this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
431 points (99.5% liked)
politics
30600 readers
2420 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Imagine ~~Jeopardy!~~ in about 20 years.
“This FBI director lost a lawsuit against a man who called him a ‘googly-eyed’ chud.”
I wonder if people will be too embarrassed by this era to be able to answer, “Who is Kash Patel?” We they be able to admit this doofus was given such power?
#NotTheOnion lmfao
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"
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.
EDIT: I forgot to end this comment by pointing out that FBI Director Patel is a googly-eyed Kremlin Bitch.
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.
I'm no legal beagle but I think this means he's legally got to change his name now. 👩⚖️
👀
Between this one, Vance, Kirk & Shapiro I have no idea what size anybody’s facial features are anymore.
Weird head and facial shapes always makes me think of the Hapsburgs and inbreeding.
AAA i clicked it by mistake I swear crab god it was a mistake
TIHI
#scarred4lyfe
The judge took one look at little Kash and dismissed the suit.
"Your honor...look at him."
"You can tell by the way he is!"
“As our first witness we call Kash Patel’s face.”
Gestures towards chud's face.
We got all this...like...evidence that this guy didn't even pay his hospital bill.
Do yourself a favor and click the article to see the picture at the top, it's funny
For those allergic to website cancer:
Somebody please upload this to mediawiki commons, so it can become the literal photo of "googlie eyed chud" in the encyclopedia
Dude if he gets an Honorable in front of his name we all get to be Popes if we want
If you didn't know who he was, you'd assume it was some SNL skit.
Seriously, I have to remind myself that it’s not a bit, and that’s just… him. He is that much of a parody of himself, and a comprehensive loser. I’d call him a feckless chud, but that would be an insult to feckless chuds. If it weren’t for the fact that he’s actually nominally nominally in charge of the FBI, it’d be absolutely fucking hilarious.
I really would love to see a skit based on this.
“Your honor, the defense submits into evidence Exhibit C, a bag of googly eyes from JoAnn Fabrics.”
“Objection! I fail to see how this is relevant.” Gestures at evidence while Patel in background is seen with nearly identically googly eyes
Judge (looks at Patel, one beat): “Overruled. Defense, continue.”
“Defense also submits Exhibit D, a t-shirt with the graphic text in glittery pink stating ‘Putin’s Little Kremlin Bitch’, recovered from Plaintiff’s home.”
Judge: “While we’re submitting evidence, do you have any exhibits pertaining to the claims that Director Patel is a, quote, (reading from a paper) ‘weaselly little ass-goblin’, a ‘mushroom-licking megachode’, a ‘fat-faced, pencil-necked suckup’, or a (adjusts glasses, clears throat) ‘sniveling, attention-whoring, brown-nosing, goose-stepping, gold-digging, unqualified, untalented, unattractive, unappealing, whiny, [30-second long censorship bleep]-gargling chud’?”
Defense lawyer waves at courtroom doors, which burst open with clerks pushing several wheeled carts of paraphernalia
Patel’s lawyer whips his head around to glare at Patel, who shrugs sheepishly, then turns to the judge.
“Your honor, Plaintiff would like to settle.”
Judge: “Defense?”
“Oh hell no, this is too awesome. Defense would urge the Plaintiff to check Instagram for my client’s latest if he’d like to sue us again. We’re free next week.”
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.
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
That was word for word?
Its been a long time, but I vividly remember being a bit in shock because it was at least damn near if not exact.
Here's a side by side duck://player/ImBO2-Dn0jY
After watching the side by side again after x years, it is very similar, with artistic liberties taken lol
god.dammit.
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!
My body is ready for discovery on the excessive drinking claims. What a dumb googly-eyed traitor.
"Your honor, I would like to present Exhibit A."
"Accepted."
"Your honor, the Defense rests."
"Yeah, this is going to be an easy one. You'll all be home for dinner tonight."
You can’t fool me. I can tell from a mile away that’s a fake beard! 👌
The whole article is even better. There’s so many more creative insults in there
When discovery is just more creative insults the plaintiff hasn't yet been called
Truth is a defense against, uh, whatever he got sued for
LOL! Good. :D
Therefore he is legally a googly-eyed chud.
(. ) ( . )
lol