Atticus ᚐᚈᚈᚔᚉᚒᚄ

I can say this, I didn't give up.

[Kostas Moros @MorosKostas]

Why?

Elon has made possible:

1. Mass market electric cars that people actually like, and Tesla continues to sell over a million of them a year.

2. Returned the US to space through SpaceX. No more relying on Russia like we were for a while.

3. Fixed the rural internet problem with Starlink. I know people who have fast internet in their rural areas for the first time in their lives thanks to this. A problem the government wanted to waste billions to "solve," instead resolved by a private company.

4. Massive expansion of home solar.

5. Neuralink is doing very cool work and helping disabled people.

6. Bought Twitter, which while far from perfect, is the only big social media platform to not be outright hostile to conservative views, and a big change from its prior bias.

And that's not even everything.

If Elon were still Democrat-aligned, he'd be a God to them. He's done more for green energy than any other single person, and it's not even close.

They hate him because of his politics. They'd rather we didn't have those accomplishments, than a non-Democrat/Progressive like Elon get to take credit for them.

I'm glad he's a trillionaire, and wish he could pay less taxes. His money is put to far more productive use than letting our government waste it on nonsense.

[Squirrel Matador @BudLightSadness]

I see the Irish are getting all Irishy

Godspeed my potato brothers.

Godspeed.

[nazzo @nazzobetweeting]

i’m so mad at fifa for banning tailgates at the world cup. these euro tourists would’ve lovedddd getting free hotdogs and beers shoved into their hands by an overweight dad named bob

[Daniel Simpson @DSimpson88]

Genuinely, all these tweets of World Cup visitors getting to experience the best of Small Town, USA fills me with a national pride that’s been on holiday lately

[Atticus ᚐᚈᚈᚔᚉᚒᚄ @ElSabio04]

Jordan-Hare, baby! WDE!

[Freddy🇩🇪 @FreddyLA7]

This is the craziest stadium I’ve ever been to, and I’ve been to a lot of ones.

[Freddy🇩🇪 @FreddyLA7]

There’s an eagle flying around the stadium

[Josh Chavis @JoshChavis65]

All of America watching Euros rave about Waffle House, Chilis apps, buying Combos at a rural gas station, floating the Chattahoochee, and ranch dressing on the internet:

[Atticus ᚐᚈᚈᚔᚉᚒᚄ @ElSabio04]

@endofanerajc Some short guys have a napoleon complex, some don't. 🤷🏻‍♂️ I'd lean towards heels, just so you can figure out early on if he's insecure and controlling

[Liz Mac @TheLizMac]

@igorbobic He admitted he knew what it was as early as 2012.

[David M. McIntosh @DavidMMcintosh]

The New York Times hung a domestic violence survivor out to dry because she is a conservative.

That is where we are now. https://t.co/3dvdaqkliv

[Tom Elliott @tomselliott]

Progressives don't even realize how easily they're manipulated.

Here's how this clearly went down:

Platner, worried about all of the skeletons in his closet, started gaming out who had keys to that closet & how to deal with them.

Ex-girlfriends like Lyndsey were the key focus.

Rather than waiting for someone to start leaking embarrassing details (kinda like his wife did, inadvertently), Team Platner & the NYT convinced Lindsey they would take their claims seriously, convinced them to give them exclusivity, so that they could control the narrative.

The resulting article on its surface is about Platner's ex girlfriends giving a range of reviews, some positive, most negative. But the main focus is on Lyndsey, who, the Times knew, would be written off among left-wing voters as a Republican operative trying to keep Susan Collins in the Senate. As Lyndsey explained this morning, the Times had details about his psychically abusive nature with other (presumably non-Republican) ex girlfriends, but for some reason chose not to publish them.

In this way, the story amongst Democrats can be more easily dismissed as a Republican hit job. Then thousands of progressive accounts, like the one below, unwittingly help complete the op.

Crisis Comms in 2026.

[Atticus ᚐᚈᚈᚔᚉᚒᚄ @ElSabio04]

@BootleggedChad I think of the parties in the US in the same way as coalitions in parliamentary governments. I agree about the right, and I feared that MAGA would do that back in 2016. But… I think it’s not the whole of the right, just the largest group in the power sharing agreement ATP

[Atticus ᚐᚈᚈᚔᚉᚒᚄ @ElSabio04]

@endofanerajc What I���m hearing is that Chad is a werewolf

[Apple Lamps @lamps_apple]

The Carroll case rested on a sequence of legal maneuvers with no precedent in American civil litigation. Democratic legislators passed a retroactive temporary law eliminating the statute of limitations for decades-old accusations that could not be dated, located, or defended with alibis. The day the temporary law took effect, Carroll filed her pre-prepared lawsuit, the first in the state to do so.

