Category: The Resistance

After Trump

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

As much as I struggle to believe it, cocksucker Trump is mortal and will one day shuffle off this mortal coil. (I just never see him willingly leaving office as long as he has air in his lungs.)

Which leads us to the question of what happens After Trump.

My gut reaction is if it happens sooner rather than later, J.D. Vance will become our autocrat and 20, 30, 40 years from now he’ll still be in office — somehow — and that will be that. We’ll be a clone of Russia, but for the fact that the Pod Save America people will STILL be telling people on YouTube that the latest South Park “destroyed” MAGA.

Meanwhile, there is the possibility that either the our new autocrat has to be a Trump or a woman — maybe even a Trump woman? If this is the case, then Lara Trump as our autocrat would make the most sense.

And, yet, it’s her husband Eric Trump that I think probably would pick up the mantle of MAGA. He is so absolutely loyal to his dad that I could even see Trump potentially leaving office (!) as long as Eric Trump took over for him.

Regardless, we’re totally, utterly fucked folks. This is it, the end. We’re doomed. This is the twilight of our democracy and well before 20 years from now we’ll be a full-on Russia clone.

Good luck.

Gradually….Then All At Once…Is Still Possible

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

I have written a lot — A LOT –about the possibility of a civil war or revolution in the United States over the years and all I can say besides, welp, I was wrong, is we were very, very “lucky” that Trump won in 2024.

I say this because all the signs pointed towards a civil war if the winy crybabies of MAGA didn’t get their way in 2024.

But now that Trump is in power again — ugh — a lot of things are going on at the same time. On one hand, there’s a huge amount of slack in the political system when it comes to people attacking Trump. I say this in the context of South Park going after Trump viciously and people not getting upset at all. In fact, a lot of people were quite happy with the situation.

Meanwhile, Trump keeps putting pressure on our Constitutional system to see if he can break it beyond repair. It is inevitable that he defies SCOTUS at some point and or runs for a third term or whatever. His whole historical point is to, in effect destroy the United States as we’ve known it.

The questions that remain is how exactly that is going to happen and what comes after Trump. I still think there is a greater-than-zero chance that Trump finally does something so egregious that the country implodes. To the point that WMD are used domestically and the entire political map of North America is redrawn.

But we are nowhere near that happening at the moment. All I know is Trump is the tip of the spear of a MAGA counter-revolution and the country is going to be fundamentally different once he finally, at some point for some reason, leaves office.

Pod Save America Has Jumped The Shark

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

I have been listening to the Pod Save America guys since it was called Keeping It 1600. And these days…meh. They just seem to have lost something. It all started when they helped force Joe Biden out of the 2024 race. (Of course, Biden probably should have left the race a lot sooner, but something about their handling of that particular situation rubbed me the wrong way.)

Anyway, the PSA guys just seem out of touch these days for some reason. They seem like they’re struggling in some respect. They keep flirting with merging with The Lincoln Project people to the point that I just wish they would hurry up and get it over with.

And their YouTube channel has grown and more strident. They keep acting as if this or that thing is going to be THE THING to bring down Trump when, lulz, nothing is ever going to bring down Trump.

Trump’s historical purpose is to destroy the republic, leaving rubble that we all will spend decades struggling to figure out how to fix. It seems inevitable at this point that no amount of saying Southpark has “destroyed” Trump is going to prevent him from tearing down the White House, ending free and fair Federal elections or running for a third term.

Trump is a symptom of a far more severe problem in American politics that has no simple solution. I guess the PSA guys think that by at least giving worried liberals some false hope that they can make more money? I think the coverage of Trump on their part needs to be a whole lot more realistic.

They need to be more controlled panic and less, “Well, we’ve got Trump THIS time!”

But, of course, no one listens to me, so lulz. It definitely will be interesting to see how long it takes Trump — or one of his fascist successors — to turn his attention on PSA and arrest them for crimes against the state.

I Fear Trump Is Going To Tear Down The White House

Considering the grandiose scale and ostentatious design of the ballroom that former President Trump has proposed constructing in close proximity to the White House, I am increasingly concerned that his ambitions may extend far beyond a mere addition to the existing landscape.

It seems entirely plausible, given his penchant for bold and extravagant projects, that he might entertain the audacious notion of demolishing the historic White House itself. In its place, I suspect he would seek to erect a new structure—likely a garish, oversized edifice that mirrors the opulent and imposing aesthetic of the proposed ballroom, prioritizing spectacle over the revered historical and symbolic significance of the current presidential residence.

Such a move would reflect a dramatic departure from tradition, raising questions about the preservation of the White House’s legacy as a cornerstone of American history.

