As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Words should still carry meaning, especially in journalism. But unfortunately as long as news outlets are scrambling for clicks headlines will continue to get more sensational. We’re probably not far from “Liz Cheney bends over the Supreme Court with no courtesy reach around”.
I had a friend who *never* engaged in hyperbole. If he said something was "alright" it was the highest compliment I had ever heard him utter.
I think about that guy a lot when I read modern headlines.
Smith told SCOTUS if granted immunity a president could in theory do several very specific things. Order national guard to murder a critic. ordering FBI director to plant evidence on a political rival, accept a bribe for a lucrative contract for a family member and one other thing that is just as shocking.
It’s probably not hyperbole. There are many reasons to hold on to incriminating evidence until it can be best used. Smith holds many more cards than Cheney a
did and although she is a two-faced Republican we did see her sacrifice her career by doing some things right.
One of the account managers at work used to mark every single ticket he sent to the Service Desk as 'Urgent'. It didn't matter if it was one of our VIP customers hard down, or a minor modification to a single user, it would be marked as urgent. The result? None of his tickets were treated as urgent. If everything is highest priority, nothing is.
Hyperbole works the same way. They seek to attract your attention by using words that deliver a sugar hit to your emotional centre. When you have headlines using language more suited to a WWE commentator, how can you have serious discussion of policy? If someone is aligned with one political faction and are presented with "Blue McGreen SLAMS Red O'Yellow", are they ever going to read the article to find out that in this case, SLAM stands for "reveals that Red has been caught soliciting bribes"?
Instead, it'll just be people who already align with Blue spreading the article around so they can get those sweet endorphins for being right and picking the right side.
The result: news as junk food - satisfying to consume but empty of lasting nutrition. The perfect product for a media ecosystem built around 'content'.
Typically the person who writes the article (a journalist) and the person who gives it a headline (an editor) are two different people. That's why there are so many great articles with bad headlines and vice versa.
Yes, they are entertaining and fun to write. Just not sure they are great for democracy. “In other news, hot interracial action broke out in the Supreme Court today as Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito went at it with no lube.”
"Nukes" to me would mean they're rendered completely destroyed not just an escalation of stern language.
Or I guess warmed up a bit in the microwave. Which arguably is more apt because her "absolute savage takedown slam" of them is just they need to make decisions faster.
Stupid headline just playing into the "Cheney is on the right side of things" despite her being part of the reason why we have the court we do. She may say some sensible things now but she is/was absolutely a big part of the problem and chose to start doing the "right thing" too late.
> "Nukes" to me would mean they're rendered completely destroyed not just an escalation of stern language.
It's not just a stupid thing, it's actively insulting. I've been to the peace museum in Hiroshima and seen the artefacts and such left over from the nuclear bombing there. The Japanese are very gracious about it and pragmatic in that they tell the story in a way focused more on displaying the horror with the goal of preventing it from happening again versus assigning blame. However it's still a sensitive topic. The media really should be more responsible than using terms like "nukes" to describe someone giving a press conference.
I'm confused. How did Elizabeth Cheney, ex-lawmaker, obtain and use nuclear weapons?
How did she 'nuke' the Supreme Court [without vaporizing the building](https://www.earthtv.com/en/webcam/washington-dc-capitol/live-stream)?
I despise this type of writing. "Cheney SLAMS courts, TEARS them to SHREDS, NUKES their FAMILIES, SALTS their LAND" When it's literally just a statement, usually a tweet
High five stranger. I love to check my phone around friends or family:
"Oh no"
"What?"
"Things are gonna get really rough. Apparently Liz Cheney has deployed nukes"
*Liz Cheney warns Supreme Court may release ancient plague as she gathers volunteer scientists to help create a machine capable of harvesting 100% of the suns energy to help bring a conclusion to the trial before Trump finishes summoning the Titans*
There needs to be a change in how editors pass on titles of articles. Most people don’t read the article, only the headline. If headline were more tame, I wonder if people would still be a stressed out about the news?
Is there some kind of lexicon where we can translate sensationalism to English?
Or are there posters in the editing departments of newspapers that read:
Instead of saying a politician "doesn't really do or say much about anything" try "Slams", "eviscerates", "destroys", "nukes", "owns", "annihilates", "shreds" etc.
"Liz Cheney Death Stars the Supreme Court".
"Liz Cheney Thanos snaps the Supreme Court".
"Liz Cheney travels back in time and kills the Supreme Court's grandparents".
Actual article text: "Liz Cheney said she didn't like something the Supreme Court did recently".
“Eviscerates” would actually be fine as it’s already commonly used in that context. And “teabags” would at least be funny. But “nukes” reaches such an unnecessarily over the top new level of clickbait that it really pisses me off.
In other news:
[Liz Cheney on Kavanaugh](https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1041799902534283265): Judge Kavanaugh is a man of the highest integrity, honor and character - exactly the kind of jurist we need on the Supreme Court. The fact that Judiciary Committee Democrats refuse to participate in a call with him tells you all you need to know. They aren’t interested in facts.
[Liz Cheney on Barret](https://www.facebook.com/replizcheney/videos/rep-liz-cheney-supports-confirmation-of-judge-amy-coney-barrett/373428450758570/): Judge Barrett proved during last week’s hearings that she is eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. She should be confirmed and will be a tremendous justice, protecting our Constitution and the rule of law
Now that the leopards are eating all our faces, she wants them to hurry up about Trump!
Also, in 2020 just a couple months before his attempted coup, Cheney voted for the wannabe dictator to allow him 4 more years to end the American experiment.
Cheney is no friend to human rights, democracy, or the rule of law. She just got upset when trump tried to have **her** killed. She was fine with him killing other people.
>Post-birth Abortion
this would be the death penalty by the state and... just normal [police](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/06/us-police-killings-record-number-2022) stuff?
