Here's a dilemma--the intellectual thrill of understanding something, versus the numbing heartbreak that comes with that understanding. But thank you for the insight, heartbreak notwithstanding.
trump is seriously ill with Dementia. I spotted this during the 2016 campaign but at that time he was experiencing what is called 'early-onset' Dementia and he did not realize it and he laughed it off. I continued to dog him during his entire first term. Then 4 years passed. Now he has been in office this term for a year, for a total of 5 years. There is no cure for Dementia the condition merely continues to deteriorate. He is aware now that he is ill. He admitted he did not remember starting the war with Iran, a classic symptom of Dementia. Not all seniors suffer from Dementia but many do. Another strong symptom is the lust for war, ie; Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, and his refusal to end Ukraine and Gaza. All in one year. This past year I have begged America's psychiatrists to make an appearance and/or a post. Finally in February 2026 two have and they concur with my position. At this point it is just cruel for the GOP and the Senate to expect him to continue to work. His condition has progressed to 'full-on' Dementia and he is in desperate need of full time care by a psychiatrist in a sanitarium. Both the GOP and the Senate have an obligation to step up to the plate with a solution.
It's cruel, on their part, indeed. But I think they have become the cruelty that they've bought into in order to stay in the 'graces' of this increasingly, unsatisfiably deranged man. Drawing an incomplete, lay-historical reader's analogy: When did most of Germany come to terms with the fact that the war was lost? When the women who survived were stacking the rubble of what used to be their cities for two cents a brick and a cup of GI soup a day. Trummerfrauen. I'd personally visited with a couple of those war brides and it didn't take long to see that although they knew they'd been completely thrashed, they still 'believed' in the cause they'd bought into. I'm not sanguine as to how this all sorts out.
This went from "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" to not only do you know what it means, but this may in fact be the funniest application of it I have seen in a long time
Political gooning- kudos for expanding the frontiers of the English language in new and exciting ways!
It's the goon-gooning parallel that the post began with, but I hadn't appreciated that the apparent obliviousness of the early bits might create some dramatic tension.
Gooning is hard work. I think using the original meaning, not the thug one, better captures the feverish, slavering, frantic, even desperate nature of how “hard” one works…and works…and works…toward this führer.
Dr. Farrell, Thank you for this thought piece. For me, it answers a nagging question, "Who is the asshole who came up with this weird crap?" We all know that Trump does not have the attention span or interest to think through a complex attack plan about anything, so others have to be the source of this dumb chaos. It makes perfect sense that those people are the type of social media internet influencers who Trump spends his time watching. Just like every influencer seeking clicks for a tiny piece of the advertiser's revenue, the big reward for the MAGA influencers is capturing Trump's attention and ending up as Assistant Secretary of Outhouse Oversight with a government paycheck and other government perks. Maybe, they can overhear a policy decision, buy some futures in advance of the public disclosure and grab enough grift loot to purchase a membership at a Trump golf course.
I find your suggestion that there are enemies too powerful and dangerous to be the target of legal process disturbing.
That isn’t how things are supposed to work in a democracy governed by the rule of law. I also haven’t seen much sign that there is anyone democrats see as too powerful and dangerous to subpoena. This immunity from legal process seems to only work one way.
I read that as not so powerful as to be untouchable, but rather someone where you want to be sure of your footing before you do anything irrevocable - a "shoot at the king" moment.
We’re all equal in a democracy. No one is above the law, not even a little. If there’s grounds to subpoena someone, there’s grounds to subpoena him. Shouldn’t matter who he is.
I think what is meant is that when there's not really grounds to subpoena him, but you're doing it anyways to accrue political capital by pleasing your leader, then it matters who the target is. You can get away with doing it to small fry, but it can backfire when you do it to powerful people.
