Trump: Wouldn't it be terrible to throw the president's wife and the former secretary of state into jail? Wouldn't that be a terrible thing? It's a terrible, terrible, path that they're leading us to. And it's very possible that it's going to have to happen to them. pic.twitter.com/P0bRL6jurF
Two members of Congress offered very different views Sunday morning of whether the Justice Department and FBI have been biased against Republicans in recent years.
In consecutive appearances on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) discussed President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Kash Patel to lead the FBI. The agency is now led by Chris Wray, a previous Trump appointee whose term has yet to expire, but who will presumably be fired if he doesn’t resign.
“Obviously, in recent years, we have seen the FBI and the Department of Justice weaponize in a way that it has become completely political,” Lawler said in his interview, also discussing Trump’s pick of Pam Bondi to be attorney general. “That’s not good for the American people. It’s not good for our system of justice. The lack of confidence that Americans have in the Department of Justice and the FBI is terrible.”
Though Trump talked about “retribution” during the 2024 campaign, Lawler said he believed “revenge” was not the order of the day. “I don’t think the American people are interested in a revenge tour,” he told host Kasie Hunt. “But, obviously, if people did wrong in their official capacities, then that’s something they should be concerned about. But if they didn’t do anything wrong, if they upheld the law, then there shouldn’t be a problem.”
Hunt pointed out to Lawler that the FBI director he was so critical of had been appointed by Trump himself. She also asked him if Patel, who was highly critical of what he repeatedly blasted as “deep state” corruption, was not himself very “partisan.”
“Look, I’m not concerned about partisanship here. I think we have seen a DOJ and an FBI that have been weaponized,” Lawler responded.
Appearing afterward, Raskin was very skeptical of Lawler’s assertion that the Justice Department and FBI during the Biden administration had targeted Trump, given the recent prosecutions of some prominent Democrats. “I haven’t seen what the proof is that the FBI has been weaponized against a political party or the Department of Justice. Of course, this Department of Justice has brought charges against a Democratic U.S. senator in New Jersey, a Democratic congressman in Texas,” Raskin said, referencing former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas).
“And so some people just seem to think that it should go only in one direction, and, if it doesn’t, then somehow it’s politicized.”
There is a reality here which we might want the media to try to help the public sort out. It’s fair enough to say that Republicans have taken the partisan position that the DOJ and the “Deep State” have been weaponized against Donald Trump. And, needless to say, Democrats and some Republicans know that Donald Trump is a criminal who has simply escaped accountability because we watched what he did with our own eyes. Ok.
But there is simply no question that Donald Trump is bent on revenge. He has said it over and over again. His future accomplices Patel and Bondi have said the same thing. This is not debatable. It should lead the story not be plopped in the middle like it’s some minor aspect of the story.
That was a long time ago, of course. But he’s got much more recent experience. Of course he’s going to exact revenge. It’s what he lives for.
I don’t know about you but that does not look good to me. In fact, I think this, from about 1965, actually looks better:
But it’s not all aboutthe food right? It’s about the company:
Elon Musk spent Thanksgiving with Trump instead of his family and Trump sat next to Musk during the feast instead of his wife Melania Trump. Musk hasn't left Trump's side since the election, questions are arising if he'll be living at the White House after January. pic.twitter.com/HD4yfGWf8r
Politico published a fatuous piece today exhorting Democrats to stay with Elon’s hellhole because … well, I guess they think that hapless lefties battling an onslaught of Nazis and other assorted assholes all day will somehow convert people to their cause? Apparently, some Democrats I otherwise respect think this is true as well.
Two days after the election, Patrick Dillon, a longtime Democratic strategist and current Biden administration official, announced on X that he was leaving the platform… Dillon, who currently serves as adviser to Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, is of course not alone. You may well have seen it in your timelines already: a growing drumbeat of Democrats and left-leaning types announcing why they’re leaving the platform. In just the few weeks since the election, that has included former CNN anchor Don Lemon, basketball star LeBron James, author Stephen King, actress Jamie Lee Curtis and MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace.
