• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

To the privileged, equality seems like oppression.

I like political parties that aren’t owned by foreign adversaries.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

Fight for a just cause, love your fellow man, live a good life.

Not all heroes wear capes.

Too little, too late, ftfnyt. fuck all the way off.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

It is possible to do the right thing without the promise of a cookie.

No Kings: Americans standing in the way of bad history saying “Oh, Fuck No!”

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

American history and black history cannot be separated.

You passed on an opportunity to be offended? What are you even doing here?

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

Republicans don’t lie to be believed, they lie to be repeated.

I would try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

You know he’s going to shit a cat.

Lick the third rail, it tastes like chocolate!

Not rolling over. fuck you, make me.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

They don’t have outfits that big. nor codpieces that small.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

Mobile Menu

  • 2026 Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2026 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Archives for Democratic Response to Trump 2.0 / Opposition to Trump-Musk

Opposition to Trump-Musk

Late Night Open Thread: Elon’s Latest Public Tantrum

by Anne Laurie|  July 7, 202511:29 pm| 142 Comments

This post is in: Grifters Gonna Grift, Open Threads, Opposition to Trump-Musk, Elon Musk

I guess “White Party” was just too on the nose?

[image or embed]

— Aubrey Hirsch (@aubreyhirsch.bsky.social) July 6, 2025 at 12:57 PM


===

Everybody be quiet and let Elon spend billions becoming the Republican version of Jill Stein.

— Kevin M. Kruse (@kevinmkruse.bsky.social) July 6, 2025 at 2:44 PM


===

Elon Musk should just cut to the chase and call his third party the National Socialists.
It’s gonna be that no matter what name he gives it.

— Charles Johnson (@charles.littlegreenfootballs.com) July 5, 2025 at 8:53 PM

===
May Elon do as much for the GOP as Jill Stein has done for the Democrats!

Trump is wrong. Ralph Nader, & Jill Stein/Gary Johnson, were wildly successful.

[image or embed]

— Dana Houle (@danahoule.bsky.social) July 7, 2025 at 1:20 AM


===

Musk announces the arrival of the new "America Party" after his split with Trump.

[image or embed]

— Politico (@politico.com) July 5, 2025 at 5:35 PM

… As Trump on Thursday flaunted his successful push to muscle the Republican megabill through Congress this week, Musk sought to drum up support for his potential third party launch, positing that his new party would target a handful of vulnerable swing seats to leverage political power.

“Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people,” he wrote.

While Musk may have the millions to pour into backing certain candidates — which he has already promised to do, pledging to support Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-Ky.) reelection campaign amid targeting from Trump — establishing a third party involves a series of thorny obstacles including navigating complex state laws, ballot access regulations and other legal hoops.

So far, the billionaire would-be party founder has yet to outline a concrete plan forward. Just two months ago, Musk had vowed to cut back on political spending, saying he had “done enough.”

===

show full post on front page

Trump is melting down over Elon forming the “America Party,” which is polling at 15% already, mostly with male Republicans.

[image or embed]

— God (@thegodpodcast.com) July 7, 2025 at 3:19 PM

===

Wonder if the America Party will be like Tesla, and drive randomly to the right and burn up.
#Satire

[image or embed]

— Lawprofblawg (@lawprofblawg.bsky.social) July 6, 2025 at 1:49 PM

===

I’m very excited about the America Party and I encourage anyone else who wants to fund a third party on the right to take a shot also

— post malone ergo propter malone (@proptermalone.bsky.social) July 6, 2025 at 2:57 AM


===

Musk is gonna recruit his favorite blue check reply guys as congressional candidates and the oppo uncovered on them is going to be the most cursed shit that the American discourse has ever encountered. Mark Robinson's NudeAfrica forum posts will feel like a simpler, more innocent time.

— Zeddy (@zeddary.bsky.social) July 5, 2025 at 5:05 PM


===

lmao. not elon musk spending $500 million to spoil republican candidates in marginal districts and get Dems to 240 house seats

— G Elliott Morris (@gelliottmorris.com) July 6, 2025 at 9:05 PM

===

The number of Democratic voters that (a) like Elon Musk, (b) think Dem leaders are too woke, & (c) want to cut entitlements is in the single digit millions. Likely even less.
Meanwhile, that's like 90% of Republicans. I don't think this is going to work out the way he thinks

[image or embed]

— G Elliott Morris (@gelliottmorris.com) July 6, 2025 at 9:17 PM

===
Counter-argument (do we need to take this seriously?)

