If Thomas Payne was alive today he’d make a viral Tik Tok about how retarded it is that such a large country like America invests so much time and energy into a tiny anti-Christian country halfway around the world.
What is worse is that I am not sure which country you are talking about.
Israel? Nigeria (or any other African country)?
Cambodia? Tajikistan? Kosovo? Ireland?
how does importing 600k Chinese student's help historically black colleges and why should we want to help them anyway? have we not been told for the past 20 years that colleges are brainwashing the youth while giving them worthless degrees and a lifetime of crushing debt? why should any of us want to save them?
This is just another example of what the neo-cons have deemed not allowed in the MAGA party since Charlie Kirk's death. You can no longer be against colleges and you especially cannot be against "black colleges" whatever that means. When Charlie Kirk was alive we all talked about how shit colleges were all the time and how we want them shut down. Nope. Not anymore, the neo-cons have deemed that to be problematic language and you're a nazi for thinking colleges were ever bad goy. Trump agrees with the neo-cons on this and pretty much everything else these days.
I hold strong on my old theory from months ago that Trump and his family were directly and seriously threatened behind the scenes in the White House, most likely right around the time of the Epstein fiasco. I imagine that they told Trump if he didn't play ball and start giving the deep state what they want then they will slaughter him and/or his family so Trump chose to play ball. Charlie Kirk was a problem for this plan because as noted by the Vice President any chance he can, Charlie Kirk was very involved in the administration and he would frequently visit the White House and make phone calls chewing trump out over his neo-con forever war policies that Trump ran against. Charlie was threatened, he didn't cave because he was a strong man who did the right thing, and so he was murdered so he couldn't stand in the way of the neo-cons and they could easily control the narrative without Charlie interfering anymore.
Haven't you gotten the memo? Operation "reLEasE tHE lISt" was a total failure and burned uncountable false flagger accounts across the internet; accounts build up for years to come over as authentic "right winger", just gone, poof
No. As one of apparently few who watched the interview, Tucker constantly pushed back on Fuentes and repeatedly tried to characterize Fuentes as someone believing in "collective guilt and punishment," a bizarre phrasing Fuentes has never used.
This. (I listened to the whole thing). I found it entertaining, mock me if you like. Tucker was certainly polite and sought common ground, but he consistently pushed back against Fuentes on a number of topics -- blaming all Jews for zionism, blaming women (excessively) for gender relations, Nick's praxis / choice of political targets. Superficially it was a friendly conversation, and Tucker certainly could have come at him far harder (J6, etc) so I'm not surprised at the heat Tucker's taking for it, but if you actually pay attention and think about what is being said, he really gave Nick the rope to explain exactly why he's retarded, especially when talking about women. He did a better job excusing his shitty praxis (coming at MTG because she disavowed him, etc). Tucker straight up says at one point that he's doing this interview because Nick is on the rise and whatever you think about him, you should hear what he believes. One also apologizes for calling the other gay, idr which. I also found Tucker's argument "do you ever worry about turning into what they say you are" (rather than who you want to be, presumably) very interesting, though it kind of went over Nick's 5'5" head. Tucker is doing an incredible job playing/being a man of principle.
It was interesting how Tucker kept describing Nick's views as "collective guilt and punishment". It was a weird and forced seeming phrasing from a man who otherwise is very good at pretending to avoid such. I think that's a defensible interpretation ("not all Jews" essentially), but you need to actually develop it as it's not the only way to interpret it. Nick even did triangulate a bit, agreeing that not all Jews were responsible, etc.
Just because someone is willing to sit down with you and have a polite conversation doesn't mean they like you or agree with you. It's a different norm than the extreme deplatforming approach, or the debate bro shout them down, but it's one I prefer.
It did paint Nick as a sympathetic character because as we all learned from social justice, victimhood is a virtue unto itself, and Nick did a good job painting himself as a victim of Conservative Inc / (((certain interests))), describing people he considered his friends turning on him for "just asking questions" about Israel. My impression from the interview alone would be that he got in over his head in his freshman year of college and it fucked him in the head; he's damaged goods but you can't really blame him for it. That's certainly a nicer description of Nick than he deserves, but it doesn't make me want to rally behind him politically even if I agreed with him.
I was a bit surprised neither brought up the Charlie Kirk / USS Liberty in Nick's origin story, wasn't that a pretty important moment for him? He's already naming the Jew, so it's not the usual reasons. Blasphemy against St. Kirk? I was disappointed, but not surprised, that neither brought up the catboy date or anything related to Jaden.
