He will say this, or worse, about everyone who capitulates, in every industry. (Check it out, lawyers.)
I guess they've all decided it's worth it for the money and maybe they're right. But nobody's going to be able to say "he totally abased himself by kissing the mad king's ass" at my funeral.
Sorry to be overly sincere for a second, but here's why we decided to persevere through all of the bullshit and take over InfoWars.
There's just gotta be a line somewhere.
Thank you @pablo.show for letting me talk so openly about this.
Great time to re-up this piece about this terrible song, which Sinatra himself hated, and which is perfect for Trump and everyone like him.
www.gq.com/story/my-way...
We are spending billions to keep our entire navy in the Strait to fecklessly fail to open a waterway that wasn’t closed until Trump’s pointless war of choice closed it.
He’s just burning your tax money.
The point is smirking at cops is perfectly legal and in fact should be done frequently
So the whole thing comes down to the pope denying that Jesus was pro-war? Is this why I keep seeing reports that Leo and Trump are "feuding"? Yes, but that framing, which is all over the media, is totally wrong. Leo and Trump aren't "feuding," and Trump did not "hit back," "strike back," or "return fire" against the pope. Trump has repeatedly launched unprovoked military actions that he and his lieutenants have attempted to cloak in the language of Christian righteousness. The pope has said that Christian righteousness is incompatible with unprovoked war. Trump has publicly mocked, derided, and attacked the pope; the pope hasn't attacked Trump at all. A feud requires the participation of two people. If you say, "We should respect the sovereignty of each individual, for we are all children of God," and I say, "Fuck you, you dirty hippie," what we have is not a feud. What we have is a principled person trying to have a conversation with an asshole.
Analilia Mejia is winning NJ-11 by nearly 20 points, about 12 points better than Kamala Harris did. This is the type of red-to-blue suburban district where Dems typically nominate center-left mods. A paradigm shift if a Bernie-AOC progressive can dominate vs a Republican here.
100%. This is why a city like Houston doesn’t have the same sense of community.
Mamdani hasn't had time to really think about all that space he now has, because he spends most of his time at City Hall and around New York City. He tries to keep a semblance of his old life by getting around the city on foot, by bike or train. "If you spend every single day driving around in a tinted window security detail, you will have a very specific view of the city," he said. "You actually meet other New Yorkers and you break out of the bubble that so many have come to expect of politics, where politicians only seem to be spending time with other politicians or the people who donated to make them politicians."
I'd say that this applies to anyone traveling in a car in any city. Being in a car versus walking, riding, or taking transit fundamentally changes how you view a place and your relationship to it. I wish more leaders set this kind of example.
www.npr.org/2026/04/16/n...
The fact that Mamdani just seems like a cheerful normal guy who's policies are things like "we're going to tax second homes to fund pothole repairs" or whatever and yet this generates panicked responses like "This is basically Stalin's great purge turned up to eleven" is... telling. It tells things.
the basic theory of DOGE was that if powerful people said it was fine it didn’t matter what the law said.
I think proving that theory wrong is worth significant effort
(And, more to the point, what on earth does this have to do with what we're actually talking about here? It feels like you made some jumps and I'm not sure which lillypads you're leaping around on here.)
At the risk of generating an even more confusing response, I'm going to try to understand. You said, "According to you, Will says this when he actually does understand."
Where did I say that? I really don't know which of my actual words you are purporting to reply to. Show me?
He is making statements. Other people are reading his statements really poorly.
Which of those two do you think should change behavior? Because you framed it as Will “telling people they shouldn’t be angry” (which you now acknowledge he didn’t) it sure seems like you think he should change. No?
What? The agent in that sentence is “I” (Will). He is owning the “doing”. He does not understand why others don’t see.
(No idea what he “meant,” because I’m not in his head, but my best guess would be that he meant what he said, which is that he doesn’t understand why people don’t see.)
The point is that *he* isn't the agent that's relevant to your point. He's not doing anything besides making point x. You, or other readers, are the relevantagents. You don't actually mean "Will, *you* are doing something." You mean "Will, *some people* are wrong in their readings of your point."
Yes. When you said "you're saying x" what you actually meant was the opposite. You meant "you're not saying x, but even so, some people might feel like you *are* saying x."
I guess we maybe disagree on how much it's his responsibility to change his words just because some people misread them?
Yeah, I think you're covering for it now, which is fine. Your second sentence there makes your actual point. You know he didn't actually say "you shouldn't be angry," which is why you haven't pointed at any of his actual words.
What you actually mean is "I interpreted you as saying it." Right?
If you'd said, "hey I know you're not saying 'people shouldn't be angry' but I want you to know I'm angry" we'd be having a different conversation.
Instead you told him he *was* saying that!
Yes, because I'm engaging with the point *you* made. You didn't say "I'm feeling x." You made an actual claim about something Will was doing--you said he's "telling people 'you shouldn't be angry.'" That was your actual claim, in your actual words!
It's perfectly fair to ask in response, "where?"
My response is, "which of his actual, literal words make you think that's a good reading of his point?"
Otherwise what you really mean is, "I get his point, but it makes me feel icky for reasons that have nothing to do with what he actually said." Which is totally fine, but a different thing!
You're right, I don't "see" where he said "you shouldn't be angry." I've looked at his words--I just don't see anything like that.
Do you "see" it? Where? It's weird to keep saying he did something with his words but not actually be able to say which words he did it with.
No idea what he's "trying" to do, but he's definitely not *doing* the thing you say he's doing. Can you point to something he actually said that you're reading as "you shouldn't be angry"? I genuinely don't see where he said that.
Having a mayor who enjoys the city is breaking dudes whose entire personality is oppositional defiance. In the medium term, look for the guys whose entire identity is wearing Timbs and talking about how they're Native New Yorkers to call him the Transplant Mayor and get big mad about upzoning.
Linda Yaccarino replies to a Zohran Mamdani tweet to say that taxing rich people's penthouses is "actually one of the scariest things I have ever seen"
Zohran Mamdani said he's going to start taxing rich people who buy luxury housing in NYC but don't actually live in there, and the former CEO of Twitter/X called it "actually one of the scariest things I have ever seen."
He knows what he's saying is bullshit. In fact, that's why he's saying it! The obviously false things Republicans say are better read as exercises of power, not lies or falsehoods. It's just that his real meaning is, "fuck you, we're in charge, and we're coming for you."
Remember, Republicans have only one real belief: They are always both victor and victim. They won and they’re in charge of you, but also if you say anything mean about them it’s the worst and most unfair thing that’s ever happened.
Every Republican “position” is explained by the fact that they don’t use language to communicate ideas. They don’t actually think the Pope “should” shut up. They don’t even think he’s wrong!
The only problem is that he’s challenging their only real belief, which is “fuck you, we’re in charge.”
kinda funny how Republican voters are inarguably happier when a Dem is president. they don’t actually want to be in charge of shit, they want to roll coal and whip themselves into a frenzy over wholly imaginary liberal tyranny. now they’ve caught the car and it fuckin sucks