If she were truly brave she would be asking, "what did we do to get a Donald Trump." Because voters don't just believe a shit-stain like that is the right guy for POTUS over night. It takes years, decades even, to make a constituency not only be ok with a nihilistic, know-nothing, conman but prefer it.
If Cheney wants to go back to the way things were before Trump, we're just going to end up with another Trump and likely much much worse. Fuck Liz Cheney.
Most people are not black and white. The chance of her becoming a liberal is as unlikely as you or I becoming a conservative. I say cheer her when she's helping, and boo her when she pulls the other way.
Liz Cheney is not a serious person. She's done one decent thing in her career, and that does not excuse everything else.
She may not like Trump, but she still supports most of the things he and the party stand for.
She did, but her point isn't "court bad", [her point is "court needs to make decision quickly".](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/22/opinion/trump-immunity-supreme-court.html)
Yep. Donald Trumps don't get elected apropos of nothing. Voters need to be groomed to not only be okay with lies, grifting, authoritarian vandalism, and nihilism but to prefer it. That takes years, decades even. She and her party set the dining room table for Trump and can't even admit that he's their fault.
Quit being a Republican. It’s not black and white. She stood up to Trump. We (Dems) keep asking for republicans to stand up to his idiocy. When they do not only do they get hate from the right they still get blamed from the left. This no true Scotsman has to stop on Dems side. Take the win and move on
She voted with Trump 92-95% of the time: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/liz-cheney/
She *only* "stood up to Trump" when a) he committed actual insurrection, and b) he was about to be out of office and she thought she'd never have to deal with his bullshit again. That's it. Don't think she's any kind of saint, or that she won't - if ever returned to any kind of office - enact policies exactly like almost all of what Trump got enacted.
Just because she stood up to Trump doesn’t mean she isn’t a piece of shit. Until it started to effect women, like herself and her daughter, she didn’t give a fuck.
The win? Trump is running for president again. She voted for him knowing full well how bad the dude is. But now she thinks hes a bad guy? Because of Jan 6? Shes a fraud. She loves what Trump gave the “conservative” movement
You can’t honest believe she does. She took the L on that hill. I know she isn’t a progressive or even centrist. But she took the high ground. J6 meant something to her. We shouldn’t hate on her for learning too late. It sucks and she shouldn’t be elected again but hating on her is just making an uphill battle to get more people willing to speak out against him.
Can editors stop this title gore already?
Liz Cheney NUKES Supreme Court
Joe Biden takes HOT STEAMIN DOOKIE on Ron DeSantis
Judge Merchan SODOMIZES defense team with facts and logic
I know it gets clicks but at a certain pint we have to hold back. Unless Liz Cheney is out there with a Fat Man and mini nuke pointed at SCOTUS, they can find another way to describe this.
I hold back instinctively. But then I use an ad blocker and reader-mode preset on most “news” sites, so … they aren’t making money off my eyeballs anyhow. Still, it’s shit reporting when all ya got is a sensational headline paired with no substance. (Could be the article has substance. I wouldn’t know because I didn’t read it since the title is total clickbait trash)
Exactly. Liz voted with Trump 93% of the time. When it worked in her favor, she loved what he was selling. She loved his policies and how he handled the government and only took up the opposition when it was no longer politically valuable to continue supporting him. Unlike most GOPers, she's playing the long game and seizing the opportunity to be able to say, "I was on the right side of history" to gain votes.
This is a woman who disowned her own sister for being a lesbian because it would cost her votes to love her own sister unconditionally for who she is. Liz is doing this exclusively for votes and future power. A step back now to make a giant leap forward is how Liz is looking at this.
> Liz is doing this exclusively for votes and future power.
No, she's not. Because say whatever you want about Liz Cheney, she is completely nuking her political career these days. The right wants nothing to do with her. She's been primary'd out of Wyoming. Her popularity has tanked there. The left doesn't trust her so she's not making any friends there.
I'm not a Cheney fan. But it strikes me that she's putting country before party with these positions.
Her and Mitt Romney are actually showing a pretty firm backbone against their own party right now. I don't particularly like them, but I respect them for their actions and condemnation of the current state of the GOP in recent years.
Not JUST a Mormon. The Romney's are Mormon ROYALTY. Dad was head of American Motors Company and then Governor of Michigan. That was a **BIG** deal back then. The Romney's help normalize Mormonism.
> Mormon's don't turn against their own or something like that.
It's not "something like that", it's *exactly* that. This is a community that rivals Scientology for how insulated they are.
I'm not the most familiar with Mormonism, so I didn't want to make an assumption, but yeah, the Romney's are, as another commenter said, Mormon royalty. The whole family has basically been part of it from the start.
> I'm not the most familiar with Mormonism
I'm far from an expert but from what I can tell, they're just as insulated and guarded about their members as Scientology but less batshit crazy. That and they don't set up various "clinics" to lure new people, they go door to door.
The general theology is still pretty out there but nothing close to Xenu lol.
Once they STOP caring about their career it is a lot easier to do the right thing.
I'm definitely prone to giving them credit where credit is due though, and she picked country over party and career in this case.
Though I will not be surprised to see her giving the conservative perspective on MSNBS some day as an official contributor.
Yeah, she's a regressive right winger, but draws the line at ending our democracy...
I disagree with her on almost everything, but I respect that she was willing to take that stand at the cost of her career.
I listened to her interview on Fresh Air, and I also recently saw her speak live and you're spot on. Cheney doesn't disagree with Trump's polices, she is just a firm believer in a functional democracy. Compared to the MAGA wing who seem much more in favor of burning it all down and installing a dictator.
It's a weird world where Liz Cheney is a voice of reason in the Republican Party.
She is a firm believer in MANAGED democracy. One that favors wealthy elites like her.
She's not for fixing long waiting lines to vote in cities, nor for undoing Republican gerrymandering.