Lmao even. You are going to witness something special. That Judge is going to be impeached. They have been butting heads with the legislature for years at this point. This is the final straw. That nigger gets the boot. It doesn't help the Utah Supreme Court wanted to pull some shit, but got caught on recording and had to backtrack. That was years ago, but i have a good source.
he consistently pushed back against Fuentes on a number of topics -- blaming all Jews for zionism, blaming women (excessively) for gender relations, Nick's praxis / choice of political targets.
They never mention that though. I do believe he should have been as tough as he was on Lyin' Ted , but the idea that he went along with everything that the catboy said is just false.
I decided to just sit there and type up the whole call as it was happening. It's nice to know my typing speed is still up to par.
This is long, so I'm putting the SNAP hearing recap in spoiler to save y'all the scrolling.
Off and running, the judge is speaking very slowly and deliberately. Reminding us that in the prior hearing 10/30, the government argued that the states don't have standing and she had disagreed. Mentioning the Rhode Island suit. Also remarks that only some of the states brought this suit and there is a "concern" about nationwide injunctions (how about that, acknowledging it!) but asking everyone to agree that no matter what, this is going to affect everybody. The admin lawyer (a young-sounding man) agrees with her that it has to be the same for everybody.
Judge also recaps her decision that the contingency fund has to be applied to SNAP benefits. She is referring to this as an order, however I don't think she actually specifically ordered that? She only had ordered that they submit their actions to her? Already I think she doesn't know what she did. But the gov says they had not objected and they were authorizing partial benefits. She admits that the Rhode Island case moved faster than she did (very true). She also remarks on Rhode Island's order that they needed to do full benefits.
Judge remarks that in this case, the plaintiffs were repeatedly urging her to take action, but the gov position was look, we are addressing this via the Rhode Island case and also via appeal. Judge wonders about the utility of doing this in two places, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Judge continues to recap the appeals process. Apparently the 1st Circuit refused to allow the gov to file their appeal after hours, LOL that's amazing.
Judge comes to the USDA notices that were going out in the past few days, emphasizing the words carefully, so we are probably going to have some pedantic fighting about what they said and didn't say and did not authorize. Sure enough, "But it didn't SAY there was an appeal pending!" So she's going to side with the states and claim they didn't understand the letter telling them to hold off on submitting their full SNAP requests. "It doesn't say anywhere that it ISN'T going forward!" So the fuck what, lady? It says what it says and the states jumped the gun. But the judge is saying the guidance has "some ambiguity to it." The admin lawyer is holding his own pretty well but the judge is getting very agitated. She acknowledges that the gov "has every right" to appeal and all that but everybody was trying to move forward. And "there's now a mess on our hands!"
Admin lawyer reminds the judge that some states went ahead and submitted for full bennies without guidance or authorization from USDA. The judge is unpersuaded, again insisting that the letter has "some ambiguity" and that it doesn't explicitly say "don't do anything, because we are seeking a stay." What concerns her apparently is I guess that the government went ahead and appealed without telling the states they were going to. And she's pissed that they "threatened the states" about their unauthorized submittal for full SNAP benefits and telling them to undo it. She sounds like a mom punishing her kid for cutting class. And she accuses them of causing confusion.
Admin lawyer disagrees and says the states' confusion is of their own making and they BRAZENLY (BRAZENLY!) went ahead and did their thing without authorization. He's raising his voice a bit and probably needs to cool it. He points out that the Rhode Island judge's order was not self-executing. The admin was making the funds available to the states, and some states jumped the gun and it's on them. "Mr. Becker, these are very hot times right now!" the judge squeals. Whose fault is that, bitch? Oh no we're not allowed to talk about that I guess.
The judge doesn't appreciate the "brazen" comment. She also doesn't appreciate the reminder that these states were not part of the injunction in Rhode Island. She is still lecturing him as if he really fucked up at school. The admin lawyer valiantly tries to remind her that the states were still under guidance that they should've stuck to. She continues to flip out that the 11/7 guidance said they were complying with the Rhode Island order. Yes, we are having a lengthy back and forth about the words that were in the guidance and words that were not in it.
Admin lawyer remarks that the states have not even submitted for partial benefits, which they could do today. Judge snippily is all, "Why would they do that? There's an order for full benefits!" The programming of states' computers for partial benefits will take weeks, how will they provide the partial benefits without reprogramming their computers? Some states have already done so, but apparently some states can't (interjection from the Massachusetts lawyer).
