|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 22 2026 15:14 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 12:01 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 10:15 LightSpectra wrote:
The ABC main headline says it's a "walk back" but the subheading is about how he doubled down on the statement and reinforced it. Obviously a bad headline and you have to be almost illiterate to defend it. I really, really like that you claim "my past cringey comments," "meant to be deliberately provocative," and "you can't use human categories to define God" are "doubling down." Never stop being you, LightSpectra. These are Trump levels of truthiness and alternative facts. The later comments after he made his position clear, and I want to be kind to you, might be considered a partial walkback or a qualified walkback. Nobody takes them to be a double-down. Well, almost nobody. Just for people reading, this isn't the first time he's had to walk back the same comments. He's had to do it for several comments, but he's had to do this one many times. May on ABC: Do you no longer think that God is non-binary? Well that comment was meant to be deliberately provocative. I believe you can't use human categories to define God.... May on CBS: You said God is non-binary. What did you mean by that? Well, you know I think I was being intentionally provocative October: You know the first comment about God not being defined by gender, when I said that, I was being provocative and I want to admit that come clean about that ABC News, the Texas Tribune, CNN, WSJ all use the same walks back terminology. Maybe they're all MAGA? LightSpectra laughs at all for so hilariously missing a clear "doubling down?" + Show Spoiler + "you can't use human categories to define God" means God isn't male or female. You know, nonbinary.
If your own position is nonbinary isn't a human category, whatever Talafreako meant aside, you're saying humans can't be nonbinary.
On October 22 2026 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:13 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". You can't tamper with voting machines, America's elections are the most secure in history. I hope they continue to stay that way, despite Trump repeatedly trying to cheat, and despite his appointees currently trying to tamper with voting machines.
Nobody is currently trying to tamper with voting machines. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it or italicize it.
On October 22 2026 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). Your example of them trying to rig multiple elections, is one election? "For example" means I'm giving one example. It doesn't mean that there is only one example to give. Show nested quote +Let's see if you believe this or just said it randomly without checking how many claims you had in the barrel. You have like 6 cycles to choose from. Which ones (multiple) did Trump cheat and how many votes were involved? In 2016, Trump committed 34 felonies to cover up information that he thought would have hurt him during the election. And he publicly asked Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. And the Mueller Report listed 10 different ways that Trump obstructed justice during the 2016 election. Trump cheated multiple times here. In 2020, Trump and his allies sued dozens of times to try and overturn election results, without a shred of evidence. And Trump specifically called Georgia's secretary of state to try and pressure him into giving Trump a win in Georgia. And Trump and his buddies created slates of fake electors across multiple swing states, in the hopes that they would give lost states to Trump. And he orchestrated a violent insurrection to try and stop the results from being certified. Trump cheated multiple times here. In 2024, Trump and his fellow Republican leaders continued to try and cheat so completely that there is a 359-citation Wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_efforts_to_disrupt_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. If only there were a political movement pushing to make it impossible for people who aren't eligible to vote, to register to vote, or cast ballots. And to get the different aspects of government to work together to ensure that. That would be a great way to save the integrity of elections.
Hush money is not illegal. You are allowed to try to stop information that you think will hurt you in your own election. The falsified business records felonies you refer to hinge on an alleged, uncharged violation of campaign finance law.
Your standard of "cheating" and "rigging" has been reduced to "filing lawsuits" when it comes to telling us about the evil Republicans.
You are too swept up in the vortex to realize what a wide definition of cheating you allow when talking about the other side and what a narrow definition of special exemption you give for what you see as your own side (the side you always vote for and think Harris was a qualified genius). Utter double standard.
If you used any fair standard in your worldview, you would realize things like Virginia trying to rig a 10-1 Congressional map, and the decades-old efforts by Democrats to pad the census with illegal immigrants to win extra seats in the House by Democrat sanctuary jurisdictions, are 100% in line with the Machiavellian cheating of... lawsuits... that bothers you from Republicans. You are both complaining about things of the exact same level.
