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.
During a campaign rally over the weekend, Trump was rambling on when he laughably claimed he could have ended the Vietnam War “in a week.” Speaking to his devoted followers, Trump said: “I could have won the Vietnam war in a week. They drop whatever the hell that red crap is they kept dropping in the forest – Agent Orange, even though it’s red. “Agent Orange. They dropped it in the forest for years and years and years instead of going after Ho Chi Minh City and the different places. I would’ve won that war in one week.” The Vietnam War lasted over two decades and claimed the lives of some 3.5m people, including almost 60,000 US military personnel. And, by the sounds of things, it would have gone even more disastrously for the US if Trump had been president at the time. This is because, as some of you reading this may already have noticed, Ho Chi Minh City, which was called Saigon at the time of the war, was the capital of South Vietnam – whose side the US was fighting on in the war.
On November 02 2026 19:18 Doublemint wrote: I feel people need to appreciate just how bad this Trump admin has been for ordinary Americans wallets. just misstep after misstep with incredible precision and hubris.
Tariffs:
American consumers and companies paid nearly 90% of the cost of President Donald Trump’s tariffs through late 2025, according to a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
The study adds to a growing body of evidence indicating American families pay a price for Trump’s import taxes, despite the president's assertion that the financial burden falls entirely on other countries.
Trump's tariffs equated to a tax increase of $1,000 per household in 2025, according to a Feb. 6 report from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Households are expected to pay an additional $1,300 in 2026.
“Consumers are under a lot of financial pressure,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.
The total bill per household since the U.S.-Iran conflict began is around $1,760, according to an analysis from Moody’s Analytics as of Sept. 11.
Zandi said $930 — or more than half — of that total bill for households comes from higher costs for energy, a category that includes pressures from rising prices on items like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Cumulatively, Moody’s found that U.S. consumers have spent more than $121 billion extra on energy since the war began.
Another $425 of that $1,760 stems from higher interest rates since the war broke out. The final $405 comes from higher military spending, which Zandi said consumers will foot the bill for through either national debt expansion or increased taxes.
Republicans willfully and happily - by indulging Trump and his policy decisions - made an affordability crisis that hit during Covid (and was one of the primary reasons Democrats lost 24') way, way worse.
sprinkle in ICE atrocities becoming clearer and clearer for most people to see, the unpopular BBB tax cuts for primarily rich people funded by cuts to social and medical services, corruption and arrogance not seen in generations... and I just scratched the most prevalent topics... yeah a wipeout is not out of the question. let's see what happens.
lol@ Haley Stevens torching her political career, and for what? who is this for days before voting? her bruised ego? apart from maybe a couple numbers changing in her bank account literally nothing new happened?
quite the interview with Anderson Cooper... does anyone think she makes sense here? if she did something like that like a couple weeks or a month ago for maximum effect I would kinda get it.
You’re forgetting the borrowing. Trump may have directly increased costs by thousands per family with his policies but he’s also charged significantly more thousands to their credit cards (this is a metaphor oblade). They’ll be paying interest on that for generations.
Congress's name is on the credit card, Quark.
Trump is the leader of the party that whipped the spending plans in Congress. And you know that. Why are you pretending not to know that?
On November 02 2026 19:18 Doublemint wrote: I feel people need to appreciate just how bad this Trump admin has been for ordinary Americans wallets. just misstep after misstep with incredible precision and hubris.
Tariffs:
American consumers and companies paid nearly 90% of the cost of President Donald Trump’s tariffs through late 2025, according to a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
The study adds to a growing body of evidence indicating American families pay a price for Trump’s import taxes, despite the president's assertion that the financial burden falls entirely on other countries.
Trump's tariffs equated to a tax increase of $1,000 per household in 2025, according to a Feb. 6 report from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Households are expected to pay an additional $1,300 in 2026.
“Consumers are under a lot of financial pressure,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.
The total bill per household since the U.S.-Iran conflict began is around $1,760, according to an analysis from Moody’s Analytics as of Sept. 11.
