Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On January 22 2026 00:20 Mohdoo wrote: I think you guys are too focused on democrats at this point. The Democratic Party is for sure not going to be a thing in the future. If Trump and his gang ever lose power, democrats will have had nothing to do with it. It will be a new, organic political movement that ends up having leaders who build their name entirely separate from the Democratic Party.
Jeffries and Schumer have made it clear they fully intend to simply function as controlled opposition. They won’t be making a big splash. They won’t have a big moment. Someone else will. And whoever that is will not be declaring themselves a Democrat
I applaud your optimism. Any reason to actually believe it will happen like you describe?
Are you guys talking about the EU deal that was about as concrete, as in actually written down with specifics and signed by all mandatory parties, as any other "wins" Trump likes to brag about?
Btw: You should watch the speach Trump just gave in Davos. It's hard to believe the guy is a real person.
On January 21 2026 22:24 Jankisa wrote: Well, you can read the few pages around the EU-USA "deal" that was negotiated by UVL that was praised by KwarK and touted as a good move by quite a few others here:
My stance was, as it is now, that giving "wins" to bullies even if they are bad for their country will lead to the bully coming back for more, and, lo and behold, he's back and now he wants territory. Who would have thunk it.
I'm sure that Rutte and people who think he's a great mastermind strategist playing Trump will be "come on, just one more concession, the elections are close and we'll get normal president" folks will be doing this shit well into his 3rd term.
I praised the concept of trade. If you have a situation where both parties make 5 and one of them says that they're going to insist on replacing it with a situation where they make 3 and you make 4 then you take that deal. Not because it's better than what you have but because it's still worth having.
The wider discussion was very clearly about the negotiations and who do they hurt.
My thesis (outside the very simplified math that you hyper focused on) was that it's going to be incredibly damaging because EU objectively bent over and folded like a lawn chair and made some promises to appease Trump.
I've been saying for more then a year now that this is a failed strategy, I believe the current events clearly show this.
The countries that dealt with Trump and came away with least consequences are the ones that punch back, namely, China, you don't see him fucking with them.
China being the adversary was a huge part of his narrative for 9 years, then, over the last year he tried to pull his BS with them and they returned in kind, by using their leverage, and he folded.
Taiwan is but a footnote in the new USA Security doctrine, China is not the focus, you know what and who is? Well, it's the EU, the week, meek EU that showed it's soft underbelly and invited Trump and his ghouls to go for the kill.
This re-alignment happened in the exact period as these trade wars played out, you can attribute that to whatever you'd like, but I'm absolutely sure that EU rolling over contributed to what is happening.
I think you're ignoring the ideological aspect of Trumpism. China is a great power and therefore China is worthy of respect, regardless of what they do. Trump believes Europe is a vassal on an ideological level.
If China bares their teeth then Trump sees a fearsome tiger, regardless of what is real. If you take the exact same picture and label it Europe then Trump sees a dog snarling at its master.
You'd have as much luck convincing Hitler that Jews weren't secretly running the show as you would that Europeans are capable of independent policy. He sees Europe as fundamentally unworthy. Reality doesn't come into it.
Consider the alternative hypothesis. Can you imagine a timeline in which Trump respects Europe? I can’t. There’s no combination of actions that change his worldview.
A reminder that 'Europe bending over and folding like a lawnchair' was them saying "people who we have no control over may, if your lucky, chose to invest an imaginary amount of money in the US".
On January 22 2026 00:20 Mohdoo wrote: Jeffries and Schumer have made it clear they fully intend to simply function as controlled opposition.
People who say this never seem to have a very good justification, other than "they seem weak" (an image cultivated by both Republicans in general and Democrats who want to replace them) and "they don't do anything" (which is how the Constitution works when you don't have control over any branch of government).
Until this year the only thing that popped into my head when someone mentioned the city of Davos was "Spengler Cup". Call me biased , but the two best speeches of this thing have been by Trump and Carney.
Riveting stuff. Trump is crushing the environmentalists. I mentioned in the Canadian politics thread that Trudeau's 2 billion trees promise was a stroke of political brilliance. Smart of Trump to make a similar goal.