Both Putin and Elon are dissatisfied with Trump, so the focus is going to change to Congress. And Musk is basically just a frontman for a larger group of interests.
We're under attack from so many different directions. Read this for more insight.

[image or embed]

— Khashoggi's Ghost (@urocklive1.bsky.social) July 7, 2025 at 5:25 PM

===

Haha, “incumbent parties” (WTF does that mean?) don’t “control ballots.” Most states they get ballot access by exceeding some % of the overall vote, often 2%. Minor parties/ballot access hucksters find suckers like dead end candidates or fools like Cuban to pay for their lines
Cuban was a mark

[image or embed]

— Dana Houle (@danahoule.bsky.social) July 6, 2025 at 1:08 AM


===

Creating a spoiler third party is actually a huge win for Elon even if he’s too dumb to realize it, he splits the Republican votes so Dems dominate the government, he then gets all the benefits of Dem policy while posting constantly about fighting the woke mind virus or whatever

[image or embed]

— Ed (@notdred.bsky.social) July 6, 2025 at 7:35 AM

===

Manifesting this: Elon Musk, if he sticks to this third party thing, does it the way he's done everything else: something like, offering incumbent elected Republicans hundreds of thousands of dollars to run as candidates for his party instead

— Adam Gurri (@adamgurri.liberalcurrents.com) July 5, 2025 at 5:00 PM

===

'Fat drunken slob': Elon Musk and Steve Bannon are now at war over proposed third party https://twp.ai/4inywY

[image or embed]

— #TuckFrump (@realtuckfrumper.bsky.social) July 4, 2025 at 9:02 PM


===

They're gonna ratfuck elon and it's going to be hilarious

[image or embed]

— Schnorkles O'Bork (@schnorkles.bsky.social) July 5, 2025 at 11:52 AM

Late Night Open Thread: Elon’s Latest Public TantrumPost + Comments (142)

Pete Buttigieg and the 3-Hour Tour

by WaterGirl|  May 5, 202510:35 am| 204 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads, Opposition to Trump-Musk, Organizing & Resistance

I suspect we’re all on board for what Pete is recommending in the 2nd section below, but sections one and three are more of a challenge.

Pretty sure that 33% isn’t going to get us where we want to be.

Time to get out of our comfort zone?

If you want to read Pete’s substack about this, just click on any of the 3 images above.

Here’s the 3-Hour Tour!

Has anyone watched the whole thing yet?  The clips I’ve seen have been outstanding.  But of course I read a bit about some really lame questions that were asked; it will be interesting to see how Pete Buttigieg handled those.

Open thread.

Pete Buttigieg and the 3-Hour TourPost + Comments (204)

Hakeem Jeffries – Evolving Strategy – ‘Dumb Effing Individuals’

by WaterGirl|  May 4, 202511:17 am| 221 Comments

This post is in: Democratic Politics, Open Threads, Opposition to Trump-Musk, Politics

UNITED STATES – APRIL 30: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., speaks about President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office, at the Atlas Performing Arts Center in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, April 30, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Punchbowl seems to think that Hakeem Jeffries has a new media strategy.

Something has changed with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. He seems to be everywhere these days and coming out from under the shadow of the louder progressive voices who are taking on President Donald Trump.

This week, Jeffries participated in an over 12-hour sit-in on the Capitol steps on Sunday along with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and other House Democrats. In addition, Jeffries made an off-campus speech to a crowded theater near Capitol Hill to mark Trump’s first 100 days in office.

The Democratic leader has also beefed up his direct-to-camera videos, while increasing his rhetoric against Trump. And he now has two news conferences a week instead of one.

Jeffries’ new media strategy is a stark contrast to the typically measured leader we’ve long covered.

In a video he posted earlier this month, Jeffries referred to Trump’s Cabinet officials as “dumb effing individuals.” He also hit back at Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on X after Cruz criticized Democrats for going to El Salvador to advocate for the release of wrongfully detained Salvadoran immigrant, Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

[snip]

During his speech to supporters this week, Jeffries also acknowledged the shift in his attitude towards Republicans. If you recall, Jeffries was “Mr. Bipartisan” at the start of the Congress, hoping to work with his GOP counterparts after a crushing election last November.

But the Democratic leader said Republicans rejected that plea  and that Democrats can not stand for what they’re doing now.

“Donald Trump is doubling down, and instead of being a check and balance on this president’s abuse of power, Republicans in Congress are nothing more than a rubber stamp for his extreme agenda,” Jeffries said.