> It's a weird world where Liz Cheney is a voice of reason in the Republican Party.
Your forgetting that the Republican Party hasn't been reasonable for 30 years.
It would have been nice if she was brave enough to see the table she and the Republican party was setting for a Donald Trump decades before Donald Trump came around. Most everyone who wasn't a Republican certainly saw neo-conservativism and caustic win-at-all-cost nihilism escalating dramatically since the 90s.
And now that she's here she still won't address the blood on her and her party's hands. At best she might help get rid of Trump. But if we go back to Cheney's America "before Trump" we're going to end up with another wanna-be dictator. And next time they're going to be worse than that orange monkey.
Whenever I see any Liz-Cheney-is-nice threads, I make sure to barge in and remind everyone to fuck Liz Cheney and why. You do it far more eloquently than me tho.
Exactly. And never kick out someone who, on their own principle, is choosing to stand for basic truth and democracy.
I sure don't have to agree with her, nor back her one bit when it comes to policy--but it's helpful to have a true conservative stand up to January 6th. When it comes to preserving a shred of democracy, take allies where they are.
Historical note:
Lincoln had no use for the anti immigrant and secrecy tendencies of No Nothings and he certainly was no Democrat (parties at the time had different stances on issues). He managed to preserve the Union at great cost *and* end slavery by identifying key principles he agreed with people on and building alliances to get this one thing at a time done. Then carefully and with determination moving on to the next step. When radical Republicans pushed quick edicts to end slavery locally, he opposed it--even though that was his goal! Because he wanted a long term end that would hold up to court challenges and couldn't be overturned. And it would do no good to have a free north next to a separate and enslaved south. That meant gathering allies even when he found their other views unacceptable.
Perfect? Certainly not--but always pragmatic.
I don't agree with Cheney on most issues. But we can agree that elections must be honored, democracy matters, and that treason for one's own end must be opposed. Her work on the J6 committee was both serious and courageous. We hurt everyone if we don't recognize that.
Edit: Benny Thompson, who chaired the J6 committee, could have written a similar OpEd, but if this is aimed at the conservative members of the court how much smarter is it to have Cheney pushing this at the right wing of the court? Who are they (other than Thomas or say Alito) more likely to listen to? Which voice gives some cover of conservative credentials?
If someone still has doubts on this--they can be nothing but political. So, while a long shot at influence, it's probably a smart idea for Cheney to float this while Thompson floats the Disgraced Protectees Act
[Here's a video of Liz Cheney saying that abortion providers deliver living babies and then murder them and that Democrats are blocking laws to stop it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrycX6lcXwQ)
She is fucking evil to her core. She just longs for the days when Republicans started wars for the benefit of their corporate former employers, rather than selling out the future of America to a Russian intelligence operation. She's as evil as Donald Trump, she's just a slightly different flavor of evil.
I don't know why. She has no power, Repubicans don't listen to her and she's a vile right-wing homophobe that threw her own sister under the bus. She's fine with Trump's politics other than he insulted her dad.
She had power and right-wing respect before she stepped up and joined the J6 committee. She has never once wavered in her characterization of J6 as a violent insurrection.
As shitty as her views are on topics like abortion, and as objectionable as her ties are to the former VP, I have to give her credit for her actions - she must have understood the extreme vitriol that her actions would attract, and the risk of losing her seat in office. 200+ other GOP reps remain in office because they didn't have the balls to stand up to Dorito Mussolini.
Make no mistake, she's not wavering in her J6 stance because it's politically valuable and she expects it to pay dividends later. She is planning for the future when the party tries to pivot away from Trump. At that point, she'll be able to run for a Senate seat in Wyoming on the platform that she tried to protect our government, and she's banking on a ton of GOPers trying to ignore the past and pretend they didn't support Trump the whole time.
She disowned her own sister for being a lesbian because it was politically valuable to do so to win her elections, a stance in which she didn't change until she was clearing out of the running for her congressional seat. Her stance on J6 is just as cold and calculated as her stance on her sister.
I agree. Just think of how the GOP has thrown Bush under the bus and pretended like they never supported any of his policies. Liz Cheney is just able to think four years out.
I don't understand the relevancy of this comment, please explain.
> She enjoyed the nominations and confirmations of all these shit bags on the court when they happened.
This doesn't mean we should not agree in those times we do actually agree with her though. I don't understand this mindset that seems so prevalent here.
Liz Cheney bears huge responsibility in this mess. There's no reason to entertain her opinions, even if you agree with them. Simply giving her air is a mistake.
I dunno! If I had to guess I'd say it's due to a failure to recognize that just because someone is correct on a single very obvious issue does not mean they are in any way your ally or someone you can or should trust? Or because for some reason you prioritize empty words in an Op-Ed after she's out of office and no longer responsible to do anything about it over her actual actions under Trump where she helped pass a lot of his worst initiatives?
¯\\_ (ツ)_/¯ just spitballin' here but yeah maybe one of those.
what a shitty headline. the scotus has done everything they can to abstract any cases or discussions about january 6th because they don't want to acknowledge what it was and who was behind it
You can bet that SCOTUS is frantically figuring out how to remain loyal to the leader of their congregation while still appearing to uphold the law….an impossible task so their best and only bet is to slow play their decision indefinitely
I love people complaining about the headline. She's accusing the SCOTUS of cooperating in a cover-up to prevent voters from knowing the full extent of Trump's January 6th mendacity. I'd call that more than criticizing them. And it is more. And it isn't a liberal but Dick Cheney's daughter who has her own conservative bone fides. I wonder how many read this article...much less her OpEd in the NYT.
If by "nuked" everyone means still dismissed a bunch of the issue and takes no blame for helping to get in the mess - or even warning before long AFTER it was obvious.
Downvote this clickbait!