Trump in 2029, "Guys don't worry about the smog. This field might look like a bunch of sticks barely coming out of the ground now... But in 80 years they'll be massive trees absorbing all the carbon produced by our 30,000 new coal plants." 😎
On January 22 2026 00:20 Mohdoo wrote: Jeffries and Schumer have made it clear they fully intend to simply function as controlled opposition.
People who say this never seem to have a very good justification, other than "they seem weak" (an image cultivated by both Republicans in general and Democrats who want to replace them) and "they don't do anything" (which is how the Constitution works when you don't have control over any branch of government).
The example at hand would be them folding to Trump on the last shutdown. Since then, Kwark,
On January 15 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote: Democrats are trying to figure out what they can/should do
WASHINGTON — Democrats are wrestling with whether to use a key Jan. 30 deadline to demand constraints on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed an American woman in Minneapolis.
Progressives in the House and Senate are calling on their party to hold firm in opposition to a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security unless it comes with conditions — such as requiring agents to wear identification, limiting Customs and Border Protection agents to the border and requiring judicial warrants to arrest suspects in immigration cases.
They say Trump is using autocratic tactics by deploying masked agents in cities to intimidate Americans who don’t support him.
Only if they keep it shut, and that's the problem with their failed shutdown earlier. A shutdown is a nuclear option, it's brinksmanship, it's trying to convince the other side that you want it more and that you're willing to burn together rather than giving in.
It's a game theory strategy. Because it hurts both sides it is negative sum, the optimal strategy is for one side to give in before it even starts, the moment the threat is made whichever side believes that they're eventually going to give in should just immediately forfeit the competition. That way they make whatever concession they'd eventually have had to make anyway but without taking the damage of the mutually destructive showdown.
The problem is that you don't know ahead of time whether your side is the side that is going to eventually give in. If you're 5 days from your tipping point but you believe that the other side is only 4 days from their tipping point then rationally you endure just a little bit longer because it'll be worthwhile when you eventually win. Plus all the damage already done is a sunk cost, each additional day you hold out you're only paying a single day of damage, you can't recoup all the damage you've already taken by giving in. That makes it incredibly difficult to surrender if you can convince yourself that the other side is on the verge of giving in.
And that's the crux of the issue the Democrats have now, they lack credibility due to the scabs crossing the line on the previous shutdown. Every day the Republican leadership are going to go to their members and say "we know they're going to break first, it's probably going to be today or tomorrow, let's pay one more day to cross the finish line". Meanwhile the Democrats are going to have to go to their members and say "I know it hurts and we get deeper in the hole with each passing day and you're probably asking yourself why we're paying such a high price when we're just going to give up anyway but if we can just convince the Republicans that this time we won't do that thing that they just saw us do then they'll rationally give in so yeah, we're on the verge of winning".
It's why you don't engage in brinksmanship only to back down. You lose all credibility and even if you subsequently find a hill you're willing to die on you can't convince the other side that this time you mean it so you end up dying on the hill anyway.
Jankisa, and others have made the point that them doing so makes materially supporting the fascists murdering people in the streets (ICE, not Israel, in this case) a "necessary evil" for Democrats and their supporters.
On January 22 2026 00:20 Mohdoo wrote: Jeffries and Schumer have made it clear they fully intend to simply function as controlled opposition.
People who say this never seem to have a very good justification, other than "they seem weak" (an image cultivated by both Republicans in general and Democrats who want to replace them) and "they don't do anything" (which is how the Constitution works when you don't have control over any branch of government).
The example at hand would be them folding to Trump on the last shutdown. Since then, Kwark, Jankisa, and others have made the point that them doing so makes materially supporting the fascists murdering people in the streets (ICE, not Israel, in this case) a "necessary evil" for Democrats and their supporters.
Have the guts to actually propose a solution. The people you keep arguing with and insulting agree with you that there is a problem. Stop keep yelling at them for not agreeing hard enough and give an actual well thought out solution. I double dare you too.
On January 22 2026 00:20 Mohdoo wrote: Jeffries and Schumer have made it clear they fully intend to simply function as controlled opposition.
People who say this never seem to have a very good justification, other than "they seem weak" (an image cultivated by both Republicans in general and Democrats who want to replace them) and "they don't do anything" (which is how the Constitution works when you don't have control over any branch of government).