First of all, I wonder why Punchbowl thinks this is a “media strategy” rather than a strategy to oppose the orange monster.  Arrogance?  Does the media think everything is about them?  Do they see everything as kabuki, rather than actual tactics or strategy?  These days, is there an actual difference?  I think YES.

Anyway, let’s not take their word for it.

We will not let this guy abolish Veterans Day.

[image or embed]

— Hakeem Jeffries (@hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social) May 3, 2025 at 6:17 PM

.

This is not Joe Biden’s economy.

It’s your failed economy, Donald.

[image or embed]

— Hakeem Jeffries (@hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social) April 30, 2025 at 4:28 PM

.

This from someone who abandoned his state during a historic winter storm to vacation in Cancun.

Nobody takes you seriously at this point.

And that’s Leader Jeffries to you, Edward. https://t.co/qSONuIkDLc

— Hakeem Jeffries (@hakeemjeffries) May 1, 2025

What do you guys think?

Hakeem Jeffries – Evolving Strategy – ‘Dumb Effing Individuals’Post + Comments (221)

Good News, Bad News, Depending on Who You Are and How You Look At It

by WaterGirl|  April 15, 20256:18 pm| 204 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads, Opposition to Trump-Musk, Politics

Update with Biden’s speech.

h/t NotMax

*****

FFOTUS has broken the record for worst approval rating of a President ever at this point in a presidency.  The record he broke?  That was his own record from 2017.  Congratulations!

Not lookin’ too good for FFOTUS among Independents, where he is at -22.  Not so good for him!

Net approval on the economy?

Not looking so good at -29, a drop of 30 points in the 5 years that have passed since he took office in January 2025.

Big surprise on tariffs!

How long before he hits the magic 27%?


So… good that people are starting to wake up.

Bad, I guess, that things are so bad that even the potentially clueless are getting a clue?

Certainly bad for FFOTUS!

*****

Can we talk about Independents for a minute?  Because I don’t see how true Independents (who theoretically vote for the best candidate, regardless of party) could have thought he was fine to be begin with.  My theory is that Independents are mostly people who don’t want to admit that they are mostly Republican.

I’ll close with the thought that if I’m right about that, FFOTUS is losing a lot of folks who voted for him, even if they voted for him on the down low.

Good News, Bad News, Depending on Who You Are and How You Look At ItPost + Comments (204)

Letter from Harvard: Turning Point? Tipping Point? Catalyst?

by WaterGirl|  April 15, 202510:05 am| 250 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads, Opposition to Trump-Musk, Politics

Can we talk about the letter from Harvard, and the significance of  this letter?  Is it a turning point?  A tipping point?  Pivotal event?  A catalyst?  Something else?

Tipping Point: The point at which a series of small changes or incidents becomes significant enough to cause a larger, more important change.

Turning Point: A time at which a decisive change in a situation occurs, especially one with beneficial results.

Catalyst: A person or thing that precipitates an event.

Pivotal Event: Of crucial importance in relation to the development or success of something else.

Whatever we choose to call it, or however we choose to think of it, this is an important moment.  We need to capitalize on this, make the most of this moment.  How do we do that?

New York Times, via Hopium Chronicles

Harvard University is 140 years older than the United States, has an endowment greater than the G.D.P. of nearly 100 countries and has educated eight American presidents. So if an institution was going to stand up to the Trump administration’s war on academia, Harvard would be at the top of the list.

Harvard did that forcefully on Monday in a way that injected energy into other universities across the country fearful of the president’s wrath, rejecting the Trump administration’s demands on hiring, admissions and curriculum. Some commentators went so far as to say that Harvard’s decision would empower law firms, the courts, the media and other targets of the White House to push back as well.

“This is of momentous, momentous significance,” said J. Michael Luttig, a prominent former federal appeals court judge revered by many conservatives. “This should be the turning point in the president’s rampage against American institutions.”

Michael S. Roth, who is the president of Wesleyan University and a rare critic of the White House among university administrators, welcomed Harvard’s decision. “What happens when institutions overreach is that they change course when they meet resistance,” he said. “It’s like when a bully is stopped in his tracks.”

We should all read every word of this letter from Harvard President, Alan Garber

show full post on front page

Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer.

In recent weeks, the federal government has threatened its partnerships with several universities, including Harvard, over accusations of antisemitism on our campuses. These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history.

New frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances—from treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, quantum science and engineering, and numerous other areas of possibility. For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.

Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to “maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.” It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.

I encourage you to read the letter to gain a fuller understanding of the unprecedented demands being made by the federal government to control the Harvard community. They include requirements to “audit” the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to “reduc[e] the power” of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.

The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.

Our motto—Veritas, or truth—guides us as we navigate the challenging path ahead. Seeking truth is a journey without end. It requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny, and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to take up the difficult work of acknowledging our flaws so that we might realize the full promise of the University, especially when that promise is threatened.

We have made it abundantly clear that we do not take lightly our moral duty to fight antisemitism. Over the past fifteen months, we have taken many steps to address antisemitism on our campus. We plan to do much more. As we defend Harvard, we will continue to:

nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry on our campus; develop the tools, skills, and practices needed to engage constructively with one another; and broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community;
affirm the rights and responsibilities we share; respect free speech and dissent while also ensuring that protest occurs in a time, place, and manner that does not interfere with teaching, learning, and research; and enhance the consistency and fairness of disciplinary processes; and work together to find ways, consistent with law, to foster and support a vibrant community that exemplifies, respects, and embraces difference. As we do, we will also continue to comply with Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for universities to make decisions “on the basis of race.”

These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate. The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community.

Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom.

We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.

Sincerely,
Alan M. Garber

What happens next is anyone’s guess. What’s your guess?

Heroes in UkraineI think we need a Russian Warship, Go Fuck Yourself moment.  Is this it?

We need to capitalize on this, make the most of this moment.  How do we do that?

Letter from Harvard: Turning Point? Tipping Point? Catalyst?Post + Comments (250)

What Happens If Trump Defies Court Orders?

by WaterGirl|  April 14, 202511:25 am| 107 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads, Opposition to Trump-Musk, Political Action, Politics, Trump-Musk

To follow up on Betty’s post, I want to share a smattering of articles on this subject.  The Democracy Docket article was written 2 months ago – I mean, really, who among us did not see this coming from FFOTUS – but it’s still relevant.

We will know – very soon – whether SCOTUS is going to allow Trump’s government to give the highest court the middle finger.  If SCOTUS does allow that, they will soon come to regret it, but by that time it will surely be too late.

We need to be calling our elected officials.  

NOW.  Today.  Every day.


What Happens If Trump Defies Court Orders?  (Democracy Docket)

Since the minute President Donald Trump returned to the White House, his actions have been met with a litany of lawsuits. There are currently numerous legal battles challenging executive orders Trump signed on day one: an end to birthright citizenship, the freezing of government agency funding to crucial programs and services and gutting of the federal work force — the first step in the grand plan to remake the American government into an authoritarian regime.

And, so far, the courts have consistently ruled against the Trump administration. Federal judges have blocked the White House’s federal funding freeze, the birthright citizenship executive order and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)’s access to sensitive information in several key agencies. It’s a win not just for democracy but for the constitutional laws that established the system of checks and balances that ensure the executive branch doesn’t take over with impunity.

But these series of court orders have clearly irked Trump and his administration. After the Office of Management and Budget rescinded its initial memo indicating a freeze in federal funds — following a pair of lawsuits — White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt tried to assert otherwise, in a post on X that spectacularly backfired. And after a federal judge blocked DOGE’s access to sensitive Treasury information, Elon Musk fumed on X: “A corrupt judge protecting corruption,” he wrote. “He needs to be impeached NOW!”

Even Vice President JD Vance chimed in on X, posting an inaccurate, yet ominous, statement about the court orders. “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” he said.

All of this is teeing up what some legal experts worry could be a constitutional crisis. Or, to put it simply: what happens when the Trump administration blatantly defies the courts?

A constitutional crisis looms

Whether or not the Trump administration knows that these executives are unlawful is beside the point. It’s clear that — court order or not— the White House is going to fight to keep these policies in place. But if the administration chooses to defy court orders in order to protect their policies, what happens next?

“I think the fundamental answer is that we don’t know,” Aziz Huq, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Chicago Law School, told Democracy Docket. “There have been moments where there have been some level of defiance on nonconformities to judicial orders in the past.” He points to the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, which integrated schools and which many states, for years, defied the ruling. But even then, that was a case of the state opposing the federal government, rather than the federal government defying the courts.

There are mechanisms in place for defying a court order — like fines and holding the offending parties in contempt. But because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling last year, the president is likely immune from criminal prosecution for official acts.