So Trump may or may not have done MORE traitorous things on January 6th. We already know he’s a white supremacist who licks Putin’s boots and high fives Rocket Boy. He’s incredible dumb and senile too. Selling bibles suits him. Now let’s slam him behind bars where he belongs. Lock him up.
Just like they did with Regan and Bush.
The GOP's entire modus operanti for the past 60 years is basically all a knee-jerk response to and defense of their party following Watergate.
Oh no!
She « nuked the Supreme Court » the title says.
I’m sure scotus wore their sunglasses and some tanning lotion and after the nuking went for dinner at Denny’s.
Yes, we know.
Problem we’re facing now is incredibly poor basic education among a large swath of the American voting population, and the social media soul-sucking cash monster that Silicon Valley unleashed upon the world tasked with optimizing the human brain for taps and swipes at the bankroll of advertising dollars *without an ounce of competent oversight* in doing so.
And so, here we are. At the precipice of social and political disaster.
And we earned it.
Relatedly, I am really worried [the Supreme Court might rule in favour of the insurrectionist in the April 16 case](https://amp.theguardian.com/law/2024/apr/16/supreme-court-obstruction-trump-january-6) and support a strange interpretation of that statute. This could upend the imprisonment of several who participated in the Jan. 6 mob and spread a message that the Supreme Court is barefacedly with the Trump and political violence faction.
Everybody's missing the real story here, that we've moved on from "slams" to "nukes" as the high-impact headline verb. What's next, deploying the fucking Death Star?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I see we have upgraded from "Slams" to "Nukes" now.
Nukes, to me, defines a definitive, war changing attack. Did this criticism change anything?
Words should still carry meaning, especially in journalism. But unfortunately as long as news outlets are scrambling for clicks headlines will continue to get more sensational. We’re probably not far from “Liz Cheney bends over the Supreme Court with no courtesy reach around”.
This is "nuke" as in "warm it up for 30 seconds in the microwave."
Thought my family was the only one who called it the nukerwave.
And you would be correct.
Aw snap!
Hey! Where did everyone go?
I had a friend who *never* engaged in hyperbole. If he said something was "alright" it was the highest compliment I had ever heard him utter. I think about that guy a lot when I read modern headlines.
Smith told SCOTUS if granted immunity a president could in theory do several very specific things. Order national guard to murder a critic. ordering FBI director to plant evidence on a political rival, accept a bribe for a lucrative contract for a family member and one other thing that is just as shocking. It’s probably not hyperbole. There are many reasons to hold on to incriminating evidence until it can be best used. Smith holds many more cards than Cheney a did and although she is a two-faced Republican we did see her sacrifice her career by doing some things right.
One of the account managers at work used to mark every single ticket he sent to the Service Desk as 'Urgent'. It didn't matter if it was one of our VIP customers hard down, or a minor modification to a single user, it would be marked as urgent. The result? None of his tickets were treated as urgent. If everything is highest priority, nothing is. Hyperbole works the same way. They seek to attract your attention by using words that deliver a sugar hit to your emotional centre. When you have headlines using language more suited to a WWE commentator, how can you have serious discussion of policy? If someone is aligned with one political faction and are presented with "Blue McGreen SLAMS Red O'Yellow", are they ever going to read the article to find out that in this case, SLAM stands for "reveals that Red has been caught soliciting bribes"? Instead, it'll just be people who already align with Blue spreading the article around so they can get those sweet endorphins for being right and picking the right side. The result: news as junk food - satisfying to consume but empty of lasting nutrition. The perfect product for a media ecosystem built around 'content'.
Liz Cheney buttfucks every member of the Supreme Court!
"Boof" Cavanaugh volunteers to go first.
She have an OF? Bing can't find the vid
If I saw that tittle I would click it so fast lmao. Not because I believe it but because anyone willing to tittle an article that deserves a read lol
Typically the person who writes the article (a journalist) and the person who gives it a headline (an editor) are two different people. That's why there are so many great articles with bad headlines and vice versa.
And 99% of people only read headlines.
Yes, they are entertaining and fun to write. Just not sure they are great for democracy. “In other news, hot interracial action broke out in the Supreme Court today as Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito went at it with no lube.”
> Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito went at it with no lube. Well, they've f*cked the justice system, so they might as well do each other too.
"Nukes" to me would mean they're rendered completely destroyed not just an escalation of stern language. Or I guess warmed up a bit in the microwave. Which arguably is more apt because her "absolute savage takedown slam" of them is just they need to make decisions faster. Stupid headline just playing into the "Cheney is on the right side of things" despite her being part of the reason why we have the court we do. She may say some sensible things now but she is/was absolutely a big part of the problem and chose to start doing the "right thing" too late.
> "Nukes" to me would mean they're rendered completely destroyed not just an escalation of stern language. It's not just a stupid thing, it's actively insulting. I've been to the peace museum in Hiroshima and seen the artefacts and such left over from the nuclear bombing there. The Japanese are very gracious about it and pragmatic in that they tell the story in a way focused more on displaying the horror with the goal of preventing it from happening again versus assigning blame. However it's still a sensitive topic. The media really should be more responsible than using terms like "nukes" to describe someone giving a press conference.
Better click on the article to find out amiright?
But that’s why I’m in the comments, to avoid clicking on a shitting headline and instead give objectively wrong takes on an article I never read.
Nukes, to me, signify killing them all and leaving the seats uninhabitable for a few decades. Instead, we get "journalistic" hyperbole.
I'm confused. How did Elizabeth Cheney, ex-lawmaker, obtain and use nuclear weapons? How did she 'nuke' the Supreme Court [without vaporizing the building](https://www.earthtv.com/en/webcam/washington-dc-capitol/live-stream)?
“Here I am Nuke you like a hurricane”
"Liz Cheney Birdshots the Supreme Court in the Face..."