The example at hand would be them folding to Trump on the last shutdown. Since then, Kwark, Jankisa, and others have made the point that them doing so makes materially supporting the fascists murdering people in the streets (ICE, not Israel, in this case) a "necessary evil" for Democrats and their supporters.
On January 22 2026 00:20 Mohdoo wrote: Jeffries and Schumer have made it clear they fully intend to simply function as controlled opposition.
People who say this never seem to have a very good justification, other than "they seem weak" (an image cultivated by both Republicans in general and Democrats who want to replace them) and "they don't do anything" (which is how the Constitution works when you don't have control over any branch of government).
The example at hand would be them folding to Trump on the last shutdown. Since then, Kwark, Jankisa, and others have made the point that them doing so makes materially supporting the fascists murdering people in the streets (ICE, not Israel, in this case) a "necessary evil" for Democrats and their supporters.
You’re just making things up.
They can't help themself. It must be some kind of psychological compulsion.
What I said is that doing a shutdown fight now, after they fucked up the last one is dumb and won't accomplish anything.
You can't be resentful at people for living in a real world, I mean, what am I talking about, that's your whole shtick, but, you know, for your mental health I'd advise against it.
Jimmy "the economy expert" not hearing about Davos until 2026 is either another piece of evidence in a long string of them proving he doesn't know shit about shit, or that he's being full of shit for the sake of "trolling".
I clicked on a random timestamp at the BBC live stream and the orange fucktard described an imaginary conversation between him and a pollster who explained if Lincoln and Washington came back they wouldn't be able to beat him.
So, in order to address both what Jimmy wrote and Trump verbally shat out:
“What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
On January 22 2026 00:20 Mohdoo wrote: Jeffries and Schumer have made it clear they fully intend to simply function as controlled opposition.
People who say this never seem to have a very good justification, other than "they seem weak" (an image cultivated by both Republicans in general and Democrats who want to replace them) and "they don't do anything" (which is how the Constitution works when you don't have control over any branch of government).
The example at hand would be them folding to Trump on the last shutdown. Since then, Kwark, Jankisa, and others have made the point that them doing so makes materially supporting the fascists murdering people in the streets (ICE, not Israel, in this case) a "necessary evil" for Democrats and their supporters.
You’re just making things up.
They can't help themself. It must be some kind of psychological compulsion.
Agreed. It’s some sort of mental illness. The continued attempts to involve us in his delusions are what pushes it over the line for me. It’d be bad enough if he was content to quietly believe that he was directly involved in a heroic struggle of good against evil where he was saving the day through his posting on teamliquid (in addition to being a literal abolitionist and successful revolutionary).
But he goes past that, his delusion requires that other people be cast in whatever roles he has decided he needs played today. He has a handful of villain archetypes that he defeats daily in his mind like it’s a comic book.
It doesn’t actually matter what you say, do, or believe. If GH’s story for today involves him once again defeating the arch Democrat then whoever is currently active in the topic is assigned the role. Then he gets upset at them when they don’t know their lines.
@4:30 "Canada gets a lot of freebees from us and they should be grateful, but they are not" meh, a decent proportion of Canadians are thankful for the USA and have been so for decades. Canada's hardest working most ambitious university grads make living and working in the USA a very high priority. https://brocku.ca/brock-news/2018/05/brain-drain-study-shows-many-science-and-tech-grads-heading-to-u-s-for-work/ That covers the intellectual elite. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have Canadian Rasslin' fans. They love America. For decades Canadian wrestling fans cheered on American heroes with "heel commentators" making fun of how Canadians chant "USA USA USA" when an American good guy hero is fighting. Hulk Hogan's #1 town was Toronto. Ironically , the "real American" was most popular in Toronto, Canada. Canada never accepted "the Hulkster" as a bad guy.
Finally, baseball, America's past time, is loved deeply by Canadians and the Americans who excel at the game. On many occasions the Toronto BLue Jays broke attendance records. Minor league professional baseball is big in Canada. Baseball is #3 after hockey and football. Relative to Americans, Canadians do not know nearly as much about the game as Americans.. but they do love the game and the American style debates the game creates.
