Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 30,091]

JD Vance video that was deleted from (X) formerly twitter

 

 

[Vesper 30,091]

Unpopular Pete Hegseth Forced To Drink Lunch Alone
Unable To Fit In With Top Military Brass, Intoxicated Secretary Sits By Himself

https://theonion.com/unpopular-pete-hegseth-forced-to-drink-lunch-alone/

Published:

April 22, 2025

 

WASHINGTON—Looking around with despair as he searched for an open seat in the Pentagon cafeteria, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was reportedly forced to drink his lunch alone Wednesday. 

According to witnesses, the 44-year-old former Fox News host wandered through the lunchroom and took slow, deliberate steps past tables filled with jovial military officers who quickly turned away from him to avoid making eye contact. After locating an empty table in an isolated corner, Hegseth is said to have sat down and begun slowly unloading a brown paper sack that concealed a 750-milliliter bottle of Dewar’s White Label blended scotch, a 12-ounce Miller Lite, and an airplane-sized nip of Fireball for dessert.

“Well, I guess I’m on my own today,” said Hegseth, standing out in stark contrast to the rest of the cafeteria’s occupants, who sat packed around tables chatting enthusiastically with their colleagues. “I was really hoping to be able to hang out with all my awesome friends at the Department of Defense today, but there was only one seat left, and they told me they were saving it for someone else.”

“It’s no big deal, though. I actually wanted to sit alone,” Hegseth added. “But if anyone needs a seat, these chairs are totally open.” 

Several reports indicated this was the third day in a row Hegseth had been shunned by personnel from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, leaving him no choice but to drink lunch by himself. Witnesses confirmed that when Hegseth walked by several tables with open seats, his fellow Pentagon employees moved hastily to cover empty chairs with their bags and coats as he passed.

A wide-eyed, grinning Hegseth was reportedly even so bold as to approach a table of prominent, highly decorated U.S. Navy officers and—undeterred by their icy body language—pull up a chair to sit down. A slurring Hegseth then attempted to engage in small talk until the members of the group rolled their eyes, picked up their trays all at once, and told the defense secretary to “fuck off.” 

“No way is that loser Hegseth sitting with us,” said Adm. Christopher Grady, vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who looked over his shoulder and scoffed at the sight of Hegseth hunched over his bottle and muttering to himself. “That guy is so weird. I don’t care how pathetic he looks over there moping all by himself. He smells like shit, it looks like he hasn’t changed clothes in a week, and he needs to take a shower.”

“Yesterday he came up to my table carrying a bottle of Aquafina that I’m pretty sure he had emptied out and refilled with vodka,” Grady continued. “His breath reeked so bad I thought I was going to puke.”

On Wednesday, Hegseth was seen trying to sit down with a pair of bespectacled cybersecurity officials as a last resort, but they immediately moved their laptops and turned their backs to him. He stood up from their table only to bump into a tall, muscular four-star Army general and spill whiskey all over himself, at which point the entire Pentagon cafeteria burst out in raucous laughter.

“Aw, no, no, no!” said Hegseth, who looked down, noticed the Dewar’s dripping down the front of his pants, and hastily attempted to cover it with his hands. “I swear I didn’t piss myself. I just spilled whiskey on my suit. See?”

“Everyone stop laughing,” the defense secretary screamed before running off in tears to hide in the Pentagon bathroom. “Stop it!”

At press time, a concerned Pentagon custodian had reportedly discovered Hegseth fast asleep on the restroom floor.

 

 

lololol

[Fulham Broadway 17,299]

Vatican to replace Pope with series of guest Popes

22nd April 2025

THE Vatican has confirmed it will replace the Pope with a rotating series of guest Popes in order to revitalise public interest in the office. 

Rather than name a new permanent pontiff the Catholic church is to appoint a new head every two months to stay in the headlines, with the first of the new temporary Popes rumoured to be none other than Lionel Messi.

A Vatican spokesman said: “The conclaves get worldwide attention but then we appoint a 68-year-old cardinal who names himself Gregory XVII and all that falls away.