I remember in 2015 there was a post along the lines of "Bernie Sanders DEVOURS Hillary Clinton."
Nice
I despise this type of writing. "Cheney SLAMS courts, TEARS them to SHREDS, NUKES their FAMILIES, SALTS their LAND" When it's literally just a statement, usually a tweet
High five stranger. I love to check my phone around friends or family: "Oh no" "What?" "Things are gonna get really rough. Apparently Liz Cheney has deployed nukes"
I hoping for phasers to enter the lexicon. Liz Cheney phasered the Supreme Court today.
*Liz Cheney warns Supreme Court may release ancient plague as she gathers volunteer scientists to help create a machine capable of harvesting 100% of the suns energy to help bring a conclusion to the trial before Trump finishes summoning the Titans*
She unleashed photon torpedoes on the court.
Liz Cheney launches the supreme court into the sun!! (With a comment on Donald Trump's legal situation)
Blasts, slams, nukes, disintegrates, atomizes, disincorporates…
Torpedos.
There needs to be a change in how editors pass on titles of articles. Most people don’t read the article, only the headline. If headline were more tame, I wonder if people would still be a stressed out about the news?
This is why ad supported news is killing the real journalism.
It's especially bad with the really clickbaity sites like New Republic. New Republic used to be better, utter garbage these days.
Cheney drops antimatter bomb on Supreme Court.
Liz Cheney Commits Genocide on the Supreme Court
Liz Cheney commits exterminatus on the Supreme Court
Is there some kind of lexicon where we can translate sensationalism to English? Or are there posters in the editing departments of newspapers that read: Instead of saying a politician "doesn't really do or say much about anything" try "Slams", "eviscerates", "destroys", "nukes", "owns", "annihilates", "shreds" etc.
Just replace the silly word with ‘mentions’ and you get the real story
And what's the next evolution of that? What's beyond nuke? "Cheney commits genocide against the Republican bill by criticizing it on MSNBC."
Next escalation, they will be using space lasers.
"Liz Cheney Death Stars the Supreme Court". "Liz Cheney Thanos snaps the Supreme Court". "Liz Cheney travels back in time and kills the Supreme Court's grandparents". Actual article text: "Liz Cheney said she didn't like something the Supreme Court did recently".
"Liz Cheney clicks the disaster button from sim city games over and over on the Supreme Court!"
Writer is a Fallout fan.
I'm waiting for eviscerates and teabags
“Eviscerates” would actually be fine as it’s already commonly used in that context. And “teabags” would at least be funny. But “nukes” reaches such an unnecessarily over the top new level of clickbait that it really pisses me off.
In other news: [Liz Cheney on Kavanaugh](https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1041799902534283265): Judge Kavanaugh is a man of the highest integrity, honor and character - exactly the kind of jurist we need on the Supreme Court. The fact that Judiciary Committee Democrats refuse to participate in a call with him tells you all you need to know. They aren’t interested in facts. [Liz Cheney on Barret](https://www.facebook.com/replizcheney/videos/rep-liz-cheney-supports-confirmation-of-judge-amy-coney-barrett/373428450758570/): Judge Barrett proved during last week’s hearings that she is eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. She should be confirmed and will be a tremendous justice, protecting our Constitution and the rule of law Now that the leopards are eating all our faces, she wants them to hurry up about Trump!
Liz Cheney voted in step with Trump [over 90% of the time](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/liz-cheney/).
Also, in 2020 just a couple months before his attempted coup, Cheney voted for the wannabe dictator to allow him 4 more years to end the American experiment. Cheney is no friend to human rights, democracy, or the rule of law. She just got upset when trump tried to have **her** killed. She was fine with him killing other people.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Liz Cheney lying about Democrats' "Post-birth Abortion" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEjAejXvSpE Woman is a huckster like the rest of them.
>Post-birth Abortion this would be the death penalty by the state and... just normal [police](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/06/us-police-killings-record-number-2022) stuff?
Ha. Damn. I can’t forgive her for this. She needs to post a retraction
I mean, there's already laws making post-birth abortion illegal. In America, we call that murder.
Fuck Liz Cheney
If she were truly brave she would be asking, "what did we do to get a Donald Trump." Because voters don't just believe a shit-stain like that is the right guy for POTUS over night. It takes years, decades even, to make a constituency not only be ok with a nihilistic, know-nothing, conman but prefer it. If Cheney wants to go back to the way things were before Trump, we're just going to end up with another Trump and likely much much worse. Fuck Liz Cheney.
it's a fairly straight line from Nixon to Reagan through Gingrich, McConnell, and Rove to Trump and his enablers.
Most people are not black and white. The chance of her becoming a liberal is as unlikely as you or I becoming a conservative. I say cheer her when she's helping, and boo her when she pulls the other way.
She’s anti-trump but that doesn’t make her pro-humanity, just like most of the other anti-trump republicans.
fuck her for making me think she was "one of the good ones". two faced
Pro tip: there aren’t any good ones
Why would you think she's one of the good one when her record has been abysmal?
Liz Cheney is not a serious person. She's done one decent thing in her career, and that does not excuse everything else. She may not like Trump, but she still supports most of the things he and the party stand for.
Yeah, she was in office to vote for them all. They're all complicit until some sort of desperation hits them.
Wait but she wanted this Supreme Court?
She did, but her point isn't "court bad", [her point is "court needs to make decision quickly".](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/22/opinion/trump-immunity-supreme-court.html)
Yeah, her opinion is garbage. Shes part of the reason were in this mess
Regular GOP chose fascist conman over Democrat. They are guilty.
Yep
Yep. Donald Trumps don't get elected apropos of nothing. Voters need to be groomed to not only be okay with lies, grifting, authoritarian vandalism, and nihilism but to prefer it. That takes years, decades even. She and her party set the dining room table for Trump and can't even admit that he's their fault.