Gov: "All we were ordered to do on the 7th was provide payment to the states" and the judge doesn't care, she's keeping her stay in place on the nasty letter USDA issued. Gov wants a written order, she will issue one. She is so pissed that they sent out that nasty letter "ON A SATURDAY NIGHT!" "It would seem to me that if the agency is simply trying to comply with the law, and with the executive branch's preferences on policies, a piece of that wouldn't be trying to play vindictive games with the states." That is a direct quote from the federal district judge. "To start sending threatening letters on a Saturday night?!"
Admin lawyer tries to point out that some states such as Minnesota did in fact act improperly after the stay was entered, but the judge doesn't have that record in front of her so she doesn't believe it. The state lawyer chimes in that they could have sent something out on Friday night, I'm starting to bleed out of my ears while this is going on.
"Adrian D. Moon, attorney and pro se" just butted in. I hope you get arrested, asshole.
The judge is suddenly slightly calmer after that interjection, but she's still not looking to cut the government any slack. There's discussion about the fact that the states are not parties to the Rhode Island case. They were trying to insert themselves as amici etc. but the judge wants to issue an order giving them full protection in that case as parties. "In an abundance of caution, is there any reason that this court should not issue an order essentially parallel to the Rhode Island one to make sure the states have the same protection? Admin lawyer hastily says that it would only add more confusion. The SCOTUS orders will be binding on everybody. "The states should just wait for guidance from FNS" but the judge still harps on the prior arguments, blah blah words, blah blah not parties.
(Meanwhile, I have the Senate live feed open in a tab and they've been sitting there all afternoon doing fuck all. Just so everybody knows.)
Admin lawyer remarks on the states having overdrawn their letters of credit etc. and they just want the states to wait for further guidance before doing anything else. State lawyer obviously wants another order to be entered even though the Rhode Island order already told them to issue full benefits. "This argument confuses me" because the money is supposed to go to beneficiaries. She wants an order from this judge specifically to allow states to issue full benefits now now now now now.
Judge: If she does issue another order, there's no point telling the government to do something while there's a stay on the other order, we don't want more confusion. But she's gearing up to issue one anyway, because fuck the government. She does assume they would immediately appeal if she does issue such an order.
Now the judge wants to wind back the clock to 10/31, 11/3, that time period. She's reminding herself of what her actual order said, which was to evaluate whether partial funds would be issued. But we are here today on the 10th of November, and now we have Rhode Island, the 1st Circuit, and a tentative deal in Congress. "Isn't there an obligation of the USDA to reconsider the HAVOC here of partial payments, vs. applying these monies?" She's trying to wheedle them into just giving up and taking those child nutrition funds for SNAP to stave off the CHAOS of the partial payments. Admin lawyer reminds her that several states have already succeeded in the partial payments and the other states should do the same. Judge keeps arguing about USDA having an obligation to do the right thing blah blah. Admin lawyer asserts that USDA has already used its discretion on that matter.
"Uh-oh!" They lost the state lawyer apparently. Admin lawyer plows ahead regardless, trying to impress upon her that they're not fucking taking those child nutrition funds. The funding questions themselves are up to Congress. "It's up to Congress because you've chosen not to pay the benefits," she snots back. He tries to explain how the child nutrition funds are obtained, she doesn't care. "People are hungry right now!" Admin lawyer: "This is a decision that the department has made." She keeps arguing, raising her voice again, insisting that the big bad government is maliciously choosing not to use the child nutrition money when they could if they wanted to, for fuck's sake she's not letting go of this bone. But neither is the admin lawyer.
Admin lawyer: "The USDA HAS provided partial benefits," he insists, and she really doesn't have a leg to stand on. Loooong pause while she tries to think of a comeback. Finally she brings up the tables for partial benefits that the gov submitted. The states claim the minimum amounts don't follow the regulatory scheme. She is reaching HARD to find any little technically to fuck the government on. He was not prepared to address that specific thing today but he believes it comes down to a matter of calculation/interpretation and the states doing it differently. Judge has new vigor in this argument and is digging in. She's probably texting with the states' lawyer behind the scenes.
Admin lawyer is not getting sucked into the tables argument. States' lawyer is back and jumps in to say it's not ambiguous at all blah blah who cares. Judge agrees with her and claims to have cross-checked the regulations. "So assume I'm right for one minute," what should the states do? Admin lawyer: "Even assuming you're right, the states need to wait for FNS guidance" and also she's not right. So she's going to order them to update the guidance, because fuck the government (while in the same sentence wanting to protect against additional litigation).