I asked you a question, not Wikipedia. Appealing to 359 citations that you obviously haven't read and I'm not reading is a fallacy, but since you littered the link and didn't mention anything else I'll just take the initiative to debunk one part of it:
Voter registrations
In January 2024, two people (one who heads two "election integrity"[246][247] groups and another who ran as a volunteer for the Anne Arundel County Republican Central Committee in 2022[248]) sued the Maryland State Board of Elections for access to state voter records.[249] They were represented by the group Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE), which was founded in 2022 by William Barr, Karl Rove, Steve Wynn, and Bobby Burchfield (a lawyer for the RNC and Trump's 2020 election campaign who represented their efforts to halt mail-in ballots in North Carolina during that election).[250]
The court literally ruled in their favor that the state violated the law. So you dumped an article you didn't read with 359 random things listed as "disruption." Wikipedia editors... yawn. They make an article like this for you to dump on people, you, an adult, college graduate, send it to other people. I don't know who's worse. They might not actually believe it.
Like let's take a break from thinking you're in a debate performance and see how deep you are. You leveled up from 2020 to claim to me 2024 has an article with 359 citations. If you think that is significant, how do you not think Republican cheating in 2024 was worse than 2020? And newsflash, they WON in 2024. Do you actually think Republicans' cheating flipped the election? This is important to either confess, or deny and admit that dropping the appeal to 359 citations was just rhetorical smoke and mirrors.
On October 22 2026 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This brings back the statement you made earlier, that I replied to. You didn't respond to me. Here it is again, in bold: Show nested quote +On October 20 2026 23:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 20 2026 22:43 oBlade wrote:On October 20 2026 21:54 LightSpectra wrote:
We could easily have nation-wide 100% mail-in voting like Oregon has done since 2000. Republicans would never agree to it though since they know people with physical disabilities and people that have to work long shifts on election day are overwhelmingly left-leaning. We could also easily have nice nationwide Georgia-style voter ID.You do not need universal mail-in voting to accommodate people with disabilities or people who work (who are not overwhelmingly left-leaning lol). LS didn't just say people who work; LS said people who work long shifts. Feel free to ask LS for a citation if you want. If every person eligible to vote were to receive a free voter ID (in the mail or via email, whichever the person prefers) without needing to do anything on their part, I'd be fine with that. Would you? Perhaps it's something that you and I could agree on.
I didn't respond to that because it was deliberately obtuse from the moment you thought reminding us that the original post said long was a contribution. As though I made my post secretly believing people who work leaned right wing, but people who work LONG on election day secretly lean left wing, and not that the entire claim was made up and none of it leans anywhere at all. You got so caught up tripping on whether one word was copy/pasted that you missed the point.
The rest of your question is concern trolling. I don't know what "without needing to do anything on their part" means, so I don't agree with it. A citizen has to do things to vote. They have to do things to get a driver's license. They have to do things to pay taxes. I am not interested in discussing "in theory" with you, I don't need to agree with you how many angels go through the head of a pin, and I have no idea what receiving an ID by email is supposed to be other than a joke troll idea, I'm only interested in the real world.
|
On October 22 2026 18:33 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:16 Introvert wrote:On October 22 2026 03:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On October 22 2026 01:26 Introvert wrote:
Response rates are even more garbage thsn before. For the sake of people's sanity they should be fully prepared for a 52-53 seat GOP senate. This goes for both sides. If there is a 52/53 advantage either way the other side is going to go apeshit. Well Republicans have been expecting to lose for months now and there are always stories about consultants and campaign operatives wetting themselves. So I meant vs expectations. I mean we're already seeing it here. There is a plausible world where Republicans hold the senate. It's way more likely than some might think, and it will be ok. That's what I'm saying. We probably won't have 2018 where the GOP lost the House but gained in the Senate, but it could be split control again. I kinda agree with it. I do think Democrats will win, although wouldnt be surprised if Republicans actually did. There is certain "we have it in the bag" attitude, which may bite the Dems in the ass.
There is a nontrivial subgroup of Republicans who from what I have seen will absolutely lose their shit if they lose the midterms. Granted their link to political reality seems tenuous at best but that just makes them louder.
|
Betting markets have "democrat sweep" at 68%. Those usually are closer to reality than polls.
|
What I mean is that there seem to be certain complacency among them. From what i have seen they are now more like "we will do x, y, z..."rather than "vote for us so we can do x". Saying "Don't count your chickens before they hatch." exists for a reason. Seems like they lack urgency. I can easily see how it hurts their turnout. Again I do think they will win, but wouldnt be surprised if they didnt.
|
On October 22 2026 20:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 05:13 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". You can't tamper with voting machines, America's elections are the most secure in history. I hope they continue to stay that way, despite Trump repeatedly trying to cheat, and despite his appointees currently trying to tamper with voting machines. Nobody is currently trying to tamper with voting machines. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it or italicize it. We just read an article about whistleblowers calling out Trump's appointees for trying to get people to tamper with voting machines and secretly keep the information, which spawned this very discussion.
Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
In the 2020 election, for example, Trump accused Democrats of cheating, which they didn't, and Democrats accused Trump of cheating, which he did (and still lost). Your example of them trying to rig multiple elections, is one election? "For example" means I'm giving one example. It doesn't mean that there is only one example to give. Let's see if you believe this or just said it randomly without checking how many claims you had in the barrel. You have like 6 cycles to choose from. Which ones (multiple) did Trump cheat and how many votes were involved? In 2016, Trump committed 34 felonies to cover up information that he thought would have hurt him during the election. And he publicly asked Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. And the Mueller Report listed 10 different ways that Trump obstructed justice during the 2016 election. Trump cheated multiple times here. In 2020, Trump and his allies sued dozens of times to try and overturn election results, without a shred of evidence. And Trump specifically called Georgia's secretary of state to try and pressure him into giving Trump a win in Georgia. And Trump and his buddies created slates of fake electors across multiple swing states, in the hopes that they would give lost states to Trump. And he orchestrated a violent insurrection to try and stop the results from being certified. Trump cheated multiple times here. In 2024, Trump and his fellow Republican leaders continued to try and cheat so completely that there is a 359-citation Wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_efforts_to_disrupt_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
That being said, hopefully any future cheating is caught and stopped and the cheaters are held accountable, regardless of who the cheaters may be. If only there were a political movement pushing to make it impossible for people who aren't eligible to vote, to register to vote, or cast ballots. And to get the different aspects of government to work together to ensure that. That would be a great way to save the integrity of elections. Hush money is not illegal. You are allowed to try to stop information that you think will hurt you in your own election. The falsified business records felonies you refer to hinge on an alleged, uncharged violation of campaign finance law. Your standard of "cheating" and "rigging" has been reduced to "filing lawsuits" when it comes to telling us about the evil Republicans.You are too swept up in the vortex to realize what a wide definition of cheating you allow when talking about the other side and what a narrow definition of special exemption you give for what you see as your own side (the side you always vote for and think Harris was a qualified genius). Utter double standard. If you used any fair standard in your worldview, you would realize things like Virginia trying to rig a 10-1 Congressional map, and the decades-old efforts by Democrats to pad the census with illegal immigrants to win extra seats in the House by Democrat sanctuary jurisdictions, are 100% in line with the Machiavellian cheating of... lawsuits... that bothers you from Republicans. You are both complaining about things of the exact same level.
I asked you a question, not Wikipedia. Appealing to 359 citations that you obviously haven't read and I'm not reading is a fallacy, but since you littered the link and didn't mention anything else I'll just take the initiative to debunk one part of it: Show nested quote +Voter registrations
In January 2024, two people (one who heads two "election integrity"[246][247] groups and another who ran as a volunteer for the Anne Arundel County Republican Central Committee in 2022[248]) sued the Maryland State Board of Elections for access to state voter records.[249] They were represented by the group Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE), which was founded in 2022 by William Barr, Karl Rove, Steve Wynn, and Bobby Burchfield (a lawyer for the RNC and Trump's 2020 election campaign who represented their efforts to halt mail-in ballots in North Carolina during that election).[250] The court literally ruled in their favor that the state violated the law. So you dumped an article you didn't read with 359 random things listed as "disruption." Wikipedia editors... yawn. They make an article like this for you to dump on people, you, an adult, college graduate, send it to other people. I don't know who's worse. They might not actually believe it. Like let's take a break from thinking you're in a debate performance and see how deep you are. You leveled up from 2020 to claim to me 2024 has an article with 359 citations. If you think that is significant, how do you not think Republican cheating in 2024 was worse than 2020? And newsflash, they WON in 2024. Do you actually think Republicans' cheating flipped the election? This is important to either confess, or deny and admit that dropping the appeal to 359 citations was just rhetorical smoke and mirrors.
Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This brings back the statement you made earlier, that I replied to. You didn't respond to me. Here it is again, in bold: On October 20 2026 23:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 20 2026 22:43 oBlade wrote:On October 20 2026 21:54 LightSpectra wrote:
We could easily have nation-wide 100% mail-in voting like Oregon has done since 2000. Republicans would never agree to it though since they know people with physical disabilities and people that have to work long shifts on election day are overwhelmingly left-leaning. We could also easily have nice nationwide Georgia-style voter ID.You do not need universal mail-in voting to accommodate people with disabilities or people who work (who are not overwhelmingly left-leaning lol). LS didn't just say people who work; LS said people who work long shifts. Feel free to ask LS for a citation if you want. If every person eligible to vote were to receive a free voter ID (in the mail or via email, whichever the person prefers) without needing to do anything on their part, I'd be fine with that. Would you? Perhaps it's something that you and I could agree on. I didn't respond to that because it was deliberately obtuse from the moment you thought reminding us that the original post said long was a contribution. As though I made my post secretly believing people who work leaned right wing, but people who work LONG on election day secretly lean left wing, and not that the entire claim was made up and none of it leans anywhere at all. You got so caught up tripping on whether one word was copy/pasted that you missed the point. The rest of your question is concern trolling. I don't know what "without needing to do anything on their part" means, so I don't agree with it. A citizen has to do things to vote. They have to do things to get a driver's license. They have to do things to pay taxes. I am not interested in discussing "in theory" with you, I don't need to agree with you how many angels go through the head of a pin, and I have no idea what receiving an ID by email is supposed to be other than a joke troll idea, I'm only interested in the real world.
|
On October 22 2026 15:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 13:54 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 13:49 dyhb wrote:On October 22 2026 13:27 Simberto wrote:On October 22 2026 07:53 dyhb wrote:
You should move past the naive problem-oriented thinking or fixation that redirects all means of managing an imperfect society and news/culture/society environment back to restating the problems again and again and again. We don't need to re-define for the hundredth time that what Trump does is bad. We need to seek next moves and vet messages as they are understood by the listener. These are either "It's okay when we do it/Now these kinds of questions aren't bad for democracy" or "The difference is I'm right he's wrong/I'm good he's evil." If only politics and political campaigning were so easy! I want to live in your world, because in your world there's no way 2016 and 2024 happen! Let's export that population to Antarctica and make electioneering so, so easy.
If the 2026 Midterm and 2028 Election were already in the bag, I wouldn't care about people whose messaging is so counterproductive and stupid that it might as well be featured in GOP ads.
I have a feeling you're ignoring or dismissing bad candidate quality in this cycle by intention. If Democrats fail to take the Senate, it's this cycle's bad Senate map and poor candidate quality. Not that Americans are lost and otherwise it's Stolen Election 2: Electric Boogaloo.
I am not trying to run an election campaign here. I am talking to some people on a forum. I have no interest in always policing my speech to work as a political advertisement. It is your job as Americans to get your shit together and fix the shit you fucked up. Also, lol at you implying that you are on the not-insane side here. That you are interested in democrats winning. You have never not been a republican. Maybe you would claim that you are not MAGA, but you would still always prefer a republican Trump to a not-republican anyone else. Which is why even if i were interested in running a political campaign, your advice is very low down on the list of advice i would listen to. Trump’s the biggest problem in the Republican Party, what are you smoking? The problem I pointed out is imitating his rhetoric on stolen election (in advance!). Obviously if you’re in love with Trump, you should have no problem saying the other guy is gonna cheat. You may view Trump as the biggest problem in the republican party, but you are still a republican despite Trump. You still rank republicans with Trump above democrats without Trump. And i am not imitating Trump. I am talking about the real situation the US is in right now. He like three posts ago said 'in the age of Trump he is not voting republican in any national election', he clearly states that he prefers democrats to trump-republicans. Could very well be that he would vote romney over some current democratic party candidates, though.
Buttigieg and Klobuchar (the latter also being "socialist" Sermo's preference) aren't exactly Romney Republicans. Pretty sure all the Democrat supporters here (save maybe Jankisa) would line up behind dyhb to support Buttigieg.