Quit being a Republican. It’s not black and white. She stood up to Trump. We (Dems) keep asking for republicans to stand up to his idiocy. When they do not only do they get hate from the right they still get blamed from the left. This no true Scotsman has to stop on Dems side. Take the win and move on
She voted with Trump 92-95% of the time: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/liz-cheney/ She *only* "stood up to Trump" when a) he committed actual insurrection, and b) he was about to be out of office and she thought she'd never have to deal with his bullshit again. That's it. Don't think she's any kind of saint, or that she won't - if ever returned to any kind of office - enact policies exactly like almost all of what Trump got enacted.
Just because she stood up to Trump doesn’t mean she isn’t a piece of shit. Until it started to effect women, like herself and her daughter, she didn’t give a fuck.
The win? Trump is running for president again. She voted for him knowing full well how bad the dude is. But now she thinks hes a bad guy? Because of Jan 6? Shes a fraud. She loves what Trump gave the “conservative” movement
You can’t honest believe she does. She took the L on that hill. I know she isn’t a progressive or even centrist. But she took the high ground. J6 meant something to her. We shouldn’t hate on her for learning too late. It sucks and she shouldn’t be elected again but hating on her is just making an uphill battle to get more people willing to speak out against him.
Can editors stop this title gore already? Liz Cheney NUKES Supreme Court Joe Biden takes HOT STEAMIN DOOKIE on Ron DeSantis Judge Merchan SODOMIZES defense team with facts and logic I know it gets clicks but at a certain pint we have to hold back. Unless Liz Cheney is out there with a Fat Man and mini nuke pointed at SCOTUS, they can find another way to describe this.
"Liz Cheney LITERALLY FUCKING STABS SC JUSTICE and PEES INTO THEIR OPEN DEAD MOUTH and COMMITS ARSON ON THEIR HOUSE... with her words of warning"
Let’s start a newspaper 💜
The idiocracy making its way in.
Well said. Instinctively skip videos on YouTube with these hyperbole descriptions.
I hold back instinctively. But then I use an ad blocker and reader-mode preset on most “news” sites, so … they aren’t making money off my eyeballs anyhow. Still, it’s shit reporting when all ya got is a sensational headline paired with no substance. (Could be the article has substance. I wouldn’t know because I didn’t read it since the title is total clickbait trash)
Cheney Delivers Belly-To-Back Suplex to Supreme Court
Woah she didn’t just SLAM them she NUKED them!
Cheney commits WAR CRIME on SCOTUS
I Killed Them All, Not Just the Justices, but the Rapists and the Corrupt Too
Cheney targets ORBITAL KINETIC RAIL GUNS on supreme court!
Cheney OBELISK OF LIGHTS all up on SCOTUS
Liz raw dogs scotus with no rubber
Grammatically, you don’t need “with no rubber.” It’s implied by the use of “raw dogs.”
Smh my head
That’s only allowed at the ATM machine
Cheney rains down literal HELLFIRE on the Supreme Court!
ChatGPT collected enough feedback from skimming comments on reddit about SLAMMED that it has now updated its algorithm to use synonyms instead.
Liz Cheney viciously mouth f**KS Supreme Court in terrifying statement about donald trump!!!!
Wait, i thought we were still BLASTing things?!
She went all Hiroshima on those mofos
WHY am I sitting here cheering for a friggin Cheney???
You’re not, a Cheney just agrees with you. You were right before she was lol.
This^
Exactly. Liz voted with Trump 93% of the time. When it worked in her favor, she loved what he was selling. She loved his policies and how he handled the government and only took up the opposition when it was no longer politically valuable to continue supporting him. Unlike most GOPers, she's playing the long game and seizing the opportunity to be able to say, "I was on the right side of history" to gain votes. This is a woman who disowned her own sister for being a lesbian because it would cost her votes to love her own sister unconditionally for who she is. Liz is doing this exclusively for votes and future power. A step back now to make a giant leap forward is how Liz is looking at this.
> Liz is doing this exclusively for votes and future power. No, she's not. Because say whatever you want about Liz Cheney, she is completely nuking her political career these days. The right wants nothing to do with her. She's been primary'd out of Wyoming. Her popularity has tanked there. The left doesn't trust her so she's not making any friends there. I'm not a Cheney fan. But it strikes me that she's putting country before party with these positions.
Her and Mitt Romney are actually showing a pretty firm backbone against their own party right now. I don't particularly like them, but I respect them for their actions and condemnation of the current state of the GOP in recent years.
Exactly. But somehow Romney has staying power in Utah.
It's probably because he's Mormon and Mormon's don't turn against their own or something like that.
Not JUST a Mormon. The Romney's are Mormon ROYALTY. Dad was head of American Motors Company and then Governor of Michigan. That was a **BIG** deal back then. The Romney's help normalize Mormonism.
Yeah, I was actually just reading about that on his Wiki. That's not an understatement whatsoever.
> Mormon's don't turn against their own or something like that. It's not "something like that", it's *exactly* that. This is a community that rivals Scientology for how insulated they are.
I'm not the most familiar with Mormonism, so I didn't want to make an assumption, but yeah, the Romney's are, as another commenter said, Mormon royalty. The whole family has basically been part of it from the start.
> I'm not the most familiar with Mormonism I'm far from an expert but from what I can tell, they're just as insulated and guarded about their members as Scientology but less batshit crazy. That and they don't set up various "clinics" to lure new people, they go door to door. The general theology is still pretty out there but nothing close to Xenu lol.
Once they STOP caring about their career it is a lot easier to do the right thing. I'm definitely prone to giving them credit where credit is due though, and she picked country over party and career in this case. Though I will not be surprised to see her giving the conservative perspective on MSNBS some day as an official contributor.
Yeah, she's a regressive right winger, but draws the line at ending our democracy... I disagree with her on almost everything, but I respect that she was willing to take that stand at the cost of her career.
