this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
174 points (99.4% liked)

politics

30584 readers
2131 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 7 points 4 hours ago

Fake news! He didn't even call him a "Googly-Eyed Chud"

He called him a “googly-eyed Kremlin bitch".

And a "blatantly incompetent chud"

[–] nkat2112@sh.itjust.works 42 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Lordy, this is good - someone call the burn unit to rescue Patel:

Stewartson celebrated the final order, which referenced his comment in a footnote. “I’d like to commend the judge for including ‘googly-eyed Kremlin bitch’ in his ruling,” Stewartson wrote on X Tuesday.

“PSA: Now that my case is settled, you are free to refer to @FBIDirectorKash as a ‘chud,’ a ‘googly-eyed Kremlin bitch,’ and a ‘traitor’ without fear of legal repercussions!” he wrote in another post.

This was Patel's doing and now he'll be remembered on the legal docket for this - to say nothing about his continuous humiliation in social networking platforms and the media.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 5 hours ago

I particularly liked that he didn't call him a "googly eyed kremlin bitch" until a response to the courts from a Nevada ruling in Patels favor for $250k against the guy, as he seemed to dismiss that ruling because the journalist had no ties with Nevada.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 37 points 15 hours ago (3 children)
[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

Between this one, Vance, Kirk & Shapiro I have no idea what size anybody’s facial features are anymore.

[–] ncc74656@lemmy.ml 4 points 14 hours ago

#scarred4lyfe

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 54 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

The judge took one look at little Kash and dismissed the suit.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 37 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

"Your honor...look at him."

Gestures towards chud's face.

[–] DickFiasco@sh.itjust.works 3 points 13 hours ago

We got all this...like...evidence that this guy didn't even pay his hospital bill.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 17 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Following President Donald Trump’s lead, Patel has filed six defamation lawsuits against journalists in just seven years. Patel recently filed a $250 million lawsuit against The Atlantic for reporting on his excessive drinking at work.

More to come!

[–] ButtermilkBiscuit@feddit.nl 14 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

My body is ready for discovery on the excessive drinking claims. What a dumb googly-eyed traitor.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 34 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

Do yourself a favor and click the article to see the picture at the top, it's funny

[–] Steve@startrek.website 9 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

For those allergic to website cancer:

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Dude if he gets an Honorable in front of his name we all get to be Popes if we want

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Somebody please upload this to mediawiki commons, so it can become the literal photo of "googlie eyed chud" in the encyclopedia

[–] TomMasz@lemmy.world 16 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

If you didn't know who he was, you'd assume it was some SNL skit.

[–] Salamanderwizard@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Oh Jesus. Did our reality get mixed with a reality that carries on like a SNL skit? Are all of our current problems, problems that would be funny in a skit, but not in our reality?

Oh fuck. It makes sense now. It's why Trump and everyone who follows him seems to be unrealistically corny and stupid. To stupid to function, but somehow has total power? SNL reality has melded with our reality.

[–] Pistachio@lemmy.zip 3 points 9 hours ago

I mean, SNL has had quite a few "skits" in which they literally just reread the transcripts. Famous example would be Matt Damon's reprisal of Coach Kavanaugh's senate confirmation rant

[–] MrRandom@lemmy.zip 4 points 15 hours ago

god.dammit.

[–] generic_computers@lemmy.zip 12 points 14 hours ago

Therefore he is legally a googly-eyed chud.

[–] stumu415@lemmy.zip 18 points 16 hours ago (1 children)
[–] sam_the_tech@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

You can’t fool me. I can tell from a mile away that’s a fake beard! 👌

[–] Broadfern@lemmy.world 16 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

The whole article is even better. There’s so many more creative insults in there

[–] crank0271@lemmy.world 15 points 15 hours ago

When discovery is just more creative insults the plaintiff hasn't yet been called

[–] TryingToBeGood@reddthat.com 15 points 16 hours ago

LOL! Good. :D

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago
[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 2 points 12 hours ago