I wonder how people reconcile their disdain for dyhb and dyhb's politics while also functionally supporting the same politics/politicians?
|
On October 22 2026 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I asked the question in good faith, especially to extend an olive branch, because you're so incendiary and angry and bracing for a fight with me all the time. When I turned 18, the government mailed me a letter that basically said "Happy birthday, now it's time for jury duty". I didn't need to actively do anything to receive that letter. And yes, you need to do things to vote and to get a driver's license. I think a free voter ID should automatically be sent to anyone who is eligible to vote, so that as long as they register to vote (which is already a requirement) and fill out / send in a ballot (which is already a requirement) and bring their free automatic voter ID (which is the new thing that you partially suggested when you asked for a voter ID, and I added the qualifiers that it should be free and automatic), then that's all that needs to happen. If the voter ID isn't free, and if it's not automatically sent to everyone eligible, then count me out.
Also, if you think this is impossible: We have basically that system here in Germany (with some slight differences), and it works incredibly well.
You don't even have to register to vote. You just have to exist as a citizen, and you get a letter about a month before each election that you can vote in, telling you where to go to.
While technically this letter is not voter ID because you technically should bring your federal ID which is mandatory to have, you don't really have to. Because the people at the polling station just check your letter against the list of people who have already voted, and then you give them the letter. If something is really suspicious, they can demand your ID, but in practice they basically never do.
You can also register for voting by mail using the backside of the same letter.
One of the things i am very proud of in Germany is the way our elections are run.
I am always confused when americans act as if something that is very common in other parts of the world is completely impossible.
|
I admire Buttigieg rhetorically, he's obviously a smart guy, mostly seems well meaning.
My issue with him is that his (I only know this from 2020 campaign, he might have changed his ideas) plan of "Medicare for all who want it" would not work because the only way goverment run social healthcare works is if you have to opt in with employment, which I always had a feeling he knew because he's a smart guy, so it seemed like a smarmy way to be against socialized healthcare without actually saying he is.
I'd take him above someone really, really slimy like Newsome, but I'd take any of the actual progressive stand outs above him.
Him and Ossoff, I'd still take Buttigieg, but from a pragmatic stand point, Ossoff might have more of a chance due to homophobic nature of the electorate + the fact that Overton window moved sufficiently to the right that even mild progressive stances Buttigieg held or still hold could be twisted into him being a communist or some other insane shit.
|
On October 22 2026 19:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 05:16 Introvert wrote:On October 22 2026 03:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On October 22 2026 01:26 Introvert wrote:
Response rates are even more garbage thsn before. For the sake of people's sanity they should be fully prepared for a 52-53 seat GOP senate. This goes for both sides. If there is a 52/53 advantage either way the other side is going to go apeshit. Well Republicans have been expecting to lose for months now and there are always stories about consultants and campaign operatives wetting themselves. So I meant vs expectations. I mean we're already seeing it here. There is a plausible world where Republicans hold the senate. It's way more likely than some might think, and it will be ok. That's what I'm saying. We probably won't have 2018 where the GOP lost the House but gained in the Senate, but it could be split control again. Are there specific reasons why Republicans feel this way?
Polling, gas prices, the "6 year itch." Almost no matter what the second midterm of a President is expected to have congressional losses. A lot like the first midterm too. Presidents are not normally at their most popular at this time. It almost doesn’t matter how things are going. It's not always true and it's not always a disaster but it's true enough
|
On October 22 2026 22:06 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I asked the question in good faith, especially to extend an olive branch, because you're so incendiary and angry and bracing for a fight with me all the time. When I turned 18, the government mailed me a letter that basically said "Happy birthday, now it's time for jury duty". I didn't need to actively do anything to receive that letter. And yes, you need to do things to vote and to get a driver's license. I think a free voter ID should automatically be sent to anyone who is eligible to vote, so that as long as they register to vote (which is already a requirement) and fill out / send in a ballot (which is already a requirement) and bring their free automatic voter ID (which is the new thing that you partially suggested when you asked for a voter ID, and I added the qualifiers that it should be free and automatic), then that's all that needs to happen. If the voter ID isn't free, and if it's not automatically sent to everyone eligible, then count me out. Also, if you think this is impossible: We have basically that system here in Germany (with some slight differences), and it works incredibly well. You don't even have to register to vote. You just have to exist as a citizen, and you get a letter about a month before each election that you can vote in, telling you where to go to. While technically this letter is not voter ID because you technically should bring your federal ID which is mandatory to have, you don't really have to. Because the people at the polling station just check your letter against the list of people who have already voted, and then you give them the letter. If something is really suspicious, they can demand your ID, but in practice they basically never do. You can also register for voting by mail using the backside of the same letter. One of the things i am very proud of in Germany is the way our elections are run. I am always confused when americans act as if something that is very common in other parts of the world is completely impossible.