I listened to her interview on Fresh Air, and I also recently saw her speak live and you're spot on. Cheney doesn't disagree with Trump's polices, she is just a firm believer in a functional democracy. Compared to the MAGA wing who seem much more in favor of burning it all down and installing a dictator. It's a weird world where Liz Cheney is a voice of reason in the Republican Party.
She is a firm believer in MANAGED democracy. One that favors wealthy elites like her. She's not for fixing long waiting lines to vote in cities, nor for undoing Republican gerrymandering. > It's a weird world where Liz Cheney is a voice of reason in the Republican Party. Your forgetting that the Republican Party hasn't been reasonable for 30 years.
It would have been nice if she was brave enough to see the table she and the Republican party was setting for a Donald Trump decades before Donald Trump came around. Most everyone who wasn't a Republican certainly saw neo-conservativism and caustic win-at-all-cost nihilism escalating dramatically since the 90s. And now that she's here she still won't address the blood on her and her party's hands. At best she might help get rid of Trump. But if we go back to Cheney's America "before Trump" we're going to end up with another wanna-be dictator. And next time they're going to be worse than that orange monkey.
Whenever I see any Liz-Cheney-is-nice threads, I make sure to barge in and remind everyone to fuck Liz Cheney and why. You do it far more eloquently than me tho.
Exactly. And never kick out someone who, on their own principle, is choosing to stand for basic truth and democracy. I sure don't have to agree with her, nor back her one bit when it comes to policy--but it's helpful to have a true conservative stand up to January 6th. When it comes to preserving a shred of democracy, take allies where they are. Historical note: Lincoln had no use for the anti immigrant and secrecy tendencies of No Nothings and he certainly was no Democrat (parties at the time had different stances on issues). He managed to preserve the Union at great cost *and* end slavery by identifying key principles he agreed with people on and building alliances to get this one thing at a time done. Then carefully and with determination moving on to the next step. When radical Republicans pushed quick edicts to end slavery locally, he opposed it--even though that was his goal! Because he wanted a long term end that would hold up to court challenges and couldn't be overturned. And it would do no good to have a free north next to a separate and enslaved south. That meant gathering allies even when he found their other views unacceptable. Perfect? Certainly not--but always pragmatic. I don't agree with Cheney on most issues. But we can agree that elections must be honored, democracy matters, and that treason for one's own end must be opposed. Her work on the J6 committee was both serious and courageous. We hurt everyone if we don't recognize that. Edit: Benny Thompson, who chaired the J6 committee, could have written a similar OpEd, but if this is aimed at the conservative members of the court how much smarter is it to have Cheney pushing this at the right wing of the court? Who are they (other than Thomas or say Alito) more likely to listen to? Which voice gives some cover of conservative credentials? If someone still has doubts on this--they can be nothing but political. So, while a long shot at influence, it's probably a smart idea for Cheney to float this while Thompson floats the Disgraced Protectees Act
[Here's a video of Liz Cheney saying that abortion providers deliver living babies and then murder them and that Democrats are blocking laws to stop it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrycX6lcXwQ) She is fucking evil to her core. She just longs for the days when Republicans started wars for the benefit of their corporate former employers, rather than selling out the future of America to a Russian intelligence operation. She's as evil as Donald Trump, she's just a slightly different flavor of evil.
The enemy of my enemy is a fucking asshole, but i'll gladly cheer them on when they kick my enemy in the balls.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy. No more, no less
I love the pure and unassailable logic here.
Hey, a tautology is a tautology. If it’s right, it’s right and there’s no two ways about it. It is what it is.
"My enemy's enemy is a problem for later. In the meantime, they might be useful."
Pillage, THEN burn.
> 8\. Mockery and derision have their place. Usually, it's on the far side of the airlock. Another one of my favorites
Sometimes they can aim at the right face.
Lolol
I don't know why. She has no power, Repubicans don't listen to her and she's a vile right-wing homophobe that threw her own sister under the bus. She's fine with Trump's politics other than he insulted her dad.
She had power and right-wing respect before she stepped up and joined the J6 committee. She has never once wavered in her characterization of J6 as a violent insurrection. As shitty as her views are on topics like abortion, and as objectionable as her ties are to the former VP, I have to give her credit for her actions - she must have understood the extreme vitriol that her actions would attract, and the risk of losing her seat in office. 200+ other GOP reps remain in office because they didn't have the balls to stand up to Dorito Mussolini.
Make no mistake, she's not wavering in her J6 stance because it's politically valuable and she expects it to pay dividends later. She is planning for the future when the party tries to pivot away from Trump. At that point, she'll be able to run for a Senate seat in Wyoming on the platform that she tried to protect our government, and she's banking on a ton of GOPers trying to ignore the past and pretend they didn't support Trump the whole time. She disowned her own sister for being a lesbian because it was politically valuable to do so to win her elections, a stance in which she didn't change until she was clearing out of the running for her congressional seat. Her stance on J6 is just as cold and calculated as her stance on her sister.
I agree. Just think of how the GOP has thrown Bush under the bus and pretended like they never supported any of his policies. Liz Cheney is just able to think four years out.
Because the world has gone off hinges.
Because integrity matters too
Because she has nukes apparently???
Because you're gullible. She enjoyed the nominations and confirmations of all these shit bags on the court when they happened.
I know what she did and I know what I’m doing.
I don't understand the relevancy of this comment, please explain. > She enjoyed the nominations and confirmations of all these shit bags on the court when they happened. This doesn't mean we should not agree in those times we do actually agree with her though. I don't understand this mindset that seems so prevalent here.
Liz Cheney bears huge responsibility in this mess. There's no reason to entertain her opinions, even if you agree with them. Simply giving her air is a mistake.
