GaryATX

Since I was a child, America has changed from “kind of like Europe, but better” to “kind of like Brazil, but better”. Not sure how long “better” can hang in there.

@EricLDaugh It’s amazing how many people did not realize I meant this ironically. I thought it was obvious.

@EricLDaugh I’m sure this is true because Trump never lies!

🚨 HOLY CRAP. President Trump just announced the U.S. is CLEARING OUT the Strait of Hormuz This is a massive surge! “We’re now starting the process of clearing out the Strait of Hormuz as a favor to Countries all over the World, including China, Japan, South Korea, France, Germany, and many others. Incredibly, they don’t have the Courage or Will to do this work themselves. Very interestingly, however, empty Oil carrying ships from many Nations are all heading to the United States of America to LOAD UP with Oil.“ “Their longtime “Leaders” are no longer with us, praise be to Allah!” “The Fake News Media has lost total credibility, not that they had any to begin with…they love saying that Iran is “winning” when, in fact, everyone knows that they are LOSING, and LOSING BIG!” “The only thing they have going is the threat that a ship may “bunk” into one of their sea mines which, by the way, all 28 of their mine dropper boats are also lying at the bottom of the sea.”

@conflict_live Who says it was not coordinated with Iran? Why do you think Iran would stupidly attack a US Naval vessel that was not attacking them during the ceasefire? I imagine the US ships are simply leaving the area, which Iran would favor.

BREAKING: Several U.S. Navy ships crossed the Strait of Hormuz today. The move was not coordinated with Iran. Source: Axios' Barak Ravid

@leo49702 @MarioNawfal Yeah, childishly calling Iran names will certainly further the negotiations.

@MarioNawfal Trump confirms U.S.-Iran peace talks underway in Islamabad. He'll quickly assess Iran's good faith. Ships rerouting around Hormuz; strait reopening soon, he says, calling Iran a "failing nation."

🚨 BREAKING: 🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump confirmed U.S.-Iran peace talks in Islamabad have officially started. On whether Iran is acting in good faith: "I'll let you know that in a very short period of time; it won't take long." On the Strait of Hormuz, he said ships are already finding alternative routes and the strait "will be open in the not-too-distant future." He also called Iran "a failing nation." Source: @KellieMeyerNews, NewsNation

@LauraLoomer I believe it was Jews and Christians, not Muslims, who, twice in one year, interrupted negotiations with Iran by launching sneak attacks.

Iran just halted traffic in the strait of Hormuz. Imagine thinking you can trust a Muslim to keep their word.

@ArmstrongEcon And they would have, if it were possible. Knowing it was not possible should have nixed the whole adventure. Not nixing it, against overwhelming advice, was great stupidity.

Who the hell is deciding on military strategy in the U.S.? I'm not a military strategist specialist, but I would have he secured the Straits of Hormuz before the first bomb dropped.

@AmericanDebunk American naval intervention in the Strait would be suicidal. That’s why our ships are hundreds of miles away and have never dared to try it. Iran knows they won’t try it. So forget that “card”.

This is such a sophisticated play by Trump. Let me break it down for you. By declaring Iran has no cards, he’s stripping Iran of any illusion of strength, and also letting Iran know he doesn’t view them as having any negotiation leverage. In classic negotiation theory, this is a textbook BATNA attack- short for “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.” Trump is publicly redefining Iran’s fallback option (and only negotiation piece) as worthless. By naming the Strait as their only card, he frames it as a one-time, self-harming stunt rather than sustainable leverage. Everyone knows closing the Strait spikes global oil prices and invites immediate U.S. naval retaliation, so Trump is telling Iran (and the world watching on X): “Your best move outside a deal is actually a losing move.” That shrinks their perceived power and makes holding out look irrational. This persuasion works through three layered mechanisms: Public reframing. By saying it out loud on the world stage, Trump turns a private negotiation into theater. Iran now faces a choice: stay silent (and look weak) or escalate to “prove” they have more cards (and risk exactly the military response he’s telegraphing). This is coercive diplomacy. Trump is using visibility to raise the cost of defiance. Psychological anchoring. The phrase “no cards” is blunt and memorable. It anchors the entire conversation at “Iran is weak.” Future Iranian demands will be measured against this baseline; any concession they make will feel like the rational response to an honest assessment rather than surrender. Pre-commitment signaling. Trump is signaling he has already decided their position is hopeless. In negotiation terms, this is a credible commitment to walk away or escalate if they don’t fold. It’s the opposite of splitting the difference. It’s “accept reality or pay the price.” Trump is weaponizing transparency. The more public the put-down, the more pressure it exerts. Iran now has to negotiate not just with the U.S. team in the room, but with the global audience Trump just told that they’re playing with an empty hand. Get your popcorn ready.