But the situation is a bit more complicated for Democratic lawmakers, strategists and the like who might have come to dislike X but have also grown to depend on it to shape minds and win elections. It might seem a trivial matter, but the trend has prompted a larger debate that encapsulates the many other conversations the liberal ecosystem — elected officials, Hill staffers, administration aides, activists, lobbyists, opinion-shapers and beyond — is having in the wake of Trump’s election win: Should left-leaning people and Democratic voters wall MAGA off as much as possible and hope that eventually it suffocates? Or try even harder to meet those voters where they are, or at least understand them?
The reasons the leavers are giving are plentiful.
“There’s no pretend at this point,” said Dillon when I called to ask him about his decision to quit X. “This is a vehicle to support [Musk’s] political views and his candidates.” He also pointed to what he saw as a decline in quality of the platform — “trash ads and scammy replies and porn bots” — and the fact that, as he saw it, one of its core functions, reaching out to journalists, has become suspect given questions over whether Musk might be willing to violate the privacy of the site’s direct-messaging tools.
But key, said Dillon, is Musk’s hijacking of the site to his own political ends.
In conversations with a wide range of other left-leaning insiders, his concerns were fairly typical. Among those who were leaving or contemplating it, the most prominent reasons included Musk’s push to not just rollback the platform’s once robust filtering of what it judged misinformation and bullying but to what some researchers have said is tilting the site to boost Donald Trump’s chances.
“If we leave X, it will help Elon with his goal of making the platform void of any progressive ideology or the way we think about the world,” Maxwell Frost, a 27-year-old member of Congress from Florida, told me, “and leave it to the Charlie Kirks and Tim Pools of the world to fill it up with what they believe.”
“Democratic lawmakers, strategists and the like who might have come to dislike X but have also grown to depend on it to shape minds and win elections.”
How’s that working out for us?
If Democratic operatives and pugilistic types want to fight all day with creepy wingnuts and Russian bots, godspeed. But you cannot expect normal people to waste their time doing that when there is an alternative that instead provides actual information and respectful disagreement. (Believe me, there are plenty of the latter on Bluesky, it just isn’t with Trump cultists who are impervious to logic and fact.)
I mean, look at the bullshit that is crawling all over my twitter feed these days. And it’s endless. You can spend hours, days blocking it.
🇺🇸 First they jail him, now they try to end him 🇺🇸 Trump Keep Fighting Bobblehead ✅ Stand Strong & Show Your Support!
I’m not going to share the Nazi garbage. The engagement is non-existent except for Trumper jackasses screaming in the replies about how stupid and ugly I am. Life is short.
I still go over there for the animals, which I love. And from time to time there’s something there that I can’t find on BS. But those times are getting more and more infrequent as more people migrate.
During a surprise dinner at Mar-a-Lago, representatives of the federal government were told U.S. tariffs from the incoming Donald Trump administration cannot be avoided in the immediacy – as Trump voraciously believes in the effectiveness of tariffs – but solutions in the longer term are on the table particularly if the border is secured, two government sources who were at the meeting tell CTV News.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with Trump and members of his team on Friday evening in West Palm Beach, Fla., where sources say border security and trade were discussed.
The meeting comes just days after Trump threatened to impose a 25 per cent tariff on all Canadian imports unless Canada addresses his border concerns, which include illegal border crossings and drug trafficking.
According to sources, Trump and his team conveyed that they plan to balance their federal budget through tariffs, and then strike exemption side deals on a country-by-country basis.
What???
I guess that makes sense to people who want to go back to the 1890s but it’s twisted that world leaders have to pretend that makes sense and lick his boots to avoid having their countries destroyed.
Sometimes lost in our strategizing on how to defeat authoritarianism is the need to strengthen liberal democracy itself.
Heather Cox Richardson references a Bluesky thread that makes that important point: “Cas Mudde, a political scientist who specializes in extremism and democracy, observed yesterday on Bluesky that ‘the fight against the far right is secondary to the fight to strengthen liberal democracy.’ That’s a smart observation.”
It is another way of saying that you don’t win games with defense alone.
The Dutch political scientist declined a recent offer “to speak about the upcoming Trump era and share some lessons and optimism.” It’s not that Mudde is pessimistic about the future so much as the lessons he’s offered over the last 25 years “were either wrong or not inspiring.” He needs some time to reflect before offering more.
“At the moment, I don’t so much think I underestimate the strength of the far right but rather significantly overestimated the strength of liberal democracy,” Mudde reflects. “I feel 100% certain that liberal democracy will prevail… just not sure when,” Mudde writes, echoing Ghandi:
When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it–always.