So I disagree with Trump here. Generally overall, Canadians love Americans and America. Canadians are thankful for America. My two biggest heroes are prolly Barry Scheck and Warren Buffett. Both Americans... and I'm Canadian born and raised.
"Canada lives because of the United States", Trump That is 100% dead bang on the money. Finally, a politician willing to be honest and talk for real.
On January 22 2026 02:10 Jankisa wrote: So, in order to address both what Jimmy wrote and Trump verbally shat out:
On January 22 2026 00:20 Mohdoo wrote: Jeffries and Schumer have made it clear they fully intend to simply function as controlled opposition.
People who say this never seem to have a very good justification, other than "they seem weak" (an image cultivated by both Republicans in general and Democrats who want to replace them) and "they don't do anything" (which is how the Constitution works when you don't have control over any branch of government).
The example at hand would be them folding to Trump on the last shutdown. Since then, Kwark,
On January 15 2026 01:24 KwarK wrote:
On January 15 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote: Democrats are trying to figure out what they can/should do
WASHINGTON — Democrats are wrestling with whether to use a key Jan. 30 deadline to demand constraints on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed an American woman in Minneapolis.
Progressives in the House and Senate are calling on their party to hold firm in opposition to a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security unless it comes with conditions — such as requiring agents to wear identification, limiting Customs and Border Protection agents to the border and requiring judicial warrants to arrest suspects in immigration cases.
They say Trump is using autocratic tactics by deploying masked agents in cities to intimidate Americans who don’t support him.
Only if they keep it shut, and that's the problem with their failed shutdown earlier. A shutdown is a nuclear option, it's brinksmanship, it's trying to convince the other side that you want it more and that you're willing to burn together rather than giving in.
It's a game theory strategy. Because it hurts both sides it is negative sum, the optimal strategy is for one side to give in before it even starts, the moment the threat is made whichever side believes that they're eventually going to give in should just immediately forfeit the competition. That way they make whatever concession they'd eventually have had to make anyway but without taking the damage of the mutually destructive showdown.
The problem is that you don't know ahead of time whether your side is the side that is going to eventually give in. If you're 5 days from your tipping point but you believe that the other side is only 4 days from their tipping point then rationally you endure just a little bit longer because it'll be worthwhile when you eventually win. Plus all the damage already done is a sunk cost, each additional day you hold out you're only paying a single day of damage, you can't recoup all the damage you've already taken by giving in. That makes it incredibly difficult to surrender if you can convince yourself that the other side is on the verge of giving in.
And that's the crux of the issue the Democrats have now, they lack credibility due to the scabs crossing the line on the previous shutdown. Every day the Republican leadership are going to go to their members and say "we know they're going to break first, it's probably going to be today or tomorrow, let's pay one more day to cross the finish line". Meanwhile the Democrats are going to have to go to their members and say "I know it hurts and we get deeper in the hole with each passing day and you're probably asking yourself why we're paying such a high price when we're just going to give up anyway but if we can just convince the Republicans that this time we won't do that thing that they just saw us do then they'll rationally give in so yeah, we're on the verge of winning".
It's why you don't engage in brinksmanship only to back down. You lose all credibility and even if you subsequently find a hill you're willing to die on you can't convince the other side that this time you mean it so you end up dying on the hill anyway.
Jankisa, and others have made the point that them doing so makes materially supporting the fascists murdering people in the streets (ICE, not Israel, in this case) a "necessary evil" for Democrats and their supporters.
Oh, boy, GH, that's just so, so, not true.
What I said is that doing a shutdown fight now, after they fucked up the last one is dumb and won't accomplish anything.
You can't be resentful at people for living in a real world, I mean, what am I talking about, that's your whole shtick, but, you know, for your mental health I'd advise against it.
Jimmy "the economy expert" not hearing about Davos until 2026 is either another piece of evidence in a long string of them proving he doesn't know shit about shit, or that he's being full of shit for the sake of "trolling".
I clicked on a random timestamp at the BBC live stream and the orange fucktard described an imaginary conversation between him and a pollster who explained if Lincoln and Washington came back they wouldn't be able to beat him.