Zandi said $930 — or more than half — of that total bill for households comes from higher costs for energy, a category that includes pressures from rising prices on items like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Cumulatively, Moody’s found that U.S. consumers have spent more than $121 billion extra on energy since the war began.
Another $425 of that $1,760 stems from higher interest rates since the war broke out. The final $405 comes from higher military spending, which Zandi said consumers will foot the bill for through either national debt expansion or increased taxes.
Republicans willfully and happily - by indulging Trump and his policy decisions - made an affordability crisis that hit during Covid (and was one of the primary reasons Democrats lost 24') way, way worse.
sprinkle in ICE atrocities becoming clearer and clearer for most people to see, the unpopular BBB tax cuts for primarily rich people funded by cuts to social and medical services, corruption and arrogance not seen in generations... and I just scratched the most prevalent topics... yeah a wipeout is not out of the question. let's see what happens.
lol@ Haley Stevens torching her political career, and for what? who is this for days before voting? her bruised ego? apart from maybe a couple numbers changing in her bank account literally nothing new happened?
quite the interview with Anderson Cooper... does anyone think she makes sense here? if she did something like that like a couple weeks or a month ago for maximum effect I would kinda get it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjwX3-P5bxU
You’re forgetting the borrowing. Trump may have directly increased costs by thousands per family with his policies but he’s also charged significantly more thousands to their credit cards (this is a metaphor oblade). They’ll be paying interest on that for generations.
Congress's name is on the credit card, Quark.
Trump is the leader of the party that whipped the spending plans in Congress. And you know that. Why are you pretending not to know that?
oBlade is a well known example of the kind of people Sartre was talking about+ Show Spoiler +
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
. You know that. Why are you pretending not to know that?
On November 02 2026 19:18 Doublemint wrote: I feel people need to appreciate just how bad this Trump admin has been for ordinary Americans wallets. just misstep after misstep with incredible precision and hubris.
Tariffs:
American consumers and companies paid nearly 90% of the cost of President Donald Trump’s tariffs through late 2025, according to a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
The study adds to a growing body of evidence indicating American families pay a price for Trump’s import taxes, despite the president's assertion that the financial burden falls entirely on other countries.
Trump's tariffs equated to a tax increase of $1,000 per household in 2025, according to a Feb. 6 report from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Households are expected to pay an additional $1,300 in 2026.
“Consumers are under a lot of financial pressure,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.
The total bill per household since the U.S.-Iran conflict began is around $1,760, according to an analysis from Moody’s Analytics as of Sept. 11.
Zandi said $930 — or more than half — of that total bill for households comes from higher costs for energy, a category that includes pressures from rising prices on items like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Cumulatively, Moody’s found that U.S. consumers have spent more than $121 billion extra on energy since the war began.
Another $425 of that $1,760 stems from higher interest rates since the war broke out. The final $405 comes from higher military spending, which Zandi said consumers will foot the bill for through either national debt expansion or increased taxes.
Republicans willfully and happily - by indulging Trump and his policy decisions - made an affordability crisis that hit during Covid (and was one of the primary reasons Democrats lost 24') way, way worse.
sprinkle in ICE atrocities becoming clearer and clearer for most people to see, the unpopular BBB tax cuts for primarily rich people funded by cuts to social and medical services, corruption and arrogance not seen in generations... and I just scratched the most prevalent topics... yeah a wipeout is not out of the question. let's see what happens.
lol@ Haley Stevens torching her political career, and for what? who is this for days before voting? her bruised ego? apart from maybe a couple numbers changing in her bank account literally nothing new happened?
quite the interview with Anderson Cooper... does anyone think she makes sense here? if she did something like that like a couple weeks or a month ago for maximum effect I would kinda get it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjwX3-P5bxU
You’re forgetting the borrowing. Trump may have directly increased costs by thousands per family with his policies but he’s also charged significantly more thousands to their credit cards (this is a metaphor oblade). They’ll be paying interest on that for generations.
Congress's name is on the credit card, Quark.
Trump is the leader of the party that whipped the spending plans in Congress. And you know that. Why are you pretending not to know that?
oBlade is a well known example of the kind of people Sartre was talking about+ Show Spoiler +
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
. You know that. Why are you pretending not to know that?