And they are in recess, suddenly, we are done.
TL;DR: District Court Judges gotta keep giving the middle finger to Trump and Trump-adjacent anyone and anything.
Massachusetts SNAP case (Half the States v. America) updates ahoy. Because the government is still shut down, yes it is, no really, it still is, don't gimme that "for all intents and purposes" jazz, the government is not yet reopened, all the fun shutdown-related lawsuits remain ongoing and in progress.
It's notable that the lady judge in this case, Indira Talwani, known previously for getting overruled on Trump's deportations earlier this year, has been cagey about getting smacked down again and has been cautious in her rulings in this case. Despite numerous requests for a TRO and for a preliminary injunction by the states, the only TRO she has actually issued was yesterday "staying" the USDA's meanie letter that they sent 11/8 telling the states who fucked up by sending out full SNAP bennies that they needed to "undo" what they did. (She's also mindful, incredibly, about SCOTUS's prior rulings on "nationwide injunctions" and the fact that there's simultaneous litigation going on with the Rhode Island case.)
Anyway, last night, after the ridiculous screechy hearing which I recapped above, the plaintiffs (the states) filed a fresh hysterical "notice of supplemental facts"...
It turns out that after the hearing, USDA has refused to extend several states' lines of credit which were overdrawn by their hasty, unauthorized issuance of full SNAP benefits when they were only supposed to sent partial bennies (65%) out. Oops.
The states emailed the Department of Justice to demand their gibs.
And the DOJ ever-so-politely explained:
But that's not good enough for the states, so here we are screeching at the judge again. So this morning, the defendants (USDA, America, etc.) responded, and it's really elementary. They're obeying the court's order not to make the states "undo" anything. The states are authorized to draw 65% of the normal SNAP amount, so that's what they need to request, and they will get it simple as.
Meanwhile, at the Supreme Court, the government has dutifully submitted a fresh brief to keep fighting the good SNAP fight -- against Rhode Island and the 1st Circuit trying to take those child nutrition funds, primarily. Do these freaks seriously not realize how shitty those optics are for them? Highlights:
Meanwhile in the Rhode Island case, they have filed a response in SCOTUS.
It's basically forty pages arguing that stealing money from the child nutrition funds to give to put on junk food credit cards isn't that big a deal and they should just do it already.
Attachments
20251111074113123_25a539 - Rollins v. RISCC - Response to Application to Stay.pdf
NGL I'd watch the fuck out of that, Tucker sitting down with some durka durka, conversing politely about how the durka durka wants to blow up Tucker and everyone he loves while Tucker listens intently, gently pushes back against being murdered, and they agree to disagree and bond over their mutual dislike of Israel, with a few commerical breaks advertising grass feed beef, overpriced survival batteries, and dogfood delivery that is personalized to your dog (I don't normally consume right wing media, so the ads were definitely the best part).
Maybe, my fear is the Lutnick is the actual bad actor, he's just laundering his Hebrew machinations through others. Pulte in this case, Duffy in the case of car loans.
Duffy's not a big finance guy, a little odd that both of these proposals broke right on top of each other, if it was really just Pulte being loose cannon and shooting from the hip...
You know I’ve been reflecting and a lot this year, mostly on the state of internet politics through out the last like 2 decades and I’ve come to a surprising realizing that being Breadtube is dead. Like I remember that post 2016 going into 2020 YouTube flooded with these types of hbomberguy clones and wannabes but fast forward to 2025 most of the breadtubers are either rarely if ever uploading or just don’t upload or got themselves into some hot water or scammed their fans. It’s quite beautiful honestly seeing this plants get burned.
You know I’ve been reflecting and a lot this year, mostly on the state of internet politics through out the last like 2 decades and I’ve come to a surprising realizing that being Breadtube is dead. Like I remember that post 2016 going into 2020 YouTube flooded with these types of hbomberguy clones and wannabes but fast forward to 2025 most of the breadtubers are either rarely if ever uploading or just don’t upload or got themselves into some hot water or scammed their fans. It’s quite beautiful honestly seeing this plants get burned.
I hold strong on my old theory from months ago that Trump and his family were directly and seriously threatened behind the scenes in the White House, most likely right around the time of the Epstein fiasco.
I can't wait for Donald Trump's 500,000 more Indian and Chinese students and 60 year mortgages. The Republicans wonder why they keep losing elections. Maybe keep your God damn promises of mass deportation of illegal and legal immigrants.