“So instead we’re putting in guest Popes, each with their own agenda for Catholicism, to really bring the Church roaring back. Get us a bit of publicity that isn’t about covering up sexual abuse or smuggling Nazis to South America for a change.

“First on the papal throne is none other than Lionel Messi, who’s proven box office. Will that tempt longtime rival Ronaldo to step up for his own stint issuing edicts and canonising saints? You’ve got to think!

“Lined up after that we’ve got Martin Scorsese, Bono, Henry Cavill, Jon Bon Jovi, Jenna Jameson and controversial stints from Mel Gibson and Lady Gaga. Look out, Jesus! This ain’t your Daddy’s church no more!”

He added: “And good news for Britain – your two thousand year wait for your own Pope is over. We’ve got Tony Blair pencilled in for February-March next year and Phillip Schofield for 2027. Is he Catholic? He seems the type.”

[Fulham Broadway 17,299]

 

[Fulham Broadway 17,299]

 

[KEVINAA 129]

 

[Fernando 6,585]

45 minutes ago, KEVINAA said:

 

Nope, anti christ will be much better looking. 🙃

[Vesper 30,091]

Virginia Giuffre, prominent survivor of Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse, dies by suicide

Virginia Giuffre was one of the first to call for Jeffrey Epstein to face criminal charges

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/virginia-giuffre-death-updates-epstein-b2739856.html

Virginia Giuffre pictured with Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre’s family described her as ‘a fierce warrior’ and ‘the light that lifted so many survivors’ (PA)

[Fulham Broadway 17,299]

6 hours ago, Vesper said:

Virginia Giuffre, prominent survivor of Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse, dies by suicide

Virginia Giuffre was one of the first to call for Jeffrey Epstein to face criminal charges

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/virginia-giuffre-death-updates-epstein-b2739856.html

Virginia Giuffre pictured with Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre’s family described her as ‘a fierce warrior’ and ‘the light that lifted so many survivors’ (PA)

Dershowitz, Epsteins 'lawyer' should bear some responsibility. Also implicated in child sex trafficking

[Vesper 30,091]

Trump's world of rival fortresses

https://archive.ph/qfrEQ

 

 

The surprising thing about Donald Trump’s policies is that people are still surprised by them.

Headlines express shock and disbelief whenever Trump assaults another pillar of the global liberal order — for example by supporting Russia’s claims for Ukrainian territory, contemplating the forced annexation of Greenland or unleashing financial chaos with his tariff announcements.

Yet his policies are so consistent, and his vision of the world so clearly defined, that by this stage only wilful self-deception can account for any surprise.

Supporters of the liberal order see the world as a potentially win-win network of co-operation. They believe that conflict is not inevitable, because co-operation can be mutually beneficial.

This belief has deep philosophical roots. Liberals argue that all humans share some common experiences and interests, which can form the basis for universal values, global institutions and international laws.

For example, all humans abhor illness and have a common interest in preventing the spread of contagious diseases. So all countries would benefit from the sharing of medical knowledge, global efforts to eradicate epidemics and the establishment of institutions like the World Health Organization that co-ordinate such efforts.

Similarly, when liberals look at the flow of ideas, goods and people between countries, they tend to understand it in terms of potential mutual benefits rather than inevitable competition and exploitation.

In the Trumpian vision, by contrast, the world is seen as a zero-sum game in which every transaction involves winners and losers. The movement of ideas, goods and people is therefore inherently suspect.

In Trump’s world, international agreements, organisations and laws cannot be anything but a plot to weaken some countries and strengthen others — or perhaps a plot to weaken all countries and benefit a sinister cosmopolitan elite.

What, then, is Trump’s preferred alternative? If he could reshape the world according to his wishes, what would it look like?

Trump’s ideal world is a mosaic of fortresses, where countries are separated by high financial, military, cultural and physical walls. It forgoes the potential of mutually beneficial co-operation, but Trump and like-minded populists argue that it will offer countries more stability and peace.