@Brady_H I doubt any sane person suggests you “sprint” a marathon. Not possible. Probably what you saw referred to HIIT, high intensity interval training. You sprint hard over a short distance, then rest, alternately. It’s not about marathons.

90% of these health influencer guys saying you should “sprint” instead of run marathons couldn’t sprint at a faster speed than an elite marathoner runs for 26.2 miles straight.

@BreitbartNews Obviously to most of the world: Israel is the bully of the Middle East, with the US providing the money and now the muscle for its constant aggressions.

President Trump says Iran "is really no longer a threat." "They were the bully of the Middle East, but they're the bully no longer." "This is a true investment in your children's and grandchildren's future."

@disclosetv Attacking civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Trump and Hegseth regularly go on TV and brag about committing war crimes as defined by the Geneva Convention, signed by the US, which makes it US law.

NOW - Trump on Iran: "We're going to hit them extremely hard over the next 2-3 weeks. We're going to bring them back to the stone ages, where they belong!"

@aceisjoy Around 3000, including police and pro-Iran demonstrators killed by the thousands of pistols Mossad/CIA imported to their operatives.

45k dead protesters in Iran?? What is he even saying right now #presidentialaddress

@GovPressOffice Reminds me of the Colossus of Nero.

The gold statue in Trump’s new library (of himself) looks awfully familiar to a few others from around the world.

@chefsevenn An ambulance.

Fries aren’t available, what are you having with this burger?

@MmisterNobody “Purpose” is a human thought construction that doesn’t exist in physical nature.

What is the purpose of life?

@heckyessica @dangainor I’d definitely buy him, let him live and take him home. Drive him back to the beach. He deserves it.

nah bro I’m out

@amuse Great. The original name was 1st Street. Bring it back. You know, MLK’s personal life wasn’t all that rosy, either. Could we get 19th St. back, while we’re at it?

PEDO: Austin is considering renaming streets named after east Chavez because he was a prolific pedophile. I predict all street names in Democrat cities will be named after animals and plants in the future.

PEDO: Now that the New York Times has confirmed Cesar Chavez was a pedophile can we change the names of streets and schools named after him back?

@OwenGregorian There’s thinking about and then there’s really thinking about. It’s great to be able to think about anything, even a terrible thing, with no consequences because you are just thinking. It’s like watching a violent movie.