Several senators and at least one member of Congress complained about the cost overruns in the federal hq renovations and Powell’s testimony about them, with one member of Congress making a criminal referral back in July. Powell said there were no VIP dining rooms or terraced rooftop gardens, but the plans showed private dining rooms and “vegetated rooftop spaces”. I don’t know the truth of it all, but I certainly wouldn’t rely on Jusge Boasberg’s dismissal of the subpoenas; he’s highly partisan.
The more pertinent metric for the purpose here isn't how meritorious the accusations were but how effective they were. The framing of the article takes for granted that it wasn't done in a good-faith effort to uphold the law by investigating and punishing lawbreaking but in order to fulfill some other administration-related purpose. You can disagree with that framing - I think it's founded - but regardless, the attempted charges were ineffective. Besides the fact that DoJ is supposed to account for likelihood of success when using their limited resources to disrupt the liberty of people (every organization must prioritize), the failure didn't look good. The article is about how people in the exec branch are doing things to look good. On those terms, which are the terms the admin proudly relies on in its posting style (per the argument of the article), it was a bad fight to pick.
The death camps came quite late, after the conquest of Europe. Ordinary (Britain in Boer War) concentration camps have already been normalised in rhetorical terms, and partly in practice, even if currently limited to non-citizens.
MOSTLY non-citizens, but it seems that citizens only stay for a few hours or days when they get snatched. (Are you carrying your papers to prove you are a citizen?) But without oversight and timely due process, how do we know for sure?
Here's a dilemma--the intellectual thrill of understanding something, versus the numbing heartbreak that comes with that understanding. But thank you for the insight, heartbreak notwithstanding.
Well don't worry. Neither you nor the OP appear to understand much of anything.
Oh no, a snowflake got his little butt hurt....
Sounds like you don't understand much of anything either.
It's OK, bro...you're still a tough guy LOL
trump is seriously ill with Dementia. I spotted this during the 2016 campaign but at that time he was experiencing what is called 'early-onset' Dementia and he did not realize it and he laughed it off. I continued to dog him during his entire first term. Then 4 years passed. Now he has been in office this term for a year, for a total of 5 years. There is no cure for Dementia the condition merely continues to deteriorate. He is aware now that he is ill. He admitted he did not remember starting the war with Iran, a classic symptom of Dementia. Not all seniors suffer from Dementia but many do. Another strong symptom is the lust for war, ie; Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, and his refusal to end Ukraine and Gaza. All in one year. This past year I have begged America's psychiatrists to make an appearance and/or a post. Finally in February 2026 two have and they concur with my position. At this point it is just cruel for the GOP and the Senate to expect him to continue to work. His condition has progressed to 'full-on' Dementia and he is in desperate need of full time care by a psychiatrist in a sanitarium. Both the GOP and the Senate have an obligation to step up to the plate with a solution.
It's cruel, on their part, indeed. But I think they have become the cruelty that they've bought into in order to stay in the 'graces' of this increasingly, unsatisfiably deranged man. Drawing an incomplete, lay-historical reader's analogy: When did most of Germany come to terms with the fact that the war was lost? When the women who survived were stacking the rubble of what used to be their cities for two cents a brick and a cup of GI soup a day. Trummerfrauen. I'd personally visited with a couple of those war brides and it didn't take long to see that although they knew they'd been completely thrashed, they still 'believed' in the cause they'd bought into. I'm not sanguine as to how this all sorts out.
Tim Long, Just Up the Hill from Lock 15
> trump is seriously ill with Dementia. I spotted this during the 2016 campaign
Tell me you're either an idiot or a liar without telling me you're an idiot or a liar.
now that’s a fucking title/headline
This went from "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" to not only do you know what it means, but this may in fact be the funniest application of it I have seen in a long time
Political gooning- kudos for expanding the frontiers of the English language in new and exciting ways!
It's the goon-gooning parallel that the post began with, but I hadn't appreciated that the apparent obliviousness of the early bits might create some dramatic tension.
