ReallyActuallyFrankenstein

I mean, I know it's a meme, so what. But before getting the pitchforks out: does anyone have a link to Henry Cavill saying this? Just curious.

I searched and it's all memes and reaction videos. Maybe true, maybe true but sarcastic, or maybe false. My guess is it has all the making of a quote that nobody fact checks because it's too good for engagement.

I had the same thought and am glad to see you're already here with 44 upvotes. Trump is just here for the attention, cruelty and grift, but he's not a thinker.

This is a manifesto. And apart from the consistent spelling and grammar, the capitalized words aren't as random as Trump - way too many and too consistent. It's certainly a mimicked style by someone who thinks they know how Trump writes.

Stephen Miller is the architect of the ICE policy and the one whipping the horses - it's gotta be him.

There was an initial one by his staff that was typical political platitudes condemning violence. Then as soon as Trump opened his mouth, he blamed Walz and showed zero empathy.

So the options are:

1. His feelings got hurt that nobody attended his taxpayer-funded birthday party and instead protested him across the country, so he's going to make himself feel better by more abject cruelty;
2. Los Angeles' predominantly peaceful protests didn't give him a proper pretext to declare martial law and complete domestic deployment of the military, so he's going to keep trying until there's a suitably violent confrontation;
3. Both 1 and 2.

It was an incredible day and I'm proud of everyone.

But I'm just gonna say it. I think it's dangerous to focus so much on the "3.5%" number. The danger is that it creates an expectation of change, and of people becoming disillusioned and resigned when change doesn't happen. The authoritarian world is learning the same things we are, and some new things as well. One thing they have learned is how to wait out protests, and to use them to their own advantage.

Historical observation is not the same thing as determinism, and I do not and have not thought that Trump would submit based on some "magic number" of protestors. (As if he were the one even leading the ICE crackdown - oh, no, that's Stephen Miller, a true believer and someone who will keep doing it for free if 99% of the country were openly in revolt against him.)

I think a better focus is instead to see this as a fantastic show of force, and use it to recommit to the resistance to Trump and Miller and Noem and all of the fascists and their sycophants. It will take many more events and likely even a general strike before Congress, the courts and others with power to oppose Trump actually rethink their obsequiousness. But yesterday showed it is possible - please don't forget that when you're asking, "Where's the change?"

Yes, but I'd view it through the limited lens of empathy-lacking Republicans.

I'd like to propose a new adage: Let's call it Trump's Razor: Where Republicans are concerned, never attribute to principles what can more easily be explained by corruption.

Most likely the raids are starting to affect someone in the in-group, be it a hotel magnate or factory-farming donor. They complained and it's stopping. I don't expect this is the result of philosophical reflection.

While the contempt language is gone in the Senate bill, there is new and arguably more problematic language in its place. This bill would require that anyone seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction against the federal government first post a bond that covers the costs and damages that would be sustained to the federal government, in the event it loses the case. We’re talking millions if not billions of dollars being required upfront, effectively shutting off people’s ability to sue the Trump administration.

The Senate GOP is managing optics and that's all - the effect of this provision is the same. The bond requirement would make it effectively impossible to even seek to enjoin a clearly unconstitutional executive order before a full litigation and trial.

Superficially, they could proceed through the case without, but it would mean Trump can executive order whatever he wants and it would be years before the court would even issue an order to stop him. His powers would effectively be unchecked.

It's also blatantly undemocratic and unconstitutional because it would limit the ability to seek redress for anyone who wasn't a multi-millionaire or billionaire.

And if you need any other evidence they don't want you to pay attention to this and it's the real ball game: oh look, it's Friday night.

Crazy, right? You look at his picture and that word just selects itself.

Right, no - thanks for the response. From my other reply (which honestly was a little sarcastic, but hey, it was a response to someone rhetorically calling me "illiterate"), I think it's clear we agree these charges are not serious charges, but rather the use of the law to obtain political ends.

So lawfare is the right term.

My Trump translator just interprets this as, "Waaagh, I want it!" Just a baby having a tantrum.

But what else is new.

Guess I'm an outlier. For me, games were the way to disconnect from the stress of relationships. I've been an introvert since the beginning, and so games' positive associations for me are a safe place away from social pressures.

I also imagine every "retro" generation thinks its games are the best. Like, there was a meme post about joy at finding a PS2 torrent recently with strong implied nostalgia, and that's ok. People usually experience video games at an age where the games teach them archetypical feelings of intellectual pleasure, the first time they experienced joy at solving complex problems for example. That becomes a core association through life.

So I think we'll all have strong feelings linking the systems we played at our formative years. And again, that's ok. That we can form such strong associations is an expression of the basic human value of video games, as an art and modern cultural necessity.

Well, there's two possible interpretations:

(1) I'm illiterate, and these words are the results of me mashing my fists against the keyboard in a coincidence so unlikely, it practically proves there are infinite universes just to make it plausible; or

(2) I was intentionally calling attention to the absurdity of prosecuting clearly legal conduct using pretextual lawfare "conspiracy" charges.