19 Million Americans Have Thought About Shooting Someone | Ben Sullivan, ScienceBlog Key Takeaways - Over 19 million U.S. adults have seriously considered shooting someone, with 8.7 million doing so in the past year. - Most individuals who have these thoughts never act on them, showing a clear gap between ideation and action. - Key prevention factors include social conversations and access to firearms, highlighting the need for intervention. - The study found no link between gun ownership and violent thoughts, indicating potential risk extends beyond gun owners. - Demographics reveal that men, younger adults, and Black Americans report higher rates of homicidal ideation, with no significant political affiliation correlation. --- More than 19 million adults in the United States have, at some point in their lives, seriously thought about shooting another person. That is not a projection or a worst-case modelling exercise. It is the prevalence figure from a nationally representative survey of over 7,000 people, conducted in 2025 by researchers at the University of Michigan. Nineteen million. And in the past year alone, the number was closer to 8.7 million, or roughly one in every 30 adults. You might expect Brian Hicks to find this alarming. He does, in a way. But Hicks, a psychologist and professor of psychiatry at the U-M Medical School who led the study, also thinks the number opens a door. The research, published in JAMA Network Open, is one of the first serious attempts to characterise this population at a national scale: who they are, what they were thinking, and crucially, what happened next. Most of the time, nothing happened. The vast majority of people who have ever thought about shooting someone never acted on the thought and never will. That is perhaps not surprising. What is perhaps more useful is what the survey revealed about the moments when things might have gone differently, and what, if anything, was there to catch them. Prevention, it turns out, may hinge on two underappreciated things: conversation and proximity to a firearm. Among those who had thought of shooting someone, roughly one in five had told someone else about it. That might sound like a confession on the edge of catastrophe. In public health terms, it is something closer to an opportunity. In 21 states, so-called extreme risk protection orders, often called red flag laws, allow courts to temporarily remove firearms from people identified as being at high risk of harming themselves or others. If a friend, family member, or colleague hears something that frightens them, that legal mechanism exists precisely for moments like this. The catch is that it requires someone to act on what they heard. The firearm access question is similarly layered. About 8% of those with thoughts of shooting someone had, at some point, brought a gun to a specific location with the intention of using it. That figure corresponds to roughly 1.5 million people. But among respondents who had never owned a gun, about 21% said they had thought about acquiring one specifically to carry out their thoughts. That is a distinct population, and one that current interventions largely aren’t designed for; waiting periods and background checks, which have been shown to reduce impulsive violence, aren’t triggered until the point of purchase, which may be too late for some and, for others, is never reached at all. “While most people who have these thoughts don’t act on them,” Hicks said, “the number is so high that the small proportion who do act turns into tens of thousands of fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries each year.” The demographics of the group are consistent, in several ways, with what researchers already know about firearm violence more broadly. Men were considerably more likely than women to report having had these thoughts, as were younger people and those with lower household incomes. Black Americans were about twice as likely as white Americans to report thoughts of shooting someone, a disparity the researchers link to the well-documented disparity in homicide victimisation: Black Americans are six times more likely than white Americans to be killed by a gun. Living in a city and living in the Midwest were also associated with elevated rates. What the survey did not find was perhaps equally notable. Gun owners were no more likely than non-owners to have had these thoughts. Nor did political affiliation show any significant relationship. Republicans, Democrats, and independents reported similar rates of homicidal ideation. The intuition that such thoughts belong to one group or another doesn’t hold up under scrutiny; they’re distributed more broadly than most people assume. The targets people had in mind were revealing. About half named an enemy, meaning someone with whom they had a pre-existing conflict. About a quarter named a stranger. Fourteen percent named a government official or employee, a figure that Hicks and his co-author, Mark Ilgen, describe as consistent with patterns of politically motivated violence. Family members, current and former romantic partners, coworkers, and classmates all appeared further down the list. The survey is part of a larger ongoing project called the National Firearms, Alcohol, Cannabis, and Suicide Survey, which will eventually examine how mental health, substance use, and other factors interact with firearm behaviour. This first paper is deliberately descriptive: here is the shape of the problem, here is who it affects, here are the points where something might be done. Future analyses may sharpen those points considerably. The sobering implication is that homicidal ideation sits somewhere on a continuum with homicidal action, and the distance between them isn’t fixed. It probably varies by access to a weapon, by the quality of social connections, by whether anyone asked the right question at the right time. What the University of Michigan study adds, for the first time at this scale, is a clearer sense of where people are on that continuum and what might move them, or stop them, from travelling further along it. Read more: scienceblog.com/19-million-ame…

@honeymoon250 All 20, if you count listening to the boombox inadvertently. But then, I’m 82. Most people my age have done most of those.

6 for me!! I feel confident nobody Has all 20 How many for you?

@LibertyCappy Nope. I paid into it for 65 years. Waited until 70 to take it. Now get over $4k a month (before deductions) from it. Still won’t break even until I live past 84. BTW, if everyone gave it up, the gov’t would spend all the “saved” money in a week.

Social Security = Socialism Sorry Baby Boomers. You have to give it up if you want to save America from a financial cliff. "But I paid into it my whole life" Yeah, so have we. I've paid into it for 20 years and gotten zero and will likely never see a penny. Abolish it.

@FoodPleaser A slice of home-baked Einkorn whole wheat toast.

Add 1 thing to this plate 🍳👇🤔