A Democratic mega-donor secretly funded the plaintiff’s legal costs through a nonprofit. The arrangement stayed hidden until one of Trump’s lawyers discovered it. A Clinton-appointed judge then sealed all records so the jury never learned the billionaire backer had publicly committed to Trump’s political destruction. Every participant in the legislative, funding, and judicial steps operated inside the same political network, and each decision produced the same cumulative result.

The jury explicitly checked “no” on the verdict form’s specific rape question. The judge ruled rape proven anyway, claiming the jury had used a common rather than statutory definition… an impossibility, since their rejection under the common definition precludes rape by any standard. Trump’s team was barred from arguing innocence before a second jury, which awarded $83.3 million ($65 million punitive) on the rape finding the first jury had rejected.

A defendant was sued for defamation over denying an accusation, prevented from asserting that denial as a defense, tried before a judge who concealed the plaintiff’s political funding, and hit with a nine-figure verdict built on facts the jury itself refused to find.

No comparable sequence exists in recorded U.S. civil litigation history.

[Cynical Publius @CynicalPublius]

Anyone who claims the lack of joy about the 250th is a function of a rough economy was not alive in 1976.

The country rocked in its 200th celebration and the economy was a FREAKING MESS.

There is this Gen Z misconception that the '70s and early '80s were some sort of economic golden age of readily available, well-paying jobs, low cost housing and an all around sense of prosperity.

WRONG.

Google "Stagflation." Google "gas lines." Google "mortgage interest rates in the 1980s."

Our economy today is a golden age by comparison, without exaggeration.

Yet somehow in 1976 we could gleefully celebrate our nation's birthday without Democrats turning it into a Howard Zinn-inspired anti-history hatefest.

[Art @ZarkFiles]

The E. Jean Carroll case against President Trump is one of the strangest civil cases in American history. The foundational problem is this: Carroll could not identify when the alleged incident occurred — not even the year with any precision.
That should have killed the case as dead as a skunk on the road right there.
Without a temporal anchor, no defendant — regardless of guilt or innocence — can mount an alibi defense. Trump, who has maintained detailed calendars and staff records for decades, was denied the most basic tool of self-defense: the ability to establish where he was. That is not a technicality. It is a due process violation at the constitutional level.
Then Carroll produced the one piece of physical evidence she claimed corroborated her account — the dress she wore during the alleged incident. It was subsequently established that the dress was designed after the incident could have occurred. The sole corroborating evidence falsified her timeline.
The case proceeded anyway.
The resulting verdict was then weaponized in a defamation suit — where Trump was held liable for denying the allegation, while being procedurally barred from defending against it, because it was already "proven" in another court, regardless how flawed the procedure was. He was punished, in effect, for asserting his own innocence.
Compounding everything: coordinated professional and physical threats so thoroughly intimidated the legal community that attorneys refused these cases regardless of available fees. When you systematically destroy a defendant's ability to retain counsel of choice, you forfeit the right to a legitimate verdict.
An allegation is not evidence. Process without substance is not law. And a verdict produced under these conditions carries no legitimate authority — whatever its formal status.

Not only is it the right move to investigate Carroll, but every other person involved as well. Trump is owed serious damages here, and there may be a few people who belong in prison for their roles in the case.

[Cynical Publius @CynicalPublius]

We gave up on “civility” when you tried to stage a literal coup via the “Trump/Russia Collusion” hoax.

We abandoned “comity” when you decided that serial impeachments based on lies and fables were your preferred method of thwarting the Constitutional will of the American electorate.

We decided against “collegiality” after you decided it was better to fabricate criminal charges to defeat your opponents than it was to try and defeat them at the ballot box.

We threw out pretensions of “courtesy” the one-zillionth time you called us “Nazis” while your own candidates sport SS Totenkopf tattoos.

We play by your rules now, Democrats.

Deal with it.

(You too, Mike Pence.)

[Atticus ᚐᚈᚈᚔᚉᚒᚄ @ElSabio04]

@endofanerajc Is this AI?

[The🐰FOO @PolitiBunny]

You know what’s really harmful to kids? An AG who calls them little fascists and wishes for them to suffer and die in their mom’s arms.

[Eric Schwalm @Schwalm5132]

A retired Navy Vice Admiral glanced at a critic on X and immediately wrote him off as a bot who had never served his country.

He was wrong. Badly wrong.

The man he attacked was a decorated combat veteran who had served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. What should have been a simple policy disagreement quickly turned into a very public lesson about arrogance, isolation, and the quiet erosion of judgment among those at the top.

(6 min read)