So when I feel particularly dysphoric, nervous or ashamed, or like I'm not worthy of any of it, I tell myself this is what she deserved.

I would protect and reassure any trans girl in her position, so I do. And since she's me, I hear it too.

She wanted to be happy, to have friends, and make stories. She wanted to be pretty and even wanted to be an adorable gay disaster, though she'd have hated you for saying so.

I don't think I killed little Ohmic, but I do try to separate her in my mind. Not because I feel like I'm not her, but because it makes it easier to comfort her.

She's been through a lot and some days, all that keeps me together is remembering that I'm doing all of it for her.

Looking back, there are just too many things she wasn't able to recognize. Too many fantasies about herself as a girl, too much shame about her body, and too many fixations on queer women.

I think little Ohmic was always a girl, even if she didn't know it.

And it's also very notable to me that his standard of "until they stop drugs and illegal immigration" gives him large outs via pointing at symbolic gestures.

Or he could just say they have and move on, he's hardly beholden to reality.

For example, while he's less beholden to business interests in his second term, he's far from immune, and they will fucking riot over these tariff plans.

Interesting. Here are my favorites, though Fennikin and Frogadier are neck and neck.

And so that narrative of authoritarian elitists grows over time, referenced and reinforced whenever reality is inconvenient and someone is using science to prove it.

But then you run into a problem, because scientists are studying reality, and most people aren't willing to fully reject the concept of empiricism. So to explain why the scientists aren't recording reality properly, they have to say that scientists are so authoritarian as to ignore the truth.

I think it's entirely a narrative thing. People don't like "elitists" telling them what to do, regardless of how reasonable it is. So if there's ever a case where scientists are advising something that people don't want to do, a percentage of them will latch onto the anti-elitist narrative.

has included some monstrous stuff throughout history. Nothing stops them from saying something blatantly unconstitutional is actually fine, because they don't have to give up power to do that. They still retain the right to rule on the subject in future.

the Constitution? Only in a very limited capacity, if ever. The Constitution is where the SCOTUS's power comes from and the court almost never disempowers itself. They protect their own power, like all institutions do.

That being said, limited capacity...

With limited expertise: Schedule F and military deployment are a given. Schedule F is an admin rule and military deployment is allowed for "civil unrest" under the Insurrection Act.

Funding clawback is entirely unprecedented, so idk.

But outright revoking...

I imagine it's the faction of mostly Resistance types who are primarily anti-trump and read the Cheney endorsement as a bipartisan unity against Trumpism.

These people constantly reveal how hollow their values are. "It can't be evil if half of a population agrees with it" is incoherent if you actually believe in things.