Like Hari Selden’s plan for shortening a galactic dark age, we must not only work through crises but also build anew.
Richardson reminds us what’s fallen into disrepair:
During World War II, when the United States led the defense of democracy against fascism, and after it, when the U.S. stood against communism, members of both major political parties celebrated American liberal democracy. Democratic presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower made it a point to emphasize the importance of the rule of law and people’s right to choose their government, as well as how much more effectively democracies managed their economies and how much fairer those economies were than those in which authoritarians and their cronies pocketed most of a country’s wealth.
Those mid-twentieth-century presidents helped to construct a “liberal consensus” in which Americans rallied behind a democratic government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights.
The problem Richardson diagnoses (as does Mudde) is that we became overconfident that that consensus would endure on its own, could defend itself. That truth would be self-evident. Movement Conservatives I’ve described as (essentially) rump royalists had other ideas.
In their conception, government did not exist to protect from predation and exploitation our hard-won freedoms — four, in FDR’s telling — but inhibited the individual, as Richardson tells it:
But that image of the American government is not the one on which the nation was founded.
Liberal democracy was the product of a moment in the 1600s in which European thinkers rethought old ideas about human society to emphasize the importance of the individual and his (it was almost always a “him” in those days) rights. Men like John Locke rejected the idea that God had appointed kings and noblemen to rule over subjects by virtue of their family lineage, and began to explore the idea that since government was a social compact to enable men to live together in peace, it should rest not on birth or wealth or religion, all of which were arbitrary, but on natural laws that men could figure out through their own experiences.
The Founders of what would become the United States rested their philosophy on an idea that came from Locke’s observations: that individuals had the right to freedom, or “liberty,” including the right to consent to the government under which they lived. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Lincoln reimagined liberal government for the 19th century as one that guaranteed “that all men—not just rich white men—were equal before the law and had equal access to resources, including education” and a level playing field. Roosevelt imagined “an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.” That requires a government strong enough to stand up to the rich.
Rump royalists were having none of it. Reactionary conservatives since the New Deal era successfully undermined that conception of liberal democracy as a community project for expanding freedom and supplanted it with an atomized one that provided them the freedom to rule over the rest of society.
I recommend Timothy Snyder’s conversation with Michael Steele on how the right twisted our Founders’ conception of freedom into a radically different vision. It is our broader “freedom,” and liberal democracy’s mission as its guarantor, that we lose sight of when we spend most of our efforts on defense against authoritarianism and not on offense rebuilding the liberal consensus that’s been under attack for decades.
It remains mind-boggling that grown men and women worship the hapless Wile E. Coyote of American politicians. They attend the would-be strongman’s rallies, buy his shitty merch, and mimic his dance to the gay national anthem. Even Elaine Benes finds his dance stupid. His entire adult life, Donald Trump complained that the world was laughing at the U.S. (him). Then he got elected president and United Nations ambassadors from around the world laughed at him. Wile E. didn’t understand that another ACME product blew up in his face.
Half of American voters rehired the man last month. The world doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry as Trump announces a series of defective appointments to his new administration. Trump’s recruiting leans heavily on Fox News regulars or “central casting” stereotypes. But in fact, most feature in the ACME catalog.
On Saturday, Trump proposed son-in-law Jared Kushner’s father as ambassador to France. The man pleaded guilty in 2005 to “18 counts of illegal campaign contributions and tax evasion, as well as witness tampering after he retaliated against his brother-in-law, William Schulder, who was cooperating with federal investigators.”
Social media’s JoJo from Jerz (Joanne Carducci) reminds Threads users just how Kushner wound up in jail.
View on Threads
Trump also nominated Kash Patel as FBI Director on Saturday. Patel has been a faithful promoter of Trump propaganda. He played a role in the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election Trump lost to Joe Biden. Special counsel Jack Smith’s may have dropped his prosecution of Trump for that act, for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection, and for stealing national security documents. But when (not if) his report sees the light of day, Patel’s role may be implicated in it, Marcy Wheeler reminds us:
Then there’s another aspect to the timing. Trump announced this pick — as he did the decision implanting all his defense attorneys at DOJ — while Jack Smith’s prosecutors are working on their report. And Kash should show up in that report, at least to lay out his false public claims that Trump had declassified all the documents he took with him (and possibly even his demand that he got immunity before giving that testimony). I’m not sure how central that will be to a report. But Trump had a choice about how confrontational to be with how he installed Kash in a place to dismantle the so-called Deep State, and his choice to be maximally confrontational may have a tie to this report.