Pick A Side: Now What

By Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

Now that our slide into MAGA autocracy has begun to accelerate, it makes you wonder what happens next. Logically, to me, the whole point of the Trump historical experiment is for him to run for, and win, a third term, which would shatter the whole Constitutional system.

Then we would all be left struggling to pick up the pieces, maybe to the point of having to call a Second Constitutional Convention to reaffirm that we are, in fact, a Constitutional Republic in the first place.

But the key thing we have to remember is the United States is no longer a republic. We are now an empire just as much as the Roman Empire. The question now is how far we will slide towards some form of “hard” authoritarianism like they have in Russia. At the moment — I just don’t know.

Once Trump shatters the existing Constitutional order just by being himself, who knows what — if anything — will replace what we’ve had since 1789. But one thing we have to remember — there’s no going back.

This is it. This is the new America. Pick a side, one way or another.

The Case For Colbert, 2028

In the ever-evolving landscape of American politics, where reality often feels stranger than fiction, perhaps it’s time to consider an unconventional solution to our conventional problems. Enter Stephen Colbert—comedian, satirist, and master of political commentary—who might just be the candidate the center-left has been waiting for.

Fighting Fire with Fire

The case for a Colbert presidency isn’t rooted in traditional political qualifications or decades of public service. Instead, it’s born from a simple observation: the center-left has been consistently outmaneuvered by Trump’s brand of populist theater. After years of playing defense with conventional political strategies, maybe it’s time to embrace the unconventional.

Colbert represents everything Trump is not. Where one appears to be a man of genuine honor and faith, the other often comes across as—well, let’s just say a collection of fast food that somehow achieved consciousness. The contrast couldn’t be starker, yet both share that crucial outsider appeal that has proven so magnetic to American voters.

The Outsider’s Dilemma

Here’s where things get complicated. The very quality that made Trump irresistible to his base—his complete departure from traditional politics—becomes Colbert’s greatest hurdle. The center-left, having witnessed firsthand what happens when you hand the presidency to a political neophyte, would rightfully approach any outsider candidate with extreme caution.

This skepticism isn’t unreasonable. Even someone as universally beloved and demonstrably decent as Colbert would face the legitimate question: does being really good at talking about politics translate to being good at actually doing politics? The presidency, after all, isn’t a performance—it’s governance.

The Love vs. Line Problem

Political wisdom suggests that Republicans fall in line behind their nominees while Democrats need to fall in love with theirs. Colbert certainly has the lovability factor covered. He’s spent years building genuine rapport with audiences across the political spectrum, demonstrating both intellectual curiosity and emotional intelligence. His interviewing style reveals someone capable of finding common ground even with those he disagrees with.

But love in politics is complicated. Democratic voters have shown they can be just as pragmatic as they are passionate, often choosing perceived electability over pure inspiration. Would they embrace a comedian-turned-candidate, or would they view it as too risky a gamble?

The Timing Factor

The timing of this hypothetical couldn’t be more intriguing. With Colbert’s CBS contract reportedly not being renewed, he finds himself at a career crossroads. This isn’t just idle speculation about a celebrity dabbling in politics—it’s a moment when a significant career pivot might actually make sense.

Colbert has spent the better part of two decades not just commenting on politics but truly understanding it. He’s interviewed presidents, prime ministers, and policy makers. He’s dissected legislation, analyzed campaigns, and demonstrated a grasp of both domestic and international affairs that rivals many actual politicians.

The Democratic Dilemma

The Democratic Party faces a unique challenge heading into future election cycles. How do you counter a movement that thrives on disruption with more of the same conventional approaches? How do you inspire voters who have grown weary of traditional political messaging?

A Colbert candidacy would force Democrats to confront these questions head-on. It would require them to decide whether they’re willing to embrace their own version of unconventional leadership—one grounded in decency, intelligence, and genuine public service rather than grievance and division.

The Bottom Line

Whether Stephen Colbert should run for president isn’t really about Stephen Colbert at all. It’s about what kind of political moment we’re living through and what kind of leadership it demands. Sometimes the most serious times call for the most unlikely solutions.

The real question isn’t whether Colbert could win—it’s whether Democrats are ready to fall in love with the idea that maybe, just maybe, the person who’s been explaining politics to us all these years might actually be pretty good at doing politics too.

After all, in an era where political reality has become indistinguishable from satire, who better to lead us than someone who understands both?

When Facts Become Partisan: A Warning Sign for American Democracy

A recent exchange on CNN between host Jake Tapper and Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin highlighted a troubling phenomenon in American political discourse: the inability of public figures to agree on basic facts, even regarding matters of significant public interest like the Epstein case files.

The Erosion of Shared Reality

What made this particular disagreement so concerning wasn’t the presence of political tension—that’s expected in contemporary media—but rather the fundamental disconnect over factual information itself. When political polarization becomes so intense that verifiable facts become matters of partisan interpretation, we’ve crossed a dangerous threshold in democratic discourse.