On November 02 2026 19:18 Doublemint wrote: I feel people need to appreciate just how bad this Trump admin has been for ordinary Americans wallets. just misstep after misstep with incredible precision and hubris.
Tariffs:
American consumers and companies paid nearly 90% of the cost of President Donald Trump’s tariffs through late 2025, according to a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
The study adds to a growing body of evidence indicating American families pay a price for Trump’s import taxes, despite the president's assertion that the financial burden falls entirely on other countries.
Trump's tariffs equated to a tax increase of $1,000 per household in 2025, according to a Feb. 6 report from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Households are expected to pay an additional $1,300 in 2026.
“Consumers are under a lot of financial pressure,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.
The total bill per household since the U.S.-Iran conflict began is around $1,760, according to an analysis from Moody’s Analytics as of Sept. 11.
Zandi said $930 — or more than half — of that total bill for households comes from higher costs for energy, a category that includes pressures from rising prices on items like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Cumulatively, Moody’s found that U.S. consumers have spent more than $121 billion extra on energy since the war began.
Another $425 of that $1,760 stems from higher interest rates since the war broke out. The final $405 comes from higher military spending, which Zandi said consumers will foot the bill for through either national debt expansion or increased taxes.
Republicans willfully and happily - by indulging Trump and his policy decisions - made an affordability crisis that hit during Covid (and was one of the primary reasons Democrats lost 24') way, way worse.
sprinkle in ICE atrocities becoming clearer and clearer for most people to see, the unpopular BBB tax cuts for primarily rich people funded by cuts to social and medical services, corruption and arrogance not seen in generations... and I just scratched the most prevalent topics... yeah a wipeout is not out of the question. let's see what happens.
lol@ Haley Stevens torching her political career, and for what? who is this for days before voting? her bruised ego? apart from maybe a couple numbers changing in her bank account literally nothing new happened?
quite the interview with Anderson Cooper... does anyone think she makes sense here? if she did something like that like a couple weeks or a month ago for maximum effect I would kinda get it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjwX3-P5bxU
You’re forgetting the borrowing. Trump may have directly increased costs by thousands per family with his policies but he’s also charged significantly more thousands to their credit cards (this is a metaphor oblade). They’ll be paying interest on that for generations.
Congress's name is on the credit card, Quark.
Trump is the leader of the party that whipped the spending plans in Congress. And you know that. Why are you pretending not to know that?
I know at some point you knew how the Constitution worked because unlike almost every other European here, you had to actually take a test on it once.
During a campaign rally over the weekend, Trump was rambling on when he laughably claimed he could have ended the Vietnam War “in a week.” Speaking to his devoted followers, Trump said: “I could have won the Vietnam war in a week. They drop whatever the hell that red crap is they kept dropping in the forest – Agent Orange, even though it’s red. “Agent Orange. They dropped it in the forest for years and years and years instead of going after Ho Chi Minh City and the different places. I would’ve won that war in one week.” The Vietnam War lasted over two decades and claimed the lives of some 3.5m people, including almost 60,000 US military personnel. And, by the sounds of things, it would have gone even more disastrously for the US if Trump had been president at the time. This is because, as some of you reading this may already have noticed, Ho Chi Minh City, which was called Saigon at the time of the war, was the capital of South Vietnam – whose side the US was fighting on in the war.
The guy who can't figure out a way out of the Iran war would end Vietnam in a week, makes sense.
It's like the rants of my 9 year old nephew who is really into WW2 and history but mostly knows bits and peaces and remembers random cool facts, plus, since he's 9 year old he thinks he'd have better ideas how to do everything.
On November 02 2026 19:18 Doublemint wrote: I feel people need to appreciate just how bad this Trump admin has been for ordinary Americans wallets. just misstep after misstep with incredible precision and hubris.
Tariffs:
American consumers and companies paid nearly 90% of the cost of President Donald Trump’s tariffs through late 2025, according to a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
The study adds to a growing body of evidence indicating American families pay a price for Trump’s import taxes, despite the president's assertion that the financial burden falls entirely on other countries.
