"Even if Trump declares unilateral victory in the Gulf, Iran would still have more influence than him over US inflation. Iran's regime has stumbled on a weapon that can induce Taco." Me on Trump's declining fortunes at home & abroad. as.ft.com/r/c336f5ca-a...

Intriguing finale for Paradise. Happy to say that they gave enough clues that I saw it coming: [REDACTED] is a [REDACTED] that is messing with [REDACTED] Which will allow next season to reset, with the same characters.

Keep going. www.mediaite.com/politics/is-...

Hegseth’s embrace of vice signaling is most obvious in his efforts to combine his adolescent, gung-ho excitement about war with Christian prayer, which results in a rancid mess that should offend believers and nonbelievers alike. www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/...

“Christian thinkers have always insisted that princes and generals approach war with a sense of grave responsibility. Hegseth, however, sees war as just another opportunity to display depravity as if it were a martial virtue,” @radiofreetom.bsky.social argues. theatln.tc/OGI0SjpH

Pete Hegseth, national disgrace: www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/...

You could say that, yeah

Have you signed up for the free Atlantic Daily newsletter? You should. My story on "Dumb McNamara" - aka Pete Hegseth - will be sent to your mailbox today. Sign up here. www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/...

Mar-a-Lago is represented by a Democrat now, Joe The most powerful man in your state of SC just lost his job - by 23 votes Your bitterness about voting is defeatist and foolish.

Yes, yes, it's all very important, but in the meantime, make sure to register and vote

Counterpart was a vastly better show, yes

If you don't stand in line for hours, you may never have to stand in line again. Doesn't make it right, but this is the time to defend your rights, not complain about lines.

That's all part of "voting," yes. Make sure you protect your rights, and do it sooner rather than later.

Coming up at 2pm ET on MSNOW - join us

Autocrat coffee is real, and it's good

Yes. Vote.

I’m sorry, but pour one out for these aging stunt men who were never expected to be seen this clearly on a 19 inch screen in 1966

He was amazing as the world’s most arrogant son of a bitch, and I think I have some expert standing to say this

I don't think his order to use nukes would make it through STRATCOM, but I admit that I'm only hoping. It would be the greatest disaster in US foreign policy since the founding of our republic.

I see that I have activated the many Bluesky experts on deterrence and nuclear weapons

Thanks for the update

Don't say stuff like this. If Canada wanted to go nuclear tomorrow, it could.

Without an existential threat to Israel? Low

More to the point, countries that have nuclear material have contributed to an effort to "fingerprint" nuclear material. www.iaea.org/newscenter/n...

People spend too much time thinking about dirty bombs. Remember that nuclear material can be "fingerprinted," meaning that getting waste from bad guys can be traced. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but it's not as likely as you think.

I can tell you from experience that you don't want to discuss "The Day After" vs. "Threads" with @radiofreetom.bsky.social *Trust* me on this.

Spying on each other helped keep the peace during the Cold War.

The fact that you think "A House of Dynamite" is stuck in Cold War reasoning means you've never thought about the fact that the entire American nuclear deterrent is premised on Cold War reasoning, even now.

My only issue with the movie - and I said this to both the writer and the director! - is that the president still had a few minutes to make a decision. I don't want to spoil it, so if you haven't seen it, STOP HERE. /1

I don't know. But if you want to think about it and be scared, see the movie "A House of Dynamite"

Yes.

The fate of the world might well have hung on the decision of one Soviet sub officer not to agree to launch a nuclear torpedo. www.theguardian.com/science/2017...

What part of "I think the No Kings marches are great" wasn't clear

Put another way, as Bill Perry once said, the chances of an all-out nuclear *war* have dropped since 1991, but the chances of the *use of a nuclear weapon somewhere" have increased.

Some of you are asking why this is: 1. More nuclear powers. 2. Fewer controls, domestic or international 3. The collapse of "rigid bipolarity" means the superpowers cannot police friends/allies 4. Fewer conflicts, but more involving states that have not learned the old Cold War "rules of the road"

Because I am a traditional (Burkean, even) conservative and distrust the passion of the masses.

I'm sorry, but this is horseshit. No oil in Serbia. No oil in Panama. And fighting in 1991 to stop a UN state from being erased was a good idea, oil or no. Trump is a unique case.

I think the No Kings marches are great: They are the kind of mass protest even someone like me - who distrusts mass protests - can admire. No violence, no vandalism, the Dumbass Quotient low. I just hope it all turns into voting in the fall.

The chance of an incident involving nuclear weapons is more likely now than it was during the Cold War.

Crime in the United States has dropped immensely in the last 35 years

I have the best gang on the internet. cc @lynnmnichols.bsky.social

We shouldn't always listen to the generals. Civilian control of the military means that the civilians should always be in charge and make the final call.

Cold hearted Tom that rules the night, Blocks bad posters from our sight. Earl is grey and Walter white, But we decide which is right. And which is fascism?

I had no idea this existed, and I cannot vouch for it

Why would I do this when I can buy a boneless leg?

I love garlic! But it’s definitely stinky.