The Epstein case represents exactly the kind of issue where factual accuracy should transcend political allegiances. The documented evidence, court records, and established timeline of events exist independently of political affiliation. Yet even here, in a case with extensive documentation and legal proceedings, partisan perspectives appear to be shaping the interpretation of basic facts.

The Gradual Collapse Theory

This erosion of shared factual understanding calls to mind Ernest Hemingway’s observation about bankruptcy in “The Sun Also Rises”: it happens “gradually, then suddenly.” The gradual phase involves the slow degradation of institutions, norms, and shared assumptions that hold a democratic system together. The sudden phase is when these accumulated weaknesses lead to rapid institutional failure.

American democracy has historically demonstrated remarkable resilience, weathering civil war, economic depression, world wars, and numerous political crises. The nation’s ability to “muddle through” has become almost axiomatic—a testament to the flexibility of democratic institutions and the pragmatic nature of American political culture.

The Stakes of Epistemic Crisis

However, the current challenge may be qualitatively different from previous crises. When political opponents can no longer agree on observable reality, the foundation for democratic deliberation begins to crumble. Democracy requires not just tolerance for differing opinions, but acceptance of common standards for determining truth and falsehood.

The fragmentation of information sources, the rise of social media echo chambers, and the increasing sophistication of disinformation campaigns have created an environment where competing versions of reality can coexist indefinitely. This epistemic crisis—the breakdown of shared ways of knowing—poses unique challenges to democratic governance.

Historical Perspective and Hope

Yet American democracy has survived previous periods of extreme polarization and disputed facts. The Civil War era, the McCarthy period, and the Vietnam War years all featured intense disagreements about fundamental questions of truth and national identity. In each case, democratic institutions eventually found ways to restore some measure of consensus and continue functioning.

The question facing contemporary America is whether these historical precedents provide adequate guidance for navigating current challenges. The speed and scale of modern information technology may have created dynamics that earlier generations never confronted.

The Path Forward

The solution likely requires recommitment to shared standards of evidence and reasoning, even amid political disagreement. This doesn’t mean abandoning legitimate debate about policy or interpretation, but rather maintaining common ground about the basic facts that inform those debates.

Whether America can once again “muddle through” this crisis may depend on the willingness of political leaders, media figures, and citizens to prioritize democratic norms over partisan advantage. The alternative—a society where facts themselves become partisan weapons—threatens the very foundation of self-governance.

The Tapper-Mullin exchange serves as a microcosm of this larger challenge. In a healthy democracy, public figures should be able to disagree vehemently about policy while maintaining shared respect for factual accuracy. When that common ground disappears, everything else becomes much more fragile.

The Epstein-Trump Connection: A Political Powder Keg

Recent developments surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s legacy have thrust the disgraced financier back into the political spotlight, creating uncomfortable questions for the Trump administration and exposing contradictions within the president’s political coalition.

The Contradiction at the Heart of Trump’s Base

Trump’s core supporters have long subscribed to theories about shadowy cabals controlling global affairs, with many pointing to Jeffrey Epstein as a central figure in such networks. Yet these same supporters have consistently overlooked a well-documented reality: Trump and Epstein maintained a close friendship spanning approximately two decades.

This cognitive dissonance has become increasingly difficult to ignore as recent events have unfolded.

The Client List Reversal

The administration initially signaled its intention to release Epstein’s client list, with Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi making public statements to that effect. However, this position quickly shifted, leading to speculation about the reasons behind the reversal.

The change in stance has prompted questions about potential conflicts of interest and what information such a release might contain about Trump’s own associations with Epstein.

The Maxwell Factor

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator, remains incarcerated in federal prison. Her continued imprisonment presents both a potential liability and opportunity for the current administration.

Political observers are increasingly speculating about the possibility of a presidential pardon for Maxwell. Such a move could serve multiple purposes: demonstrating executive clemency while potentially securing favorable testimony or statements regarding Trump’s historical relationship with Epstein.

Timing and Political Calculations

If such a pardon were to occur, political analysts suggest it might happen during August—a month traditionally associated with reduced media attention due to summer schedules. This timing would allow controversial decisions to unfold with potentially less scrutiny.

The critical question remains whether the American public would accept such a presidential action, particularly given the high-profile nature of Maxwell’s crimes and the broader implications for justice.

Systemic Implications

These developments reflect deeper structural issues within American political institutions. Trump’s presidency has consistently tested constitutional norms and democratic guardrails, suggesting that individual controversies may be symptoms of more fundamental systemic challenges.

The Epstein affair represents another potential stress test for American democratic institutions, raising questions about accountability, transparency, and the limits of executive power.