Totally agree. This push for a voter ID for Americans is a solution to a non-existent problem. That being said, even if I grant the addition of a voter ID to truly, really, make double-triple-quadruple-sure that only people eligible to vote are the ones voting in our elections - like I just did for oBlade - those pushing for voter IDs seem to suddenly require even more hurdles to obtain the voter ID (all of which are redundant because of voter registration). As soon as individuals like oBlade protest the idea of the voter ID being free and automatically sent to eligible voters, it's clear that the true desire is to complicate things for (certain groups of) voters, and not at all about election integrity.
|
On October 22 2026 22:18 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 19:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 05:16 Introvert wrote:On October 22 2026 03:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On October 22 2026 01:26 Introvert wrote:
Response rates are even more garbage thsn before. For the sake of people's sanity they should be fully prepared for a 52-53 seat GOP senate. This goes for both sides. If there is a 52/53 advantage either way the other side is going to go apeshit. Well Republicans have been expecting to lose for months now and there are always stories about consultants and campaign operatives wetting themselves. So I meant vs expectations. I mean we're already seeing it here. There is a plausible world where Republicans hold the senate. It's way more likely than some might think, and it will be ok. That's what I'm saying. We probably won't have 2018 where the GOP lost the House but gained in the Senate, but it could be split control again. Are there specific reasons why Republicans feel this way? Polling, gas prices, the "6 year itch." Almost no matter what the second midterm of a President is expected to have congressional losses. A lot like the first midterm too. Presidents are not normally at their most popular at this time. It almost doesn’t matter how things are going. It's not always true and it's not always a disaster but it's true enough
Yeah, I think those are all relevant too.
|
On October 22 2026 22:15 Jankisa wrote:I admire Buttigieg rhetorically, he's obviously a smart guy, mostly seems well meaning. + Show Spoiler +My issue with him is that his (I only know this from 2020 campaign, he might have changed his ideas) plan of "Medicare for all who want it" would not work because the only way goverment run social healthcare works is if you have to opt in with employment, which I always had a feeling he knew because he's a smart guy, so it seemed like a smarmy way to be against socialized healthcare without actually saying he is.
I'd take him above someone really, really slimy like Newsome, but I'd take any of the actual progressive stand outs above him.
Him and Ossoff, I'd still take Buttigieg, but from a pragmatic stand point, Ossoff might have more of a chance due to homophobic nature of the electorate + the fact that Overton window moved sufficiently to the right + Show Spoiler +that even mild progressive stances Buttigieg held or still hold could be twisted into him being a communist or some other insane shit.
If dyhb, you, DPB, and the rest could all see yourselves supporting Buttigieg (not sure how dyhb feels about Ossoff), that seems like your clear best choice. That all dyhb's haters would be falling in line behind dyhb's first choice is just convenient for people with dyhb's politics.
The Overton window doesn't move itself. Why do you suppose it went to the right instead of the left?
|
In Poland you don't even need a letter, you are added automatically as a voter when you're 18 and then you are assigned to a voting district based on your home address. Then at the voting place you need to show your id and they check it against a list. That's all. It always boggles my mind that in the US you need to do extra steps to vote.
|
On October 22 2026 22:32 PoulsenB wrote:
In Poland you don't even need a letter, you are added automatically as a voter when you're 18 and then you are assigned to a voting district based on your home address. Then at the voting place you need to show your id and they check it against a list. That's all. It always boggles my mind that in the US you need to do extra steps to vote. Certain groups of Americans love to pretend like the government doesn't know where everyone lives and whether they are allowed to vote.
|
On October 22 2026 22:32 PoulsenB wrote:
In Poland you don't even need a letter, you are added automatically as a voter when you're 18 and then you are assigned to a voting district based on your home address. Then at the voting place you need to show your id and they check it against a list. That's all. It always boggles my mind that in the US you need to do extra steps to vote.