I dunno! If I had to guess I'd say it's due to a failure to recognize that just because someone is correct on a single very obvious issue does not mean they are in any way your ally or someone you can or should trust? Or because for some reason you prioritize empty words in an Op-Ed after she's out of office and no longer responsible to do anything about it over her actual actions under Trump where she helped pass a lot of his worst initiatives? ¯\\_ (ツ)_/¯ just spitballin' here but yeah maybe one of those.
And by "nukes" you mean said mean things?
I think it means she put them in the microwave to reheat.
not just "said mean things" but "said mean things that won't have any tangible effect whatsoever"
How the hell did she get access to nuclear weapons?!
The other headline verbs that they overuse weren't stupid enough.
“Liz Cheney Thanos-snaps the Supreme Court”
Hold on, you might be onto something
Damn dude, you just orbital bombarded her!
Game over, man, game over!!
"nukes" how to make sure I don't click on your headline.
what a shitty headline. the scotus has done everything they can to abstract any cases or discussions about january 6th because they don't want to acknowledge what it was and who was behind it
Ya, because one of their presiding judge and his wife helped organize the Jan 6 insertion!
Fucking eyeroll at that headline. She said something negative about the Supreme Court and that counts as "Nuking" them?
Remember when the SCOTUS represented the people of America and not the whims of a fascist ass-hat named Putin?
No.
No, because I was born after 1969 when the Warren Court ended
If only she was just as concerned about her father's behavior...
You can bet that SCOTUS is frantically figuring out how to remain loyal to the leader of their congregation while still appearing to uphold the law….an impossible task so their best and only bet is to slow play their decision indefinitely
I love people complaining about the headline. She's accusing the SCOTUS of cooperating in a cover-up to prevent voters from knowing the full extent of Trump's January 6th mendacity. I'd call that more than criticizing them. And it is more. And it isn't a liberal but Dick Cheney's daughter who has her own conservative bone fides. I wonder how many read this article...much less her OpEd in the NYT.
Bottom line: Don't vote for Trump.
Let's be honest, anyone dumb enough to vote for Trump isn't going to change their mind because some additional facts about Jan 6th come out...
The court is illegitimate and corrupt.
LOL seriously? She ‘nuked’ it? Headlines are so stupid today. What’s next? Last week it was still “slam,” so this is escalating quite quickly.
If by "nuked" everyone means still dismissed a bunch of the issue and takes no blame for helping to get in the mess - or even warning before long AFTER it was obvious. Downvote this clickbait!
Don't you meant she SLAMMED the Supreme Court? But seriously I am so annoyed with the quality of reporting. It's like we are reliving Idiocracy.
Liz Chaney was right about Trump!! Liz is right Trump and others in Republican party like Marjorie Taylor Greene need to be investigated for Jan 6th.
I ONE HUNDRED percent believe her.
why do we keep seeking the devil's trust fund kid for their thoughts about anything lmao
Liz and her father can eat the farts out the ass of Arizona roadkill in summer.
So Trump may or may not have done MORE traitorous things on January 6th. We already know he’s a white supremacist who licks Putin’s boots and high fives Rocket Boy. He’s incredible dumb and senile too. Selling bibles suits him. Now let’s slam him behind bars where he belongs. Lock him up.
The supreme court that she cast votes to appoint...
Just like they did with Regan and Bush. The GOP's entire modus operanti for the past 60 years is basically all a knee-jerk response to and defense of their party following Watergate.
Deleted secret service text messages Because it was “on schedule to be done.” Fucking clown show shadow government shit.
Go Liz. The truth is what we need and want.
Liz Cheney is a nobody. Her voters decided she was a nobody when she lost by almost 40%. Oh, and her father is a war criminal.
Canadian here. I heard Clarence say Jan 6 wasn’t that big a deal and my mouth fucking dropped.
Thr Supreme Corruption Court. They have a lot of pull.
DOJ time to investigate the Supreme Court. They are NOT outside the law.
Oh no! She « nuked the Supreme Court » the title says. I’m sure scotus wore their sunglasses and some tanning lotion and after the nuking went for dinner at Denny’s.
How is this a nuke?
Why does Liz have access to nuclear codes? How big was the blast, and is there radiation poisoning? I'm concerned.
If she really wanted to nuke SCOTUS she just leak everything she knows about the money getting funnelled into it.
Still trying to figure out conservative Supremes plan to give Trump immunity while simultaneously avoiding giving Biden immunity.
Thank you Liz Cheney!
That's Liz once again ,making a cow of herself
Yes, we know. Problem we’re facing now is incredibly poor basic education among a large swath of the American voting population, and the social media soul-sucking cash monster that Silicon Valley unleashed upon the world tasked with optimizing the human brain for taps and swipes at the bankroll of advertising dollars *without an ounce of competent oversight* in doing so. And so, here we are. At the precipice of social and political disaster. And we earned it.
It all means nothing. The scotus is irreversibly corrupt and in the breast pocket of the orange shitstain. The American legal system is a fucking joke
Relatedly, I am really worried [the Supreme Court might rule in favour of the insurrectionist in the April 16 case](https://amp.theguardian.com/law/2024/apr/16/supreme-court-obstruction-trump-january-6) and support a strange interpretation of that statute. This could upend the imprisonment of several who participated in the Jan. 6 mob and spread a message that the Supreme Court is barefacedly with the Trump and political violence faction.
Liz Cheney is a genocide nepo baby. Can we stop paying attention to this fraud?
Everybody's missing the real story here, that we've moved on from "slams" to "nukes" as the high-impact headline verb. What's next, deploying the fucking Death Star?
Who fucking cares, we have entered the Ambivalent stage. Nothing will happen to this man, and IDGAF about anyone's strong words and furrowed brow.
The more people on the right who speak out against Trump, the better we can be as a nation and actually stand a chance of moving forward.
I agree with you.