There is, of course, a key component missing from this vision. Thousands of years of history teach us that each fortress would probably want a bit more security, prosperity and territory for itself, at the expense of its neighbours.

In the absence of universal values, global institutions and international laws, how would rival fortresses resolve their disputes? Trump’s solution is simple: the way to prevent conflicts is for the weak to do whatever the strong demand.

According to this view, conflict occurs only when the weak refuse to accept reality. War is therefore always the fault of the weak. When Trump blamed Ukraine for the Russian invasion, many people couldn’t understand how he could hold such a preposterous view.

Some assumed he’d been hoodwinked by Russian propaganda. But there is a simpler explanation.

According to the Trumpian worldview, considerations of justice, morality and international law are irrelevant, and the only thing that matters in international relations is power. Since Ukraine is weaker than Russia, it should have surrendered.

In the Trumpian vision, peace means surrender, and since Ukraine refused to surrender, the war is its fault.

The same logic underlies Trump’s plan for annexing Greenland. According to Trumpian logic, if weak Denmark refuses to cede Greenland to the much stronger US and the US then invades and conquers Greenland by force, Denmark would bear sole responsibility for any violence and bloodshed.

There are three obvious problems with the idea that rival fortresses can avoid conflict by accepting reality and cutting deals.

First, it exposes the lie behind the promise that in a world of fortresses everyone will feel less threatened, and every country could focus on peacefully developing its own traditions and economy.

In fact, the weaker fortresses would soon find themselves swallowed by their stronger neighbours, which would turn from national fortresses into sprawling multinational empires.

Trump himself is very clear about his own imperial plans. While he builds walls to protect US territory and resources, he turns a predatory eye to the territory and resources of other countries, including erstwhile allies.

Denmark is again a tell-tale example. For decades, it has been one of America’s most reliable allies. After the 9/11 attacks, Denmark fulfilled its Nato treaty obligations enthusiastically. Forty-four Danish soldiers died in Afghanistan — a higher per capita death rate than that suffered by the US itself.

Trump didn’t bother saying “thank you”. Instead, he expects Denmark to capitulate to his imperial ambitions. He clearly wants vassals rather than allies.

A second problem is that since no fortress can afford to be weak, all of them would be under enormous pressure to strengthen themselves militarily. Resources would be diverted from economic development and welfare programmes to defence. The resulting arms races would decrease everyone’s prosperity without making anyone feel more secure.

Third, the Trumpian vision expects the weak to surrender to the strong, but it offers no clear method for determining relative strength.

What happens if countries miscalculate, as often happens in history? In 1965 the US was convinced that it was much stronger than North Vietnam, and that by applying enough pressure it could force the government in Hanoi to cut a deal.

The North Vietnamese refused to acknowledge American superiority, persevered against immense odds — and won the war. How could the US have known in advance that it actually had the weaker hand?

Similarly, in 1914 both Germany and Russia were convinced they would win the war by Christmas. They miscalculated. The war took much longer than anyone expected and involved many unforeseen twists and turns.

By 1917 the defeated Tsarist Empire was engulfed by revolution, but Germany was denied victory due to the unanticipated intervention of the US. So should Germany have cut a deal in 1914? Or perhaps it was the Russian tsar who should have acknowledged reality and surrendered to German demands?

In the current trade war between China and the US, who should do the sensible thing and surrender in advance?

You might respond that instead of seeing the world in such zero-sum terms, it is better for all countries to work together to ensure mutual prosperity. But if you think like that, you are rejecting the basic premises of the Trumpian vision.

The Trumpian vision is not a novelty. It has been the predominant vision for thousands of years prior to the rise of the liberal world order.

The Trumpian formula has been tried and tested so many times before that we know where it usually leads — to a never-ending cycle of empire-building and war.

Even worse, in the 21st century the rival fortresses would have to deal not just with the old threat of war, but with the new challenges of climate change and the rise of superintelligent AI. Without robust international co-operation, there is no way to deal with these global problems.

Since Trump has no viable solution for either climate change or an out-of-control AI, his strategy is to simply deny their existence.

