--Google Forms - SMS Alert

Get Notified of New Posts

Want a text when I post something new on I’m Just Saying?

The signup form opens in a new tab. Once you complete the form, close that tab to return here.

Get Text Alerts I’m already subscribed

Already subscribed but want out? Unsubscribe here .

Truth Social Is Not the Situation Room

“From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by Missile, Rocket, Drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital City of Tehran. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

What in the hell is that supposed to be?

There are just so many things wrong with it.

First, you do not make war policy on Truth Social.


War policy is supposed to emerge from intelligence assessments, military planning, legal review, diplomatic coordination, clearly defined objectives, and some serious consideration of what happens after the first bomb falls.

There should be discussions about what the United States is trying to accomplish, what targets actually serve that objective, how Iran is likely to respond, how American forces and allies will be protected, how escalation will be controlled, and what conditions would bring the conflict to an end.

A president does not sit down with his phone, invent a one-for-one retaliation formula, capitalize a few target categories, type “Thank you for your attention to this matter,” and thereby create a coherent military doctrine.

And who exactly is he thanking for their “attention”? Iran? Are they supposed to reply, “You’re welcome”? Or is this aimed at Americans, as if we’re the audience for a threat that we have no role in carrying out or responding to? It reads less like a serious statement of policy and more like a bizarre announcement that assumes simply saying something publicly is the same as doing something meaningful.

That is not how war works.

That is not how policy works.

That is not how any of this works.

Trump’s post does not demonstrate that the United States has a strategy. It demonstrates that Trump believes posting a threat is the same thing as having a fucking strategy.

He has reduced military policy to the intellectual level of a schoolyard warning:

Every time you hit one of my friends, I’m going to spit on something of yours.

If you spit on something of mine, I’m going to smash three of your toys for each loogie.

If you, in turn, break any of my toys, I’m going to shove you off the monkey bars.

As a matter of fact, you guys don’t even get to climb on the monkey bars anymore.

And the teeter-totters are off-limits, too.


Except the toys, monkey bars, and teeter-totters in this case are bridges and power plants.

People drive across those bridges. Hospitals, water systems, homes, businesses, and communications networks depend on those power plants. Destroying them is not a symbolic gesture in an online argument. It has real consequences for real people.

And none of those consequences can be properly examined in a social-media post.

Maybe, though, this suggests a safer alternative for Trump.

Instead of fighting an actual war, assign an Iranian official to respond to him on Truth Social.

Trump posts a threat. The Iranian official posts one back. Trump responds with capital letters. The Iranian official responds with an even larger threat. Americans and Iranians flood the comments, trade insults, post memes, accuse each other of using bots, and smash the reaction buttons.

Whichever side receives the most reactions wins.

But wait. How do we decide which reactions count?

Do likes matter more than reposts? Are angry faces worth half a heart? Do Iranian bot accounts count? Does Truth Social’s algorithm unfairly favor the American president? Should an independent panel audit the final engagement numbers?

Who fucking cares?

It would make exactly as much strategic sense as conducting American war policy on Truth Social, but at least nobody would have to die.

I’m just saying.

Comments

Post a Comment

--Blog Mobile Open Log

-- OSG reactions

--Popular Posts (Built In)

Access Journalism Has Entered the Chat

Image
  The following is an interview Jake Tapper aired with Donald Trump on October 4, 2025 Tapper:  “What happens if Hamas insists on staying in power in Gaza?” Trump:  “Complete obliteration!” Tapper:  “Lindsey Graham says Hamas’ response — no disarmament, Palestinian control of Gaza, and tying hostages to negotiations — means rejection. Is he wrong?” Trump:  “We’ll find out. Only time will tell!!!” Tapper:  “When will you know if they’re serious? And is Netanyahu on board with ending the bombing and backing your peace proposal?” Trump:  “Yes on Bibi. Soon on rest!” Tapper:  “I hope your vision for peace becomes a reality.” Trump:  “I HOPE! Working hard.” Tapper:  “How do you think the government shutdown ends?” Trump:  “Good. We’re winning, cutting costs big time!” My primary issue with this “interview”? It was conducted via  SMS. What the hell? Why in the particular fuck would CNN, Jake Tapper, or anyone with a press badge think...
Read more