People are currently thinking of all the other ways Kash has helped serve Trump’s false claims in the past — the false claim that the Russian investigation was predicated on the Steele dossier, efforts to override Ukraine experts during that impeachment, attempts to misrepresent the Russian investigation. But the Smith report may well explain that Trump’s FBI Director nominee played a more central role in Trump’s effort to spin Trump’s efforts to take hundreds of classified documents home. So when Kash gets a confirmation hearing, it will put the veracity of the Smith report centrally at issue. If Senators find the report convincing, they should have renewed cause to reject Patel’s nomination, but Trump has almost without exception forced GOP Senators to believe his false claims to avoid scary confrontations with him, so I wouldn’t bet against Trump and Kash.
Trump has spent eight years sowing propaganda about his own corruption and crimes. Not just Patel’s nomination to a position in which he could thoroughly politicize rule of law, but also the means by which Trump made that nomination, is part of that same project.
As George W. Bush might ask: Is our reporters learning? So far, no, Wheeler concludes. They continue to soft-peddle Trump’s propaganda and the “weird” aspect of his nominees. The way in which he’s rolled out his new team of vipers is all part of his efforts to deconstruct reality, and to make it “far more difficult to sort out truth from crime anymore.”
Or a real tunnel from a false one. It’s increasingly difficult to bet our nation’s future as a democratic republic on Trump’s haplessness.
Since it’s Thanksgiving weekend, that most venerable of American holidays which enables families to gather once a year to count their blessings, stuff their faces, and endeavor mightily to not bring politics into the conversation, I thought I might mosey on over to the movie pantry and hand-select my top 10 food films. Dig in!
Big Night– I have frequently foisted this film on friends and relatives, because after all, it’s important to “…take a bite out of the ass of life!” (as one of the characters demonstrates with voracious aplomb). Two brothers, enterprising businessman Secondo (Stanley Tucci, who also co-wrote and co-directed) and his older sibling Primo (Tony Shalhoub), a gifted chef, open an Italian restaurant but quickly run into financial trouble.
Possible salvation arrives via a dubious proposal from a more successful competitor (played by a hammy Ian Holm). The fate of their business hinges on Primo’s ability to conjure up the ultimate feast. And what a meal he prepares-especially the timpano (you’d better have pasta and ragu handy-or your appestat will be writing checks your duodenum will not be able to cash, if you know what I’m saying).
The wonderful cast includes Isabella Rossellini, Minnie Driver, Liev Schreiber, Allison Janney, Campbell Scott (who co-directed with Tucci), and look for Latin pop superstar Marc Anthony as the prep cook.
Comfort and Joy– A quirky trifle from Scottish writer-director Bill Forsyth (Gregory’sGirl, Local Hero). An amiable Glasgow radio DJ (Bill Paterson) is dumped by his girlfriend on Christmas Eve, throwing him into existential crisis and causing him to take urgent inventory of his personal and professional life. Soon after lamenting to his GM that he yearns to produce something more “important” than his chirpy morning show, serendipity lands him a hot scoop-a brewing “war” between two rival ice-cream dairies.
The film is chockablock with Forsyth’s patented low-key anarchy, wry one-liners and subtle visual gags. As a former morning DJ, I can attest the scenes depicting “Dickie Bird” running his show are authentic (a rarity on the screen). One warning: it might take several days for you to purge that ice cream van’s loopy theme music out of your head.
The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover– A gamey, visceral and perverse fable about food, as it relates to love, sex, violence, revenge, and Thatcherism from writer-director Peter Greenaway (who I like to call “the thinking person’s Ken Russell”).
Michael Gambon (who passed away earlier this year) chews up the scenery as a vile and vituperative British underworld kingpin who holds nightly court at a gourmet eatery. When his bored trophy wife (Helen Mirren) becomes attracted to one of the regular diners, an unassuming bookish fellow (Alan Howard), the wheels are set in motion for a twisty tale, culminating in one of the most memorable scenes of “just desserts” ever served up on film (not for the squeamish).