Concerns about the stability of the liberal world order mounted after Trump was first elected US president in 2016. Following a decade of confusion and uncertainty, we now have a clear picture of the post-liberal world disorder.

The liberal vision of the world as a co-operative network is replaced by the vision of the world as a mosaic of fortresses.

This is being realised all around us — walls are going up and drawbridges are raised. If this continues to be implemented, the short-term results will be trade wars, arms races and imperial expansion.

The ultimate results will be global war, ecological collapse and out-of-control AI. We can be saddened and outraged by these developments and do our best to reverse them, but there is no longer any excuse for being surprised.

As for those wishing to defend Trump’s vision, they should answer one question: how can rival national fortresses peacefully resolve their economic and territorial disputes if there are no universal values or binding international laws?

[KEVINAA 129]

News sources on x twitter reporting electricity blackouts in FRANCE SPAIN PORTUGAL

[Fernando 6,585]

The only good thing is that it's only 4 years. 

And I never support another term. That is delusional and dangerous. 

 

[Vesper 30,091]

How I Knew My Sister Was Gay | Hilarious & Heartfelt Story | Cliff Cash Stand-Up Comedy

 

[Vesper 30,091]

Donald Trump Demands Investigations Into Negative Approval Rating Polls

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-demands-investigations-negative-approval-rating-polls-2064949

President Donald Trump has said pollsters that have shown his approval ratings sliding in recent weeks should be investigated for "election fraud."

Trump cited recent polls from The New York Times, ABC News/The Washington Post, and Fox News, which put his approval rating on 42 percent, 39 percent, and 44 percent respectively.

Responding to the polls, Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday: "They are negative criminals who apologize to their subscribers and readers after I win elections big, much bigger than their polls showed I would win, loose a lot of credibility, and then go on cheating and lying for the next cycle, only worse."

Newsweek contacted the White House for comment on Monday outside of regular working hours.

Why It Matters

Trump has routinely attacked negative polls as rigged, while promoting those that are favorable to him. His call for an investigation into major pollsters is an escalation of his efforts to discredit institutions he perceives as hostile to his presidency.

But polling Trump's base has often presented unique challenges to researchers, which has fueled concerns that his level of support is often underestimated. Presidential approval polls are also highly volatile and only offer a snapshot of public sentiment at a given moment.

What To Know

The ABC News/The Washington Post poll showed that Trump's approval rating had dropped to the lowest level of any president in the last 80 years at this point in their presidencies.

The New York Times/Siena poll found that only 31 percent of respondents approved of Trump's handling of the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and only 43 percent approved of his handling of the economy.

Responding to the pollsters, Trump wrote: "Great pollster John McLaughlin, one of the most highly respected in the industry, has just stated that The Failing New York Times poll, and the ABC/Washington Post poll, about a person named DONALD J. TRUMP, ME, are FAKE POLLS FROM FAKE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS.

"They suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, and there is nothing that anyone, or anything, can do about it. THEY ARE SICK, almost only write negative stories about me no matter how well I am doing (99.9% at the Border, BEST NUMBER EVER!), AND ARE TRULY THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! I wish them well, but will continue to fight to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

What People Are Saying

Trump wrote in a separate post on Truth Social on Monday: "We don't have a Free and Fair 'Press' in this Country anymore. We have a Press that writes BAD STORIES, and CHEATS, BIG, ON POLLS. IT IS COMPROMISED AND CORRUPT. SAD!"

John McLaughlin, Trump's campaign pollster, told Newsweek in a statement: "When President Trump received 50 percent of the popular vote, but The New York Times includes only 37 percent of his voters in their poll and ABC/Washington Post has only 34 percent Trump supporters, it seems that they deliberately biased their polls against President Trump."

What Happens Next

Trump's polling is likely to continue to fluctuate in the coming weeks in response to key policy issues including tariffs.

Any sustained negative polling could affect the Republicans in the midterm elections in November 2026.

[Fulham Broadway 17,299]

When two countries are at war it is a certainty one was just visited by the US - Nelson Mandela