It turns out that the edgelords are actually edgecourtiers.
authoritarian high postmodernism
clever use of "goon" in both senses: masturbation and armed thug; rule by voyeuristic brutality porn
"Both, obviously, were far more monstrous than Trump at his worst..." I don't think we've seen Trumpkopf at his worst yet.
Gooning is hard work. I think using the original meaning, not the thug one, better captures the feverish, slavering, frantic, even desperate nature of how “hard” one works…and works…and works…toward this führer.
John Ganz had a nice way of formulating this early in the Iran war. It’s not propaganda to justify policy, but policy to justify propaganda.
Ordinarily, I avoid piling on with praise, but dammit, Henry, that was awesome. It explains EVERYTHING!
No wonder they don't know what to do with adult women.
Surely it’s “wanking toward the Fuhrer”
Dr. Farrell, Thank you for this thought piece. For me, it answers a nagging question, "Who is the asshole who came up with this weird crap?" We all know that Trump does not have the attention span or interest to think through a complex attack plan about anything, so others have to be the source of this dumb chaos. It makes perfect sense that those people are the type of social media internet influencers who Trump spends his time watching. Just like every influencer seeking clicks for a tiny piece of the advertiser's revenue, the big reward for the MAGA influencers is capturing Trump's attention and ending up as Assistant Secretary of Outhouse Oversight with a government paycheck and other government perks. Maybe, they can overhear a policy decision, buy some futures in advance of the public disclosure and grab enough grift loot to purchase a membership at a Trump golf course.
I find your suggestion that there are enemies too powerful and dangerous to be the target of legal process disturbing.
That isn’t how things are supposed to work in a democracy governed by the rule of law. I also haven’t seen much sign that there is anyone democrats see as too powerful and dangerous to subpoena. This immunity from legal process seems to only work one way.
I read that as not so powerful as to be untouchable, but rather someone where you want to be sure of your footing before you do anything irrevocable - a "shoot at the king" moment.
We’re all equal in a democracy. No one is above the law, not even a little. If there’s grounds to subpoena someone, there’s grounds to subpoena him. Shouldn’t matter who he is.
I think what is meant is that when there's not really grounds to subpoena him, but you're doing it anyways to accrue political capital by pleasing your leader, then it matters who the target is. You can get away with doing it to small fry, but it can backfire when you do it to powerful people.
Several senators and at least one member of Congress complained about the cost overruns in the federal hq renovations and Powell’s testimony about them, with one member of Congress making a criminal referral back in July. Powell said there were no VIP dining rooms or terraced rooftop gardens, but the plans showed private dining rooms and “vegetated rooftop spaces”. I don’t know the truth of it all, but I certainly wouldn’t rely on Jusge Boasberg’s dismissal of the subpoenas; he’s highly partisan.
The more pertinent metric for the purpose here isn't how meritorious the accusations were but how effective they were. The framing of the article takes for granted that it wasn't done in a good-faith effort to uphold the law by investigating and punishing lawbreaking but in order to fulfill some other administration-related purpose. You can disagree with that framing - I think it's founded - but regardless, the attempted charges were ineffective. Besides the fact that DoJ is supposed to account for likelihood of success when using their limited resources to disrupt the liberty of people (every organization must prioritize), the failure didn't look good. The article is about how people in the exec branch are doing things to look good. On those terms, which are the terms the admin proudly relies on in its posting style (per the argument of the article), it was a bad fight to pick.
Somewhere between heliotrope, mao inhibitors, tryptamines and madness, venting from a crack at the back of a cavern near Elysium.
Insightful article.
The death camps came quite late, after the conquest of Europe. Ordinary (Britain in Boer War) concentration camps have already been normalised in rhetorical terms, and partly in practice, even if currently limited to non-citizens.
MOSTLY non-citizens, but it seems that citizens only stay for a few hours or days when they get snatched. (Are you carrying your papers to prove you are a citizen?) But without oversight and timely due process, how do we know for sure?