So, in order to address both what Jimmy wrote and Trump verbally shat out:
“What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
I don't see what any of you are disagreeing with?
Just personal insults about mental illness.
EDIT: and of course Kwark's typical bad faith petulant shitposting
On January 22 2026 00:20 Mohdoo wrote: Jeffries and Schumer have made it clear they fully intend to simply function as controlled opposition.
People who say this never seem to have a very good justification, other than "they seem weak" (an image cultivated by both Republicans in general and Democrats who want to replace them) and "they don't do anything" (which is how the Constitution works when you don't have control over any branch of government).
The example at hand would be them folding to Trump on the last shutdown. Since then, Kwark,
On January 15 2026 01:24 KwarK wrote:
On January 15 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote: Democrats are trying to figure out what they can/should do
WASHINGTON — Democrats are wrestling with whether to use a key Jan. 30 deadline to demand constraints on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed an American woman in Minneapolis.
Progressives in the House and Senate are calling on their party to hold firm in opposition to a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security unless it comes with conditions — such as requiring agents to wear identification, limiting Customs and Border Protection agents to the border and requiring judicial warrants to arrest suspects in immigration cases.
They say Trump is using autocratic tactics by deploying masked agents in cities to intimidate Americans who don’t support him.
Only if they keep it shut, and that's the problem with their failed shutdown earlier. A shutdown is a nuclear option, it's brinksmanship, it's trying to convince the other side that you want it more and that you're willing to burn together rather than giving in.
It's a game theory strategy. Because it hurts both sides it is negative sum, the optimal strategy is for one side to give in before it even starts, the moment the threat is made whichever side believes that they're eventually going to give in should just immediately forfeit the competition. That way they make whatever concession they'd eventually have had to make anyway but without taking the damage of the mutually destructive showdown.
The problem is that you don't know ahead of time whether your side is the side that is going to eventually give in. If you're 5 days from your tipping point but you believe that the other side is only 4 days from their tipping point then rationally you endure just a little bit longer because it'll be worthwhile when you eventually win. Plus all the damage already done is a sunk cost, each additional day you hold out you're only paying a single day of damage, you can't recoup all the damage you've already taken by giving in. That makes it incredibly difficult to surrender if you can convince yourself that the other side is on the verge of giving in.
And that's the crux of the issue the Democrats have now, they lack credibility due to the scabs crossing the line on the previous shutdown. Every day the Republican leadership are going to go to their members and say "we know they're going to break first, it's probably going to be today or tomorrow, let's pay one more day to cross the finish line". Meanwhile the Democrats are going to have to go to their members and say "I know it hurts and we get deeper in the hole with each passing day and you're probably asking yourself why we're paying such a high price when we're just going to give up anyway but if we can just convince the Republicans that this time we won't do that thing that they just saw us do then they'll rationally give in so yeah, we're on the verge of winning".
It's why you don't engage in brinksmanship only to back down. You lose all credibility and even if you subsequently find a hill you're willing to die on you can't convince the other side that this time you mean it so you end up dying on the hill anyway.
Jankisa, and others have made the point that them doing so makes materially supporting the fascists murdering people in the streets (ICE, not Israel, in this case) a "necessary evil" for Democrats and their supporters.
Oh, boy, GH, that's just so, so, not true.
What I said is that doing a shutdown fight now, after they fucked up the last one is dumb and won't accomplish anything.
You can't be resentful at people for living in a real world, I mean, what am I talking about, that's your whole shtick, but, you know, for your mental health I'd advise against it.
Jimmy "the economy expert" not hearing about Davos until 2026 is either another piece of evidence in a long string of them proving he doesn't know shit about shit, or that he's being full of shit for the sake of "trolling".
I clicked on a random timestamp at the BBC live stream and the orange fucktard described an imaginary conversation between him and a pollster who explained if Lincoln and Washington came back they wouldn't be able to beat him.
So, in order to address both what Jimmy wrote and Trump verbally shat out:
“What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
I don't see what any of you are disagreeing with?
Just personal insults about mental illness.
“play your roles properly, it’s breaking my immersion”
On January 22 2026 00:20 Mohdoo wrote: Jeffries and Schumer have made it clear they fully intend to simply function as controlled opposition.