That is also possible here. The letter basically just tells you "This is the voting station you need to go to", and you can bring it instead of ID if you want to. You can also just go there with ID and they cross you off the list that way.
Agreed that it is somewhat strange how complicated stuff is in the US, but I think the core issue is simply that they do this weird show acting as if the government does not know where people live because they claim that they do not have a registry of citizens, and somehow having that registry would lead to tyranny.
|
On October 22 2026 22:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 22:15 Jankisa wrote:I admire Buttigieg rhetorically, he's obviously a smart guy, mostly seems well meaning. + Show Spoiler +My issue with him is that his (I only know this from 2020 campaign, he might have changed his ideas) plan of "Medicare for all who want it" would not work because the only way goverment run social healthcare works is if you have to opt in with employment, which I always had a feeling he knew because he's a smart guy, so it seemed like a smarmy way to be against socialized healthcare without actually saying he is.
I'd take him above someone really, really slimy like Newsome, but I'd take any of the actual progressive stand outs above him.
Him and Ossoff, I'd still take Buttigieg, but from a pragmatic stand point, Ossoff might have more of a chance due to homophobic nature of the electorate + the fact that Overton window moved sufficiently to the right + Show Spoiler +that even mild progressive stances Buttigieg held or still hold could be twisted into him being a communist or some other insane shit. If dyhb, you, DPB, and the rest could all see yourselves supporting Buttigieg (not sure how dyhb feels about Ossoff), that seems like your clear best choice. That all dyhb's haters would be falling in line behind dyhb's first choice is just convenient for people with dyhb's politics. The Overton window doesn't move itself. Why do you suppose it went to the right instead of the left?
I think Buttigieg is a pretty good guy, I think he'd be a solid president, and if he wins the next Democratic primary then he'd easily have my vote against the Republican nominee. That being said, I'll probably end up voting for the most left-leaning Democrat in the primary (which will probably not be Buttigieg), in hopes that the most left-leaning candidate (whoever it is) ends up making it to the general election.
I feel like the Overton window has the best chance of moving in presidential primaries, when candidates within the same party are forced to separate themselves from the rest of the pack (hopefully by proposing some new, unique, great ideas).
|
United States44396 Posts
On October 22 2026 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2026 20:26 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2026 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 05:13 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2026 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote:
It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat. Trump and his buddies trying to rig another election, after we already know they've tried rigging multiple elections in the past and after we know they're currently trying to secretly tamper with voting machines, is a much more concerning and realistic situation than Trump's multitude of disproven conspiracy theories about how his 2020 election loss was due to cheating. They are not "the same kinds". You can't tamper with voting machines, America's elections are the most secure in history. I hope they continue to stay that way, despite Trump repeatedly trying to cheat, and despite his appointees currently trying to tamper with voting machines. Nobody is currently trying to tamper with voting machines. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it or italicize it. We just read an article about whistleblowers calling out Trump's appointees for trying to get people to tamper with voting machines and secretly keep the information, which spawned this very discussion.
Okay but you’re not considering the conservative perspective on it which is “no you didn’t, that didn’t happen, and anyway it was actually democrats and also you deserved it”.
|
United States44396 Posts
On October 22 2026 22:15 Jankisa wrote:
I admire Buttigieg rhetorically, he's obviously a smart guy, mostly seems well meaning.
My issue with him is that his (I only know this from 2020 campaign, he might have changed his ideas) plan of "Medicare for all who want it" would not work because the only way goverment run social healthcare works is if you have to opt in with employment, which I always had a feeling he knew because he's a smart guy, so it seemed like a smarmy way to be against socialized healthcare without actually saying he is.
I'd take him above someone really, really slimy like Newsome, but I'd take any of the actual progressive stand outs above him.
Him and Ossoff, I'd still take Buttigieg, but from a pragmatic stand point, Ossoff might have more of a chance due to homophobic nature of the electorate + the fact that Overton window moved sufficiently to the right that even mild progressive stances Buttigieg held or still hold could be twisted into him being a communist or some other insane shit.
“Medicare for all” needs to nationalize the means of healthcare production to achieve the structural benefits of single payer. And I think people like Buttigieg probably know that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
