations of the U.S. and have inspired people for centuries, all over the world. Only the Democratic Party could fail to sell them to the public - they couldn't give candy to a baby.
It’s a thing people care about when they’re shown it. Showing it to more people means more people feel negatively about Trump. If you oppose Trump, that’s a good thing.
It’s possible to overthink politics sometimes. No one is saying “ugh, why are people pointing out that Trump is destroying the White House?”. It’s obvious why.
> most Democratic politicians and ostensibly apolitical corporations are behaving that way too. I don’t get it.
If the group in charge has made their dictatorial ambitions clear, the only rational approach for the opposition to take is to treat that seriously. Do we just pretend like they're kidding?
> half a percentage point
2020: 46.8%
2024: 49.8%
Try reading the whole sentence next time. I specifically chose to not use the percentage of votes cast because inconsistent turnout changes the denominator in a way that can be misleading. The numbers you cited imply that Trump got more popular, but the actual reason he won in 2024 instead of losing like 2020 is because his opponent was less popular. If you look at the number of votes Trump received, his 2020 and 2024 totals are incredibly close after accounting for population growth. That is why I explicitly phrased my comment in terms of "The percentage of the US population that voted for Trump".
> The percentage of the US population that voted for Trump went up roughly half a percentage point from 2020 to 2024 and most of American society has responded as if that makes him a permanent dictator. And it isn’t just his supporters, most Democratic politicians and ostensibly apolitical corporations are behaving that way too. I don’t get it.
People are fighting it, but it's not being covered. For example, the fact that legal cases are in the courts at all is because a bunch of Attorney Generals from many states were working together to file them even before Trump got elected. How big were the protests this last weekend near you? Were they covered at all? etc.
But that kind of stuff is boring--no engagement metric inflation here; so no coverage.
Perhaps now that government is actually shut down people will start paying attention. But I doubt it ...
> ostensibly apolitical corporations
Oh, you sweet, summer child.
> Oh, you sweet, summer child.
Please stop saying this. It's incredibly condescending, and thereby undermines any well-supported points you're making.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a use of “sweet summer child” that isn’t deliberately and knowingly condescending. It’s kind of the point of the phrase.
Agreed that it's generally intended to be condescending, but when the rest of the comment is reasonable I'll assume good faith; maybe the person has seen it used elsewhere and doesn't realize how it comes across. Or maybe they even know its condescending, but not that it undermines their other points. Either way I felt a bit of push-back couldn't hurt.
>> ostensibly apolitical corporations
>Oh, you sweet, summer child.
As someone who has spent decades having written conversations on the internet, it really seems like basic reading comprehension skills have plummeted recently. It's frustrating how many responses are replying to some objectively incorrect reading of what was written.
Here's the definition of "ostensibly"[1].
>in a way that appears or claims to be one thing when it is really something else
The correct reading of "ostensibly apolitical corporations" is "corporations that claim to be apolitical but in reality aren't". Not only is it not an indication of naïveté, it is closer to the exact opposite.
[1] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ostensib...
In her defense, she's an insurance lawyer who got onto Trump's good side by bad-mouthing how woke The Smithsonian is. She doesn't exactly have a depth of criminal justice experience to draw from.
It’s a commitment device: if the only way you’ll stay out of jail is if Trump is elected, you do anything you can, break any laws, whatever, to get Trump elected.
Because then you won’t go to jail.
See Santos.
> The Trumpsters play it like it's already a dictatorship. You can't threaten the press like this so soon.
They've successfully threated ABC News, CBS News, the Washington Post, and more into submission.
This entire admin functions like giving the worst posters on a forum unbridled power. The only thing they care about is owning their perceived enemies. When you look at it that way, the fact that all of them behave like children and make the dumbest decisions possible all make sense.
What's cause and what's effect there? The fact that they have the emotional (and sometimes intellectual) intelligence of 6 years olds means what they mostly care about is the "pwnage"...
Justice Department spokeswoman Natalie Baldassarre Is using chatGPT…
This is not the behavior of a licensed, professional attorney.
Article:
> Later in the week, I verified that the text exchange had genuinely been with Halligan—or, at least, with Halligan’s phone.
"My brother hacked my phone, I swear!"
It's bizarre to me how many professionals turn into raving idiots working for the Trump movement. Look at Gulianni, and many more who have filed error-riddled court cases and made absurd arguments.
There is something politically tactical about making extreme claims - it shifts norms, signals extremism to followers, etc. - but why shoot yourself in the foot like Halligan and many others?
This is an administration of Karens (sorry if your name is actually Karen). They want to bitch and moan about perceived injustices and have been given an immense power to prosecute those "injustices", regardless of justification. The people who are supposed to reign in those actions have abdicated responsibility in its entirety.
What a shitshow.
The problem with Russia gate is that even if it was fabricated by the FBI as partisan politics, prosecuting the guilty will look like partisan politics from the other side.
That's their plan, to demonize it and politicize it to the point where it's politically very difficult. It's not a new playbook.
[flagged]
The crux of it is that it was extremely unusual that it even happened and then that the messages have a cringe level of circular nonsense replies from Halligan. The contents are almost irrelevant - it's her overall behavior that raises questions. There are many many worse things happening in his administration, this is just a data point for understanding their intellects.
Yes, it quotes several of them and at least twice links to the screenshots of the exchange.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26190909-signal-scre...
I read this but where's the beef?
It's not that there's a single money shot message, it's that the conversation throughout is just stuff that no normal prosecutor would ever say anything but "no comment" about in regard to an active case.
The prosecutor is not supposed to be disclosing information from the grand jury, and then spends a shockingly long signal thread talking on record with a journalist that constantly implicitly discusses/confirms information they aren't supposed to be talking about at all.
It doesn't reach the same level as the Hegseth Signal leak, but it's really bizarre stuff.
> It doesn't reach the same level as the Hegseth Signal leak, but it's really bizarre stuff.
A lot like Signalgate, it's the fact of the messages as much as (if not more) than the messages themselves that matter. It demonstrates unprofessional behavior. In Signalgate, discussing what should have been classified details in an inappropriate forum and without ensuring only authorized people were present (still wrong to use Signal, but at least not broadcast to a journalist). In this case, just everything about it is unprofessional. Reaching out to a reporter who highlighted details from other reports asking her to correct details but not saying what should be corrected. None of it is professional and the "it was all off the record" at the end is a comical display of incompetence. This is sitcom stuff, but real life.
Prosecutors talk about their cases all the time. They hold press conferences and everything.
I don't think these messages are all that unusual. Well usually they have the sense to go off the record at he beginning instead of the end. But off the record complaints about reporting doesn't seem out of the ordinary.
Prosecutors talk about cases all the time. But they specifically don't talk about matters occurring before a grand jury because it's illegal for them to do so. Grand jury secrecy means they are supposed to never disclose what happened inside the grand jury room even after the case has concluded.
It is not illegal for witnesses to disclose things from their own testimony. But in this conversation, Halligan is directly commenting on things disclosed by other parties thus making indirect disclosures of her own by implication.
It's incredibly risky ground to be treading, that she is doing for no apparent reason, having reached out to a reporter who wasn't even actively reporting on the case. It's pretty wtf.
You can read the entire exchange for yourself, it’s a link.
At the bottom of the article.