Trump's tariffs equated to a tax increase of $1,000 per household in 2025, according to a Feb. 6 report from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Households are expected to pay an additional $1,300 in 2026.
“Consumers are under a lot of financial pressure,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.
The total bill per household since the U.S.-Iran conflict began is around $1,760, according to an analysis from Moody’s Analytics as of Sept. 11.
Zandi said $930 — or more than half — of that total bill for households comes from higher costs for energy, a category that includes pressures from rising prices on items like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Cumulatively, Moody’s found that U.S. consumers have spent more than $121 billion extra on energy since the war began.
Another $425 of that $1,760 stems from higher interest rates since the war broke out. The final $405 comes from higher military spending, which Zandi said consumers will foot the bill for through either national debt expansion or increased taxes.
Republicans willfully and happily - by indulging Trump and his policy decisions - made an affordability crisis that hit during Covid (and was one of the primary reasons Democrats lost 24') way, way worse.
sprinkle in ICE atrocities becoming clearer and clearer for most people to see, the unpopular BBB tax cuts for primarily rich people funded by cuts to social and medical services, corruption and arrogance not seen in generations... and I just scratched the most prevalent topics... yeah a wipeout is not out of the question. let's see what happens.
lol@ Haley Stevens torching her political career, and for what? who is this for days before voting? her bruised ego? apart from maybe a couple numbers changing in her bank account literally nothing new happened?
quite the interview with Anderson Cooper... does anyone think she makes sense here? if she did something like that like a couple weeks or a month ago for maximum effect I would kinda get it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjwX3-P5bxU
You’re forgetting the borrowing. Trump may have directly increased costs by thousands per family with his policies but he’s also charged significantly more thousands to their credit cards (this is a metaphor oblade). They’ll be paying interest on that for generations.
Congress's name is on the credit card, Quark.
Trump is the leader of the party that whipped the spending plans in Congress. And you know that. Why are you pretending not to know that?
I know at some point you knew how the Constitution worked because unlike almost every other European here, you had to actually take a test on it once.
The situation for Republicans is so bad that oBlade is pretending like he doesn't know what political parties are anymore
NYT dropped their last big set of polls for the competitive senate seats. Maine +6 ( Texas +7 (same +7) (also has Hinojosa leading Abbott by a point) Michigan +11 (?!?!?!?) Iowa +1 (!!) (tied in their September poll) Ohio +5 (up from +1) Kansas +5 (up from -1) Alaska +2 (down from +7)
People are also saying that NYT/Siena polls are already adjusted from the big polling miss in 2024, which means theoretically, these polls could be even more blue than at first glance. Not sure if I believe that, I don't think pollsters would just be a pendulum of overcorrecting for the other side time and time again. That feels like a very poor method of doing your polling business.
Even bigger news: Atlas, which is a top tier neutral pollster and one of the few non-R pollsters that got 2024 right shows +14 generic ballot for D, and +6 in Texas. Crazy stuff. Nate Silver just moved Texas from lean-D to likely D, alongside Michigan and Maine. Maine is a bit iffy still though the last 3-4 polls looked great for Jackson. Michigan polls have been solid blue even from R pollsters.
Tomorrow is going to be crazy when those eastern polls close. If NC and Georgia get insta-called, SC is still too close to call for a long time, and Michigan and Ohio are in good spots, it'll be an early night.
On November 03 2026 01:32 FlaShFTW wrote: Several bombshell polls today.
NYT dropped their last big set of polls for the competitive senate seats. Maine +6 ( Texas +7 (same +7) (also has Hinojosa leading Abbott by a point) Michigan +11 (?!?!?!?) Iowa +1 (!!) (tied in their September poll) Ohio +5 (up from +1) Kansas +5 (up from -1) Alaska +2 (down from +7)
People are also saying that NYT/Siena polls are already adjusted from the big polling miss in 2024, which means theoretically, these polls could be even more blue than at first glance. Not sure if I believe that, I don't think pollsters would just be a pendulum of overcorrecting for the other side time and time again. That feels like a very poor method of doing your polling business.