But despite some legal scholars calling the current legal saga a constitutional crisis, others are cautioning that it’s not quite at that level yet. Speaking to NPR, Kristin Hickman, a professor of administrative law at the University of Minnesota Law School, said that, “we’re not there yet and we have no guarantee we’re ever going to get there. It is not healthy for our body politic for us to overreact and roll around a lot of overheated rhetoric.”

And yet, on the other side, the White House itself is calling the situation a constitutional crisis because judges are ruling against the administration. “We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law,” Leavitt said in a press conference Wednesday.

Huq is also cautious about calling the current situation a constitutional crisis. For starters, the matter has yet to reach the Supreme Court, which would have the final word on the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s executive orders. Should Trump defy the Supreme Court, that could create something of a constitutional crisis — and one that could have a chilling ripple effect.

“Once you have the President saying, “Well, I don’t need to follow a court order. What about governance? What about sheriffs? What about state legislatures or state judges? Why do they need to?” Huq said. “As with many things that the Trump administration does, I don’t think they thought through their actions and the way that it opens the door to a lot more. And it’s really not clear how that plays out.”

Please Explain What You Mean by Effectuate (Ken White)

show full post on front page

The Supreme Court is getting increasingly involved in the sprawling litigation over Donald Trump’s many aggressive executive orders. In J.G.G. vs. Trump — the case before Judge James Boasberg seeking to prevent removals under the Alien Enemies Act — the high court issued an emergency ruling saying detainees are entitled to due process but they must seek it through petitions for habeas corpus in the jurisdictions where they are actually being held.

Some Trump-skeptical conservative commentators are describing this as a rebuke to the administration. But liberals, including the three liberals on the court, see this as an offer of relief in theory but not in practice. They also raise the specter that the Trump administration could spirit anyone — even citizens — out of the country and then assert that relief is no longer possible because the US no longer has jurisdiction.

It’s not going to take very long to find out who’s right.

In another case — the Abrego Garcia case — the Supreme Court unanimously instructed the administration to seek the return of a man it deported to El Salvador in violation of a court order. But what will happen if and when the administration “tries” to get him back (but not really)?

Already, the government is squabbling with trial judge Paula Xinis over how quickly it needs to provide information about its efforts. And in other new cases, the ACLU is trying for a national injunction against AEA removals under

a habeas approach, and a Trump-appointed judge has prohibited removals from his South Texas district under the AEA, for now. Ultimately, the Supreme Court is likely going to have to weigh in on more issues, including whether the AEA even applies to people alleged to be members of a foreign gang, which is not itself a foreign government.

Joyce Vance

Our job this week is to push back against what we all know Trump is doing: trying to overwhelm us with too much insanity, too much happening all at once.

For one thing, this approach lets him, like other would-be dictators, hide the most dangerous changes he’s making in the barrage. It hides mistakes, such as what he’s done with tariffs. It also encourages people to tune out because they feel overwhelmed, disgusted, and sad. The incessant crazy is meant, at least in part, to get people to succumb to feelings of helplessness and an inability to do anything about what’s happening. But that’s the easy way out.

We aren’t powerless.

The place to start fighting back is with knowledge. During his first term in office, Trump turned the idea of being “woke” into something negative. That pretty much epitomizes his whole shtick. If people are uninformed about what he’s doing, they won’t object.

So our job is to be well informed, to understand what’s going on. Pick the issue that matters to you the most and do a deep dive on it, or pay attention to a number of different issues. Have conversations with friends—and with total strangers—about what’s going on. But don’t be complacent. That’s the dictator’s trap, and we are not going to fall into it.

What Happens If Trump Defies Court Orders?Post + Comments (107)

Palate Cleanser: Oh, Shut the F*ck Up

by Anne Laurie|  April 11, 20257:32 pm| 98 Comments

This post is in: Excellent Links, Opposition to Trump-Musk

I believe Drew Magary, at Defector, speaks for all of us:

Hmm, it appears that the nation’s economy is collapsing at Timberwolves-like speed. That big fat trade war that the U.S. launched a few days ago has quickly proven to have the opposite of its intended(?) effect, with every market plunging and every American’s last dollar being fed into a paper shredder. Let’s see what the man responsible for starting that tariff-off has to say about the crisis at hand:

“These countries are calling us up, kissing my ass… They are dying to make a deal.” The president went on to mock the tariff-deal supplicants, pretending to be them as he pitifully pleaded in a simpering voice: “Please, Sir, make a deal. I’ll do anything. I’ll do anything, Sir.”