The opulent set design and cinematographer Sacha Vierny’s extraordinary use of color lend the film a rich Jacobean texture. Richard Bohringer is “the cook”, and look for the late pub rocker Ian Dury as one of Gambon’s associates. It’s unique…if not for all tastes.
Diner– This slice-of-life dramedy marked writer-director Barry Levinson’s debut in 1982, and remains his best. A group of 20-something pals converge for Christmas week in 1959 Baltimore. One is recently married, another is about to get hitched, and the rest playing the field and deciding what to do with their lives as they slog fitfully toward adulthood.
The most entertaining scenes are at the group’s favorite diner, where the comfort food of choice is French fries with gravy. Levinson has a knack for writing sharp dialog, and it’s the little details that make the difference; like a cranky appliance store customer who will settle for nothing less than a B&W Emerson (he refuses to upgrade to color TV because he saw Bonanza in color at a friend’s house, and thought “…the Ponderosa looked fake”).
This film was more influential than it gets credit for; Tarantino owes a debt, as do the creators of Seinfeld. It’s hard to believe that Kevin Bacon, Mickey Rourke, Ellen Barkin, Daniel Stern, Timothy Daly, Steve Guttenberg and Paul Reiser were all relative unknowns at the time!
Eat Drink Man Woman– Or as I call it: “I Never Stir-Fried for My Father”. This was director Ang Lee’s follow-up to his surprise hit The Wedding Banquet (another good food flick). It’s a well-acted dramedy about traditional Chinese values clashing with the mores of modern society. An aging master chef (losing his sense of taste) fastidiously prepares an elaborate weekly meal which he requires his three adult, single daughters to attend. As the narrative unfolds, Lee subtly reveals something we’ve suspected all along: when it comes to family dysfunction, we are a world without borders.
My Dinner with Andre– This one is a tough sell for the uninitiated. “An entire film that nearly all takes place at one restaurant table, with two self-absorbed New York intellectuals pontificating for the entire running time of the film-this is entertaining?!” Yes, it is. Director Louis Malle took a chance that pays off in spades. Although essentially a work of fiction, the two stars, theater director Andre Gregory and actor-playwright Wallace Shawn are playing themselves (they co-wrote the screenplay). A rumination on art, life, love, the universe and everything, the film is not so much about dinner, as a love letter to the lost art of erudite dinner conversation.
Pulp Fiction– Although the universal popularity of this Quentin Tarantino opus is owed chiefly to its hyper-stylized mayhem and the iambic pentameter of its salty dialogue, I think it is underappreciated as a foodie film. The hell you say? Think about it.
The opening and closing scenes take place in a diner, with characters having lively discussions over heaping plates of food. In Mia and Vincent’s scene at the theme restaurant, the camera zooms to fetishistic close-ups of the “Douglas Sirk steak, and a vanilla coke.” Mia offers Jules a sip of her 5 Dollar Milkshake.
Vincent and Jules ponder why the French refer to Big Macs as “Royales with cheese” and why the Dutch insist on drowning their French fries in mayonnaise. Jules voraciously hijacks the doomed Brett’s “Big Kahuna” burger, then precedes to wash it down with a sip of his “tasty beverage”. Pouty Fabienne pines wistfully for blueberry pancakes.
Even super-efficient Mr. Wolfe takes a couple seconds out of his precisely mapped schedule to reflect on the pleasures of a hot, fresh-brewed cup of coffee. And “Don’t you just love it when you come back from the bathroom and find your food waiting for you?”
Tampopo– Self billed as “The first Japanese noodle western”, this 1987 entry from writer-director Juzo Itami is all that and more. Nobuko Niyamoto is superb as the title character, a widow who has inherited her late husband’s noodle house. Despite her dedication and effort to please customers, Tampopo struggles to keep the business afloat, until a deux ex machina arrives-a truck driver named Goro (Tsutomo Yamazaki).
After one taste, Goro pinpoints the problem-bland noodles. No worries-like the magnanimous stranger who blows into an old western town (think Shane), Goro takes Tampopo on as a personal project, mentoring her on the Zen of creating the perfect noodle bowl. A delight from start to finish, offering keen insight on the relationship between food, sex and love.