Even bigger news: Atlas, which is a top tier neutral pollster and one of the few non-R pollsters that got 2024 right shows +14 generic ballot for D, and +6 in Texas. Crazy stuff. Nate Silver just moved Texas from lean-D to likely D, alongside Michigan and Maine. Maine is a bit iffy still though the last 3-4 polls looked great for Jackson. Michigan polls have been solid blue even from R pollsters.
Tomorrow is going to be crazy when those eastern polls close. If NC and Georgia get insta-called, SC is still too close to call for a long time, and Michigan and Ohio are in good spots, it'll be an early night.
Do you have any knowledge concerning the number of people agreeing to be polled nowadays? I heard on the NYT Daily podcast that repondents - the ones agreeing to take a poll - has dropped from 40-50% to 5% (comparing 2024 to 2026 iirc)
On November 03 2026 01:32 FlaShFTW wrote: Several bombshell polls today.
NYT dropped their last big set of polls for the competitive senate seats. Maine +6 ( Texas +7 (same +7) (also has Hinojosa leading Abbott by a point) Michigan +11 (?!?!?!?) Iowa +1 (!!) (tied in their September poll) Ohio +5 (up from +1) Kansas +5 (up from -1) Alaska +2 (down from +7)
People are also saying that NYT/Siena polls are already adjusted from the big polling miss in 2024, which means theoretically, these polls could be even more blue than at first glance. Not sure if I believe that, I don't think pollsters would just be a pendulum of overcorrecting for the other side time and time again. That feels like a very poor method of doing your polling business.
Even bigger news: Atlas, which is a top tier neutral pollster and one of the few non-R pollsters that got 2024 right shows +14 generic ballot for D, and +6 in Texas. Crazy stuff. Nate Silver just moved Texas from lean-D to likely D, alongside Michigan and Maine. Maine is a bit iffy still though the last 3-4 polls looked great for Jackson. Michigan polls have been solid blue even from R pollsters.
Tomorrow is going to be crazy when those eastern polls close. If NC and Georgia get insta-called, SC is still too close to call for a long time, and Michigan and Ohio are in good spots, it'll be an early night.
Do you have any knowledge concerning the number of people agreeing to be polled nowadays? I heard on the NYT Daily podcast that repondents - the ones agreeing to take a poll - has dropped from 40-50% to 5% (comparing 2024 to 2026 iirc)
John Cornyn (current U.S. Senator from Texas in the seat Talarico and Paxton are running for) seems to be vaguely hinting that Talarico could walk in Lyndon B. Johnson's footsteps and become POTUS
Being an actual Christian and aggressively using quotes from the Bible seems like a potential strategy that would make it challenging to counter for Republicans. They do not want to repeatedly come off as if they disagree with the Bible. Admitting that the Bible does not actually matter to them would be a major hit to their identity. The symbols of Christianity are still important to many. They are similar to statues of traitors and the flag of the Confederacy.
On November 03 2026 04:10 LightSpectra wrote: John Cornyn (current U.S. Senator from Texas in the seat Talarico and Paxton are running for) seems to be vaguely hinting that Talarico could walk in Lyndon B. Johnson's footsteps and become POTUS
On November 03 2026 04:42 Legan wrote: Being an actual Christian and aggressively using quotes from the Bible seems like a potential strategy that would make it challenging to counter for Republicans. They do not want to repeatedly come off as if they disagree with the Bible. Admitting that the Bible does not actually matter to them would be a major hit to their identity. The symbols of Christianity are still important to many. They are similar to statues of traitors and the flag of the Confederacy.
It's so easy to cherry-pick quotes from the Bible and dismiss any Biblical quotes you don't like as being "taken out of context", so I don't think that strategy would stick. (Unfortunately.)
On November 03 2026 04:42 Legan wrote: Being an actual Christian and aggressively using quotes from the Bible seems like a potential strategy that would make it challenging to counter for Republicans. They do not want to repeatedly come off as if they disagree with the Bible. Admitting that the Bible does not actually matter to them would be a major hit to their identity. The symbols of Christianity are still important to many. They are similar to statues of traitors and the flag of the Confederacy.