‘I Don’t Even Know What That Means’: Theatrics Over Accountability

Image
  JD Vance’s Permission Slip for Racism Today, JD Vance stepped into the White House press room to deliver remarks. As he took questions from reporters, one asked about the AI-generated meme Donald Trump posted, showing Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer in sombreros: “Hakeem Jeffries said it was racist. Do you agree with that allegation?” Vance brushed it off, saying he “doesn’t even know what that means,” and argued it couldn’t be racist because Jeffries “isn’t Mexican.” He added that “the president is joking” and “we’re having a good time,” framing it as harmless fun rather than a serious insult. Here’s the problem: That is what racism is, poking fun at ethnic groups because, well, “you know how they are.” Vance exposed his own ignorance last summer with his grotesque “they are eating the dogs and cats” lie. What Vance is really doing here is confusing racism with stereotypes. Stereotypes are the engine of racism. Assigning a stereotype to the “wrong” group doesn’t make it harmle...
Read more

Make Up a Date, Make Up a Deal

Image
 On  April 2nd  —Trump’s self-declared  Liberation Day  —he announced tariffs on over  100 countries  . According to him, this was to combat trade deficits with nations that were “ripping us off.” But even as he declared  economic war on the entire planet  , he added a  90-day delay  to give countries time to “make deals.” America, he said, was done taking it lying down—this was economic shock and awe. And sure, 90 days from April 2 is  July 2  . But as the deadline approached and the results failed to match the rhetoric, the White House  quietly moved the deadline to July 9  . No announcement. No correction. Just a new date—as if  90 days = 97 days  , and math was optional. Then, on  Monday, July 8  —one day before that stealth extension expired—Trump signed another executive order,  pushing the deadline to August 1  . This was framed as the final, tough-guy moment. The foot is do...
Read more

Who Get's to Be an American?

  On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump issued nine executive orders, all of which were either unnecessary, unwarranted, or unconstitutional. The sixth order announced— Executive Order 14160: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship —besides being a misnomer, is the subject of this post. First off starting  (as my grandmother used to say), a constitutional amendment cannot be repealed or rewritten by executive order. Only a new constitutional amendment—requiring two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states—can change an existing amendment. That has happened only once: the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was repealed by the 21st Amendment. The primary problem with trying to end birthright citizenship is that  98 out of every 100 Americans  can trace their lineage to someone who was not an American citizen, not born on American soil. That necessarily means that, without the concept of birthright citizenship, the onl...
Read more

Whistle While You Lie: The Subtle Art of Coded Speech

One of the so-called "reforms" to Medicaid in the Big Beautiful Bill is the addition of a work requirement. There’s no real need to argue whether this is necessary or even effective, because it’s not a policy; it’s a dog whistle. I doubt anyone reading this needs a refresher, but for the record: a dog whistle—in political or social contexts—is a phrase that sounds harmless or reasonable to the general public but sends a loaded, often divisive, message to a targeted audience. Just like a literal dog whistle, it goes unheard by most, but loud and clear to the ones it's meant for. Examples? “States’ rights” was long used to oppose civil rights while pretending it was about federalism. “Globalists” often serves as an antisemitic euphemism, dressed up to sound like economic policy. The Medicaid work requirement operates the same way. The surface-level message sounds logical: “If you want benefits, you should work.” But the subtext—the part heard by those tune...
Read more

ICE Agents Are Wearing Masks — and the Public Should Be Alarmed

It has come to public attention that ICE agents are now wearing masks to conceal their identities during enforcement operations. According to ICE and DHS officials, this practice protects agents from retaliation. They cite threats of doxxing, harassment, and even physical targeting of agents and their families following immigration raids. ICE Director Todd Lyons defends the policy, claiming it shields agents from harassment and violence. But there’s a serious problem with this logic. ICE enforces civil immigration law—not criminal law—in public spaces, often without affording immigrants even a baseline concern for safety, privacy, or dignity. People are detained in front of children, coworkers, and neighbors. Families are torn apart with no warning. If safety is truly paramount, why does it only apply to those wearing badges, not to those being handcuffed and deported? And if the threat is real, use real words. Don’t hide behind internet slang like “doxxing” when lives, liberties and t...
Read more

When Courage Ducks and Covers

Image
 As the U.S. Senate debates Donald Trump’s so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill,” Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina has stepped forward to voice serious concerns. Tillis delivered a sharp, substantive critique—one of the most forceful GOP floor rebukes in recent memory. He focused on real consequences for North Carolina, highlighted broken promises, and warned of fallout—all while avoiding a direct clash with Trump. While I applaud his focus and concern for his constituents, a few things need to be pointed out. Quoting Senator Tillis directly, he said: "The last time I saw a promise broken around healthcare, with respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, is when somebody said, 'If you like your healthcare, you could keep it. If you like your doctor, you could keep it.' We found out that wasn’t true." First of all, that’s misleading. If you lost a plan you “liked” under the Affordable Care Act, it’s likely because: The plan didn’t meet minimum coverage standa...
Read more

Regime Change

First of all, that’s just not something you say out loud. That’s the kind of thing traditionally whispered in smoke-filled rooms, behind thick curtains, or under the cone of silence. It gets kicked around in backchannels and plotted out in three-letter agencies—not announced at press briefings or screamed into the void on some unhinged social media platform. It’s the kind of conversation that ends with everyone swearing it never happened. You don’t say— publicly , into a microphone—that you think it might be a good idea if a foreign leader were taken out. You don’t casually float the suggestion that maybe a world leader should be dead. And you especially don’t brag about how another head of state came to you, asked for the green light to kill someone, and you said no—but now, on second thought, maybe that wasn’t the right call. And you have the unmitigated gall to say it like it’s no big deal—like you just ordered DoorDash and now regret not double-dashing for a pint of Cherry Gar...
Read more

We Dropped the Bomb, He Wore a Hat.

Image
Okay… So the United States has just, in an act of war, dropped an arsenal of weapons on specified targets in Iraq. Americans are on edge. To reassure us of the awesome power of the U.S. presidency, they show us pictures of the national security team assembled in the Situation Room — a matter of all seriousness — and Donald Trump is wearing that stupid hat. WTF? Nobody else present is wearing a hat. There are generals and admirals, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines of various ranks and designations present — none of them wearing hats (primarily because it's indoors). There are other dignitaries assembled, but only one hat. So if you are the leader of the free world, and you decide to let the media take pictures of the sausage being made, and you think you need to be wearing a hat (even though no one else is), shouldn't that hat be something spectacular — like a crown (since you want to be king)? But no. You appear in that same stupid golf cap that could have been pr...
Read more

Healthcare Was Never the Enemy

Okay America—Let’s talk about Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act has been the law of the land since 2010. For 15 years, it has helped Americans—yes, including you—pay for medication, get covered despite pre-existing conditions, and gain access to the kind of care that saves lives. So let’s be honest: You didn’t hate the policy. You hated the president behind it. Republicans lied to you—said it would ruin the country, kill jobs, and create death panels. None of that happened. The controversy, the heated debate, the summer of hate, and all the associated backlash had an impact. They stirred up enough fear and outrage to take back the House in 2010 in a red wave. And once in power, they had one obsession: repeal and replace . The problem? “Repeal and replace” was a catchphrase, not a plan. Repeal sounded easy. Replace never showed up. Then, in 2017, with Trump in office, they finally held a vote to gut the ACA. And in one of his last acts of defiance, John McCain gave it a d...
Read more

-- More Posts