The Trip– Pared down into feature film length from the BBC series of the same name, Michael Winterbottom’s film is essentially a highlight reel of that show-which is not to denigrate; as it is the most genuinely hilarious comedy I’ve seen in many a moon. The levity is due in no small part to Winterbottom’s two stars-Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon, basically playing themselves in this mashup of Sideways and My Dinner with Andre.
Coogan is asked by a British newspaper to take a “restaurant tour” of England’s bucolic Lake District, and review the eateries. He initially plans to take his girlfriend along, but since their relationship is going through a rocky period, he asks his pal, fellow actor Brydon, to accompany him.
This simple setup is an excuse to sit back and enjoy Coogan and Brydon’s brilliant comic riffing (much of it improvised) on everything from relationships to the “proper” way to do Michael Caine impressions. There’s some unexpected poignancy-but for the most part, it’s pure comedy gold. It was followed by three equally entertaining sequels, The Trip to Italy(2014), The Trip to Spain (2017), and The Trip to Greece (2020).
Tom Jones– The film that made the late Albert Finney an international star, Tony Richardson’s 1963 romantic comedy-drama is based on the Henry Fielding novel about the eponymous character’s amorous exploits in 18th-Century England.
Tom (Finney) is raised as the bastard son of a prosperous squire. He is a bit on the rakish side, but wholly lovable and possesses a good heart. It’s the “lovable” part that gets him in trouble time and again, and fate and circumstance put young Tom on the road, where various duplicitous parties await to prey upon his naivety.
John Osborne adapted the Oscar-winning script; the film also won for Best Picture, Director, and Music Score (Finney was nominated for Best Actor).
The film earns its spot on this list for a brief but iconic (and very tactile) eating scene involving Finney and the wonderful Joyce Redman (see below).
One way we know for a fact that it’s a cult is because the most embarrassing things Trump does, he doubles down on and his flock immediately turns it into a ritual which they use as a form of worship for Dear Leader and a demonstration of solidarity with each other. This one’s a doozy, not least of which is because many of them are homophobic right wing Christians who are dancing along to a gay pick-up song from the 1970s and they either don’t know or don’t care.
According to this AP story, a lot of women are having to carry around pepper spray on campus these days for fear of being assaulted:
It’s a response to an emboldened fringe of right-wing “manosphere” influencers who have seized on Republican Donald Trump ’s presidential win to justify and amplify misogynistic derision and threats online. Many have appropriated a 1960s abortion rights rallying cry, declaring “Your body, my choice” at women online and on college campuses.
For many women, the words represent a worrying harbinger of what might lie ahead as some men perceive the election results as a rebuke of reproductive rights and women’s rights.
[…]
Isabelle Frances-Wright, director of technology and society at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank focusing on polarization and extremism, said she had seen a “very large uptick in a number of types of misogynistic rhetoric immediately after the election,” including some “extremely violent misogyny.”
There was a local story of a Trump parade here in LA with the big blue flags and young guys screaming this “your body my choice” out the windows. Very nice.
The phrase was used right afte the election by the Neo Nazi Nick Fuentes and apparently it got 35 million views on X within 24 hours. The bros really like it. It’s all over women’s comment sections on Tik Tok, and young kids are hurling it in girls faces in middle school.
Online declarations for women to “Get back in the kitchen” or to “Repeal the 19th,” a reference to the constitutional amendment that gave women the right to vote, have spread rapidly. In the days surrounding the election, the extremism think tank found that the top 10 posts on X calling for repeal of the 19th Amendment received more than 4 million views collectively. […]
Anonymous rape threats have been left on the TikTok videos of women denouncing the election results. And on the far-flung reaches of the web, 4chan forums have called for “rape squads” and the adoption of policies in “The Handmaid’s Tale,” a dystopian book and TV series depicting the dehumanization and brutalization of women.
The article points out that a number of mass shootings were inspired by 4Chan threats.
Apparently, all these young men feel they’ve been discriminated against by women (I guess they got turned down for dates?) and are fearful of losing their place at the top of society’s hierarchy. Donald Trump and his “bro” campaign made them feel vindicated. They’re lashing out at women because it makes them feel powerful again. Great.
He’s the richest man in the world due to his entrepreneurial talents. Is it possible that he’s also incredibly stupid? It sure looks like it. Every single item on that list other than Epstein’s sex island is 100% prime bullshit.