People who say this never seem to have a very good justification, other than "they seem weak" (an image cultivated by both Republicans in general and Democrats who want to replace them) and "they don't do anything" (which is how the Constitution works when you don't have control over any branch of government).
The example at hand would be them folding to Trump on the last shutdown. Since then, Kwark,
On January 15 2026 01:24 KwarK wrote:
On January 15 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote: Democrats are trying to figure out what they can/should do
WASHINGTON — Democrats are wrestling with whether to use a key Jan. 30 deadline to demand constraints on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed an American woman in Minneapolis.
Progressives in the House and Senate are calling on their party to hold firm in opposition to a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security unless it comes with conditions — such as requiring agents to wear identification, limiting Customs and Border Protection agents to the border and requiring judicial warrants to arrest suspects in immigration cases.
They say Trump is using autocratic tactics by deploying masked agents in cities to intimidate Americans who don’t support him.
Only if they keep it shut, and that's the problem with their failed shutdown earlier. A shutdown is a nuclear option, it's brinksmanship, it's trying to convince the other side that you want it more and that you're willing to burn together rather than giving in.
It's a game theory strategy. Because it hurts both sides it is negative sum, the optimal strategy is for one side to give in before it even starts, the moment the threat is made whichever side believes that they're eventually going to give in should just immediately forfeit the competition. That way they make whatever concession they'd eventually have had to make anyway but without taking the damage of the mutually destructive showdown.
The problem is that you don't know ahead of time whether your side is the side that is going to eventually give in. If you're 5 days from your tipping point but you believe that the other side is only 4 days from their tipping point then rationally you endure just a little bit longer because it'll be worthwhile when you eventually win. Plus all the damage already done is a sunk cost, each additional day you hold out you're only paying a single day of damage, you can't recoup all the damage you've already taken by giving in. That makes it incredibly difficult to surrender if you can convince yourself that the other side is on the verge of giving in.
And that's the crux of the issue the Democrats have now, they lack credibility due to the scabs crossing the line on the previous shutdown. Every day the Republican leadership are going to go to their members and say "we know they're going to break first, it's probably going to be today or tomorrow, let's pay one more day to cross the finish line". Meanwhile the Democrats are going to have to go to their members and say "I know it hurts and we get deeper in the hole with each passing day and you're probably asking yourself why we're paying such a high price when we're just going to give up anyway but if we can just convince the Republicans that this time we won't do that thing that they just saw us do then they'll rationally give in so yeah, we're on the verge of winning".
It's why you don't engage in brinksmanship only to back down. You lose all credibility and even if you subsequently find a hill you're willing to die on you can't convince the other side that this time you mean it so you end up dying on the hill anyway.
Jankisa, and others have made the point that them doing so makes materially supporting the fascists murdering people in the streets (ICE, not Israel, in this case) a "necessary evil" for Democrats and their supporters.
Oh, boy, GH, that's just so, so, not true.
What I said is that doing a shutdown fight now, after they fucked up the last one is dumb and won't accomplish anything.
You can't be resentful at people for living in a real world, I mean, what am I talking about, that's your whole shtick, but, you know, for your mental health I'd advise against it.
Jimmy "the economy expert" not hearing about Davos until 2026 is either another piece of evidence in a long string of them proving he doesn't know shit about shit, or that he's being full of shit for the sake of "trolling".
I clicked on a random timestamp at the BBC live stream and the orange fucktard described an imaginary conversation between him and a pollster who explained if Lincoln and Washington came back they wouldn't be able to beat him.
So, in order to address both what Jimmy wrote and Trump verbally shat out:
“What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
I don't see what any of you are disagreeing with?
Just personal insults about mental illness.
“play your roles properly, it’s breaking my immersion”
If USA fell into a civil war and completely retreated from the world stage today, Canada would be fine, as long as that shit doesn't spill over.
As it will be evident a few years from now, no one needs USA protection from anyone other then themselves, and the extremely weird cuck instincts Jimmy here is exhibiting are just that, weird.
As a final note, it is very consistent that someone who is very into WWE is also into Trump, both fandom require the same ability to suspend disbelief, only difference is that one is harmless soap operas for men and the other is threatening to destroy the world.