Looking Forward

Whatever unfolds in the coming months, the intersection of the Epstein case with current political realities highlights the complex relationship between past associations, present power, and future consequences in American politics.

The resolution of these issues may ultimately depend not just on legal considerations, but on the public’s willingness to demand accountability from its elected leaders, regardless of political affiliation.

Why I Walk Out of Movies (And Why I Left ‘Eddington’ After 20 Minutes)

I have a confession: I walk out of movies frequently. This habit stems from two main factors that have shaped my relationship with cinema as both a viewer and a storyteller.

First, my work on a novel has made me hypercritical of narrative structure. When a film fails to meet my expectations for storytelling craft, frustration overtakes entertainment, and I find myself heading for the exit. Second, there are moments when I recognize I’ve extracted all the value a particular movie can offer me. Rather than staying out of obligation or social convention, I choose to redirect my time toward more productive pursuits.

My departure point is remarkably consistent: the inciting incident. This crucial story beat often reveals whether a film will deliver on its initial promise, and it’s precisely where I decided to leave the indie film “Eddington.”

“Eddington” isn’t inherently flawed. The filmmaking displays competence, and I found myself genuinely invested in the characters—a rarity among the movies I abandon. However, as the narrative trajectory became clear, I recognized what lay ahead: two hours of what felt like ideological messaging wrapped in conservative, anti-mask rhetoric.

The film’s contentious reception makes perfect sense. While I personally couldn’t stomach what I perceived as heavy-handed preaching, I understand why others might find value in its perspective. The characters possessed enough depth to warrant emotional investment, which perhaps makes the ideological divide even more pronounced for viewers on either side.

My walkout wasn’t a rejection of the film’s technical merits or even its right to exist. Rather, it was an acknowledgment that this particular story, told in this particular way, wasn’t going to serve my needs as either entertainment or artistic inspiration. Sometimes the most honest response to art is simply recognizing when it’s not meant for you.

Stephen Colbert and the 2028 Presidential Race: A Case for Unconventional Leadership

As the American political landscape continues to evolve in unprecedented ways, the 2028 presidential election presents an opportunity for reimagining executive leadership. While speculation about potential candidates remains premature, one unconventional possibility deserves serious consideration: Stephen Colbert as the Democratic nominee.

The Changing Nature of Presidential Qualifications

The past decade has fundamentally altered our understanding of presidential prerequisites. Traditional political experience, once considered essential, has proven less decisive than anticipated. This shift opens the door for candidates who bring different forms of public service and leadership experience to the national stage.

Stephen Colbert represents a compelling example of this new paradigm. His decades-long career has demonstrated consistent principles, sharp analytical thinking, and an ability to communicate complex issues to diverse audiences. These qualities, combined with his deep understanding of American political dynamics, position him as a potentially transformative figure.

International Precedent for Entertainment-to-Politics Transitions

The comparison to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is particularly relevant. Zelensky’s transition from entertainment to political leadership, culminating in his principled wartime leadership, illustrates how performance backgrounds can translate into effective governance. Both figures share a commitment to democratic values and possess the communication skills necessary for modern presidential leadership.

Colbert’s extensive experience interviewing political leaders, analyzing policy positions, and engaging with complex national issues has provided him with insights that rival those of traditional politicians. His satirical work has consistently demonstrated a nuanced understanding of governmental processes and constitutional principles.

The Appeal of Principled Leadership

In an era marked by political polarization, Colbert’s appeal lies in his demonstrated commitment to democratic institutions and civil discourse. His approach to political commentary has consistently emphasized factual accuracy and respect for democratic norms, qualities that could prove valuable in executive leadership.

Furthermore, his ability to bridge entertainment and serious political discussion suggests a capacity for reaching across traditional partisan divides. This skill could prove essential for a president tasked with healing national divisions and building consensus around critical policy initiatives.

Practical Considerations

While this analysis presents a theoretical case for Colbert’s candidacy, practical realities must be acknowledged. The transition from entertainment to politics requires significant personal sacrifice and public scrutiny. As Colbert’s late-night television career concludes, his future political intentions, if any, will likely become a subject of increased public interest and speculation.

The Democratic Party will need to carefully consider how best to position itself for 2028, weighing the benefits of unconventional candidates against more traditional political experience. Colbert’s potential candidacy represents just one of many possibilities worth examining as the party develops its long-term strategic vision.

Conclusion

The 2028 election cycle will likely challenge conventional assumptions about presidential qualifications and campaign strategies. Whether Stephen Colbert chooses to enter the political arena remains an open question, but his potential candidacy illustrates the evolving nature of American political leadership.

As citizens and political observers, we must remain open to new forms of public service while maintaining rigorous standards for presidential qualifications. The coming years will reveal whether America is ready for another unconventional transition from entertainment to the highest office in the land.