Oh, shut the fuck up. Just shut the fuck up. Is that so hard? Why can’t you shut up for just two seconds? What, will you break your fucking arm somehow if you accidentally encounter silence? What kind of old man talks this much? When I’m your age, I’ll say a grand total of eight words a year, and those eight words will be the most profound shit you’ve ever heard. Meanwhile, we got President Dumptruck here getting blasted with the makeup cannon and then taking the stage to spew jabberwocky like this:

Then in 1913, for reasons unknown to mankind, they established the income tax so that citizens, rather than foreign countries, would start paying the money necessary to run our government. Then in 1929, it all came to a very abrupt end with the Great Depression, and it would have never happened if they had stayed with the tariff policy; it would have been a much different story.

None of that is true. But what do you care, Chatty Cathy? All that matters to you is that you keep flapping your big meaty lips until even folks on the West Coast can smell the day-old quarter pounder with cheese on your breath. Every time you open your mouth, you make everything worse. You order toast for breakfast and the hotel’s kitchen suddenly bursts into flames. Donald Sterling is in sheer awe of your anti-powers. Your voice is its own tax…

And the worst part is that all of the meatbags working for you won’t stop talking, either! That means you, Karoline Leavitt. What do you have to say now that even Elon Musk is unhappy with this tariff shit?

These are obviously two individuals who have very different views on trade and on tariffs. Boys will be boys, and we will let their public sparring continue. And you guys should all be very grateful that we have the most transparent administration in history.

Oh, shut the fuck up. The two boys you’re talking about here have a combined age of 131. I’m a boy compared to these zombies, and I got hair in my ears longer than the hair on your head. Just because we have freedom of speech doesn’t mean you need to use it every. Waking. Second. Know what I mean? Of course you don’t. You’re too busy talking on speakerphone while you’re taking a shit…

show full post on front page

And what about President Asshole’s little chipmunk sidekick, JD Vance? Where you at, hillbilly boy? I bet you’re shitting your diaper now that your bossman has cost all of your benefactors billions of dollars. You gonna try to help us out? Oh, you’re doing the racism thing. Brilliant. Fan-fucking-tastic. Top notch effort from you, Middletown. Please shut the fuck up. We all know that you already regret taking this gig, kid. We saw your texts, BECAUSE YOU COULDN’T EVEN KEEP THOSE PRIVATE. Oh, thank god for the transparency! Now I’ll be able to see when Xi Jinping is about to nuke us! #Blessed!

None of you people were built for this. You’re all unqualified, overwhelmed, and dumber than a post. And you think that standing behind a mic and going Hurrr durrr every other country has a smaller dick than us because of these policies will make you Patton. Well, President Kidney Failure, telling everyone you’re the greatest leader who ever led doesn’t make it so. Quite the contrary. People voted for you because they were bored. Now you’re gonna bleed them dry, all while small-talking them to death. Don’t you ever get tired of talking? Don’t you run out of saliva? Is there a strategic gland reserve that you and your cronies are skimming from to keep your maws properly lubricated? You pieces of shit are wasting words, and that offends me as a professional wordsmith. I choose my words carefully before writing them down, because that’s what people are supposed to do. They are not meant to be sentient word clouds, crying “FREEDOM!” the second a process server knocks on their door…

Palate Cleanser: <em>Oh, Shut the F*ck Up</em>Post + Comments (98)

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 5
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - ema - Have You Met Chuck? 3
Photo by ema (4/1/26)
Donate

Election Hub

Voter Registration Info – Find a State
Check Voter Registration by Address
Election Calendar by State

Targeted Fundraising Info & Links

Recent Comments

  • smike on Wednesday Night Open Thread (Apr 2, 2026 @ 1:33am)
  • Nancy on Guerrilla Political Messaging: Introducing the Card Campaign for Democracy (Apr 2, 2026 @ 1:32am)
  • Gretchen on Plagues & Pandemics Update – April 1, 2026 (Apr 2, 2026 @ 1:30am)
  • Melancholy Jaques on Wednesday Night Open Thread (Apr 2, 2026 @ 1:27am)
  • The Republic of Stupidity on Wednesday Night Open Thread (Apr 2, 2026 @ 1:27am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Outsmarting Apple iOS 26

Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup

Order Calendar A
Order Calendar B

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix
Rose Judson (podcast)

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Manager

Copyright © 2026 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc