"This Is Dictator Speak": 24 Of The Best Political Tweets From This Wild, Wild Week
American politics is chaos right now, but I find it comforting to know I'm not alone in thinking the world has gone bananas. So, here are 24 of the best, most relatable, and sometimes funny political tweets from the last week:
1.
2.
They're shooting yt people on live television in broad daylight we're doomed https://t.co/5gDjgA8Wn4
— vanella🥀 (@scarIetsirens) June 9, 2025
9 News / Twitter: @scarIetsirens
3.
4.
5.
This is dictator speak. https://t.co/g67L8dKbXX
— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) June 10, 2025
Fox News / Twitter: @ProjectLincoln
6.
7.
Heroin good. Vaccines bad https://t.co/s0io83YXx3
— Ellen Barkin (@EllenBarkin) June 12, 2025
Shawn Ryan Show / Twitter: @EllenBarkin
Related: The Internet Is Having A Field Day Over Marjorie Taylor Greene's Tweet About Homeschooling With An Altered Map
8.
9.
10.
There was no call. Not even a voicemail.Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to. https://t.co/y7TJUhUZGI
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 10, 2025
Fox News / Twitter: @GavinNewsom
11.
Related: This Conservative Said He Wears A Fake ICE Uniform For A Really, Really, Really Gross Reason
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.And finally:
See you next week!
For more political tweets, check out our most recent roundup:
"He Torched His Entire Reputation For Nothing": 27 Of The Best Political Tweets From This Messy, Messy Week
Also in In the News: A NSFW Float Depicting Donald Trump's "MAGA" Penis Was Just Paraded Around Germany, And It's...Something
Also in In the News: "Honestly Speechless At How Evil This Is": 26 Brutal, Brutal, Brutal Political Tweets Of The Week
Also in In the News: "I Don't Know How To Live In A Country With People Who Support Sending A 4-Year-Old To Her Death": 23 Tweets About The Dismal State Of Politics This Week
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Steve Bannon Attacks Elon Musk Over New Party: 'You're Not American'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Steve Bannon has attacked Elon Musk over his plans to create a new political party. Speaking on his War Room podcast, President Donald Trump's former chief strategist called out the South African-born billionaire, who has U.S. citizenship, and said he was "not American." The Context On Saturday, Musk—who supported Trump during the 2024 presidential election campaign and who the president put in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency before the pair fell out—announced he was forming a new political party called the "America Party." He had previously posted a poll on July 4, asking respondents if they wanted a new party, with 65.4 percent saying that they supported the idea. Steve Bannon is seen at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, on February 21, 2025. Steve Bannon is seen at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, on February 21, 2025. Credit: Annabelle Gordon/CNP Photo by: Annabelle Gordon - CNP/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images On X, formerly Twitter, he wrote: "Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom," citing the poll. As a foreign-born U.S. citizen, Musk cannot run for president but he can support third-party candidates, who can put themselves on the ballot in every state, if they have enough signatures to support their bid. It is rare for third-party candidates to break through significantly. What To Know On his podcast on Friday Bannon said: "The foul, the buffoon. Elmo the Mook, formerly known as Elon Musk, Elmo the Mook. He's today, in another smear, and this—only a foreigner could do this—think about it, he's got up on, he's got up on Twitter right now, a poll about starting an America Party, a non-American starting an America Party." He added: "No, brother, you're not an American. You're a South African. We take enough time and prove the facts of that, you should be deported because it's a crime of what you did—among many." What People Are Saying Responding to a clip of Bannon's comments that was posted on X, Musk wrote: "The fat, drunken slob called Bannon will go back to prison and this time for a long time. He has a lifetime of crime to pay for." Dafydd Townley, an American politics expert at the University of Portsmouth, previously told Newsweek that "third parties do not tend to have a long lifetime in American politics," adding that Musk's new party "would likely split the Republican vote, potentially resulting in a Democrat-dominated House of Representatives, at least in the short term, due to the winner-takes-all electoral system." What Happens Next It is not known how the party will be structured and what other figures will be involved in it. Whether it manages to break through the two-party system and enjoy success remains to be seen.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Trump says he will start talks with China on TikTok deal
President Donald Trump late Friday said that the United States 'pretty much has a deal' for an American company to acquire the U.S. branch of TikTok, adding that he intended to restart talks next week with China to approve the deal. 'We're going to start Monday or Tuesday talking to China,' Trump told reporters traveling on Air Force One on Friday night as it headed to Bedminster, New Jersey. 'We think we probably have to get it approved by China. Not definitely, but probably.' He added, 'I think the deal is good for China, and it's good for us. It's money, it's a lot of money.' Trump did not say who the potential buyer was. The president said earlier in the week that he had found a buyer for the U.S. branch of TikTok, the popular Chinese-owned video app that faces a ban adopted by Congress over national security concerns. A 2024 law required that the app effectively be banned in the United States unless its parent company, ByteDance, sold it to a non-Chinese company. Congress was concerned that sensitive user data could end up in the hands of the Chinese government. It was not clear if the deal would comply with some of the requirements Congress adopted for a sale of TikTok, particularly if ByteDance chose not to share the app's algorithm with the U.S. buyers. Private equity firms have been hesitant to invest in a deal without some form of indemnification. Trump has declined to enforce the law banning the app, which was passed by large bipartisan majorities and unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court. Shortly after being sworn in, Trump issued an executive order directing the Justice Department to suspend enforcement of the TikTok ban and has since repeatedly extended it. Attorney General Pam Bondi has told tech companies that Trump has the constitutional power to effectively set aside laws. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
The Supreme Court stripped judges of a powerful tool to fight Trump's autocracy. Congress must give it back.
But now they can't. Based on the Supreme Court's reading of a 1789 law, lower courts can now only take such action on specific cases before them, meaning that even clear-cut violations of the law could continue against those without the wherewithal to go to court. Advertisement Congress can and must correct this mistake. Lawmakers should pass legislation that protects judges' ability to provide robust equitable remedies when people's rights are threatened by legally or constitutionally dubious administration actions. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Now, it's true that there have been problems with universal injunctions, and judges have sometimes misused them. But the court's ruling took a sledgehammer to a system that should have been fixed by Congress with a scalpel. And in the case of Trump, the ruling opens the door for him to strip birthright citizenship from American-born babies, continue whisking migrants to countries foreign to them with little notice and without due process, and engage in other actions that threaten people's rights and freedoms. Advertisement The court's 6-3 ideologically split opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was based on the majority's interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices considered if the statute authorizes broad preliminary injunctions like that issued by Boston-based US District Court Justice Brian Murphy, which paused Trump's executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born to some migrants. 'The answer is no,' Barrett wrote for the majority. Instead, the court held, challengers of the policy who have standing to bring suit can only obtain such preliminary relief for themselves. '[P]rohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,' Barrett wrote. 'And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render her relief any more complete.' This is untenable, and will only lead to a cruel game of judicial whack-a-mole that fails to provide adequate protection to those most imperiled by these policies. The onus should not fall on those who are targeted by these policies to fend for themselves. It should fall on the administration to show that it is acting in a lawful way. The court did just the opposite, holding that it is the administration that will likely suffer irreparable harm if courts dare to exercise their authority as a check on the executive. The overuse of universal injunctions has been an issue of increasing bipartisan concern, particularly since the Obama administration. In the last two decades, both the number of executive orders issued and the number of temporary injections blocking them have steadily ballooned. But the number of executive orders Trump has issued in his second term is without historical precedent, even exceeding Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who issued a flurry of edicts in an effort to implement his New Deal agenda. Advertisement And many of Trump's orders are based on strained legal or constitutional arguments, such as the administration's claim that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protection only extended to children of enslaved people, that the Alien Enemies Act allows migrants to be deported without due process, or that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the government to send migrants to countries where they've never been and to which they have no connection. Judges must have the ability to decide when relief extending beyond named plaintiffs is warranted. Should there be limits on that power? Yes, and Congress can include them in its bill. It can also underscore that states can still seek statewide relief from policies they can demonstrate harm all of their residents, and ease the process for class actions to be formed at the earliest stages of litigation to give relief to groups of people who demonstrate a need for protection. Judges handling the flurry of Trump-related litigation need more tools, not fewer. It's lawmakers' duty to give those tools to them. The Supreme Court must also swiftly take up and decide the constitutional and legal questions presented by Trump's orders. The justices could have rejected the Trump administration's erroneously limited reading of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protections, but opted instead to leave that question for another day. But given the risks of the order, there is no time like the present. And in the meantime, federal judges must do all they can to help challengers who will be harmed by Trump's policies. The Supreme Court did not tie judges' hands completely when it comes to equitable relief. Quick certification of class actions and swiftly granting relief to states that demonstrate the peril to their residents are among the arrows still in judges' quivers. They must use them. Advertisement We are not as bound or doomed by history as the Supreme Court's justices believe. The public needs to demand that members of the legislative and judiciary branches stand up and reclaim their powers to check a president who believes he is above the law and the Constitution. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