On January 22 2026 00:20 Mohdoo wrote: Jeffries and Schumer have made it clear they fully intend to simply function as controlled opposition.
People who say this never seem to have a very good justification, other than "they seem weak" (an image cultivated by both Republicans in general and Democrats who want to replace them) and "they don't do anything" (which is how the Constitution works when you don't have control over any branch of government).
The example at hand would be them folding to Trump on the last shutdown. Since then, Kwark,
On January 15 2026 01:24 KwarK wrote:
On January 15 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote: Democrats are trying to figure out what they can/should do
WASHINGTON — Democrats are wrestling with whether to use a key Jan. 30 deadline to demand constraints on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed an American woman in Minneapolis.
Progressives in the House and Senate are calling on their party to hold firm in opposition to a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security unless it comes with conditions — such as requiring agents to wear identification, limiting Customs and Border Protection agents to the border and requiring judicial warrants to arrest suspects in immigration cases.
They say Trump is using autocratic tactics by deploying masked agents in cities to intimidate Americans who don’t support him.
Only if they keep it shut, and that's the problem with their failed shutdown earlier. A shutdown is a nuclear option, it's brinksmanship, it's trying to convince the other side that you want it more and that you're willing to burn together rather than giving in.
It's a game theory strategy. Because it hurts both sides it is negative sum, the optimal strategy is for one side to give in before it even starts, the moment the threat is made whichever side believes that they're eventually going to give in should just immediately forfeit the competition. That way they make whatever concession they'd eventually have had to make anyway but without taking the damage of the mutually destructive showdown.
The problem is that you don't know ahead of time whether your side is the side that is going to eventually give in. If you're 5 days from your tipping point but you believe that the other side is only 4 days from their tipping point then rationally you endure just a little bit longer because it'll be worthwhile when you eventually win. Plus all the damage already done is a sunk cost, each additional day you hold out you're only paying a single day of damage, you can't recoup all the damage you've already taken by giving in. That makes it incredibly difficult to surrender if you can convince yourself that the other side is on the verge of giving in.
And that's the crux of the issue the Democrats have now, they lack credibility due to the scabs crossing the line on the previous shutdown. Every day the Republican leadership are going to go to their members and say "we know they're going to break first, it's probably going to be today or tomorrow, let's pay one more day to cross the finish line". Meanwhile the Democrats are going to have to go to their members and say "I know it hurts and we get deeper in the hole with each passing day and you're probably asking yourself why we're paying such a high price when we're just going to give up anyway but if we can just convince the Republicans that this time we won't do that thing that they just saw us do then they'll rationally give in so yeah, we're on the verge of winning".
It's why you don't engage in brinksmanship only to back down. You lose all credibility and even if you subsequently find a hill you're willing to die on you can't convince the other side that this time you mean it so you end up dying on the hill anyway.
Jankisa, and others have made the point that them doing so makes materially supporting the fascists murdering people in the streets (ICE, not Israel, in this case) a "necessary evil" for Democrats and their supporters.
Oh, boy, GH, that's just so, so, not true.
What I said is that doing a shutdown fight now, after they fucked up the last one is dumb and won't accomplish anything.
You can't be resentful at people for living in a real world, I mean, what am I talking about, that's your whole shtick, but, you know, for your mental health I'd advise against it.
Jimmy "the economy expert" not hearing about Davos until 2026 is either another piece of evidence in a long string of them proving he doesn't know shit about shit, or that he's being full of shit for the sake of "trolling".
I clicked on a random timestamp at the BBC live stream and the orange fucktard described an imaginary conversation between him and a pollster who explained if Lincoln and Washington came back they wouldn't be able to beat him.
So, in order to address both what Jimmy wrote and Trump verbally shat out:
“What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
I don't see what any of you are disagreeing with?
Just personal insults about mental illness.
EDIT: and of course Kwark's typical bad faith petulant shitposting
On January 22 2026 00:20 Mohdoo wrote: Jeffries and Schumer have made it clear they fully intend to simply function as controlled opposition.
People who say this never seem to have a very good justification, other than "they seem weak" (an image cultivated by both Republicans in general and Democrats who want to replace them) and "they don't do anything" (which is how the Constitution works when you don't have control over any branch of government).
The example at hand would be them folding to Trump on the last shutdown. Since then, Kwark,
On January 15 2026 01:24 KwarK wrote:
On January 15 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote: Democrats are trying to figure out what they can/should do
WASHINGTON — Democrats are wrestling with whether to use a key Jan. 30 deadline to demand constraints on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed an American woman in Minneapolis.
Progressives in the House and Senate are calling on their party to hold firm in opposition to a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security unless it comes with conditions — such as requiring agents to wear identification, limiting Customs and Border Protection agents to the border and requiring judicial warrants to arrest suspects in immigration cases.
They say Trump is using autocratic tactics by deploying masked agents in cities to intimidate Americans who don’t support him.
Only if they keep it shut, and that's the problem with their failed shutdown earlier. A shutdown is a nuclear option, it's brinksmanship, it's trying to convince the other side that you want it more and that you're willing to burn together rather than giving in.
It's a game theory strategy. Because it hurts both sides it is negative sum, the optimal strategy is for one side to give in before it even starts, the moment the threat is made whichever side believes that they're eventually going to give in should just immediately forfeit the competition. That way they make whatever concession they'd eventually have had to make anyway but without taking the damage of the mutually destructive showdown.
The problem is that you don't know ahead of time whether your side is the side that is going to eventually give in. If you're 5 days from your tipping point but you believe that the other side is only 4 days from their tipping point then rationally you endure just a little bit longer because it'll be worthwhile when you eventually win. Plus all the damage already done is a sunk cost, each additional day you hold out you're only paying a single day of damage, you can't recoup all the damage you've already taken by giving in. That makes it incredibly difficult to surrender if you can convince yourself that the other side is on the verge of giving in.
And that's the crux of the issue the Democrats have now, they lack credibility due to the scabs crossing the line on the previous shutdown. Every day the Republican leadership are going to go to their members and say "we know they're going to break first, it's probably going to be today or tomorrow, let's pay one more day to cross the finish line". Meanwhile the Democrats are going to have to go to their members and say "I know it hurts and we get deeper in the hole with each passing day and you're probably asking yourself why we're paying such a high price when we're just going to give up anyway but if we can just convince the Republicans that this time we won't do that thing that they just saw us do then they'll rationally give in so yeah, we're on the verge of winning".
It's why you don't engage in brinksmanship only to back down. You lose all credibility and even if you subsequently find a hill you're willing to die on you can't convince the other side that this time you mean it so you end up dying on the hill anyway.
Jankisa, and others have made the point that them doing so makes materially supporting the fascists murdering people in the streets (ICE, not Israel, in this case) a "necessary evil" for Democrats and their supporters.
Oh, boy, GH, that's just so, so, not true.
What I said is that doing a shutdown fight now, after they fucked up the last one is dumb and won't accomplish anything.
You can't be resentful at people for living in a real world, I mean, what am I talking about, that's your whole shtick, but, you know, for your mental health I'd advise against it.
Jimmy "the economy expert" not hearing about Davos until 2026 is either another piece of evidence in a long string of them proving he doesn't know shit about shit, or that he's being full of shit for the sake of "trolling".
I clicked on a random timestamp at the BBC live stream and the orange fucktard described an imaginary conversation between him and a pollster who explained if Lincoln and Washington came back they wouldn't be able to beat him.
So, in order to address both what Jimmy wrote and Trump verbally shat out:
“What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
I don't see what any of you are disagreeing with?
Just personal insults about mental illness.
“play your roles properly, it’s breaking my immersion”
I'm very clearly disagreeing with your misconstrued framing of what I say, and I didn't personally insult you, I just told you that a change in attitude might be beneficial for your mental health, because the way you are engaging here is clearly a sign of someone detached from reality.
Congratulation Denmark, you won. Alas, this time Trump averts the fate of looking like loser, because US most likely will get some military and economic concessions.
Kiss his ass on the stage and you'll be fine, maybe some corruption to be sure. I tried to watch the speech and interview but only lasted 2 minutes. The translator struggled as well. He just keeps rambling and lying incoherently about the same old bullshit like a broken record.
EPT