It's so easy to cherry-pick quotes from the Bible and dismiss any Biblical quotes you don't like as being "taken out of context", so I don't think that strategy would stick. (Unfortunately.)
That's certainly true for extreme far-rightists that would never vote Democratic no matter what. But if Democrats are willing to put forward pastors/seminarians like Raphael Warnock, Adam Hamilton and James Talarico that can fight this fight, I truly do believe they can peel off a lot of the religious voters to their side. Warnock in particular I doubt would be a Senator if he didn't have the credentials of being "the guy that was arrested outside Congress for praying against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act." It also disarms their stupidass talking points about "religious persecution" if a Christian Democrat is the only guy that was actually persecuted for being Christian.
(An aside: I lament the fact that religion and politics are so freely mixed. But, much like gerrymandering and nuclear deterrence, if your enemies are going to use them, it's foolish to disarm yourself in order to take the moral high ground.)
On November 03 2026 04:42 Legan wrote: Being an actual Christian and aggressively using quotes from the Bible seems like a potential strategy that would make it challenging to counter for Republicans. They do not want to repeatedly come off as if they disagree with the Bible. Admitting that the Bible does not actually matter to them would be a major hit to their identity. The symbols of Christianity are still important to many. They are similar to statues of traitors and the flag of the Confederacy.
It's so easy to cherry-pick quotes from the Bible and dismiss any Biblical quotes you don't like as being "taken out of context", so I don't think that strategy would stick. (Unfortunately.)
Yeah, also important is that there is pretty strict information control going on in these groups.
You can find someone who argues for basically any position one can imagine based on the bible.
And these people have been pretty far off the core tenets of what Christianity seems to be all about, and they instead have chosen completely different principles and decided that those are what Christianity means.
The symbols are what these people care about, actual Christianity or what the bible actually says isn't. There are so many different variants of Christians that they can always claim that you are the wrong type if you disagree with them, and they will always find someone that the bible agrees with whatever they want to believe.
On November 03 2026 04:42 Legan wrote: Being an actual Christian and aggressively using quotes from the Bible seems like a potential strategy that would make it challenging to counter for Republicans. They do not want to repeatedly come off as if they disagree with the Bible. Admitting that the Bible does not actually matter to them would be a major hit to their identity. The symbols of Christianity are still important to many. They are similar to statues of traitors and the flag of the Confederacy.
It's so easy to cherry-pick quotes from the Bible and dismiss any Biblical quotes you don't like as being "taken out of context", so I don't think that strategy would stick. (Unfortunately.)
That's certainly true for extreme far-rightists that would never vote Democratic no matter what. But if Democrats are willing to put forward pastors/seminarians like Raphael Warnock, Adam Hamilton and James Talarico that can fight this fight, I truly do believe they can peel off a lot of the religious voters to their side. Warnock in particular I doubt would be a Senator if he didn't have the credentials of being "the guy that was arrested outside Congress for praying against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act." It also disarms their stupidass talking points about "religious persecution" if a Christian Democrat is the only guy that was actually persecuted for being Christian.
(An aside: I lament the fact that religion and politics are so freely mixed. But, much like gerrymandering and nuclear deterrence, if your enemies are going to use them, it's foolish to disarm yourself in order to take the moral high ground.)
I agree with your aside's lament + fighting fire with fire, if we think it could help. We certainly don't want to alienate all religious people, since a lot of voters still identify as religious!
I'm not so sure I agree that Dems could successfully "peel off a lot of the religious voters to their side" though. Do you mean convince religious Republicans to vote for Democrats because of other Bible verses? I don't see that happening, nor do I see the reverse happening either (e.g., Christian Democrats aren't suddenly going to vote for Republicans just because the Bible says that slavery is okay but homosexuality is not). There are already plenty of religious/Christian voters on both sides, and they've decided on which Biblical quotes to accept and which to reject (spoiler alert: the quotes they accept conveniently match their moral values, and the quotes they reject contradict their moral values).
I'm not saying "just throw out Bible verses and hope for the best," I'm saying make the whole case that Christian values are more than just being anti-abortion and gay people (which incidentally is true, neither of these topics are ever mentioned by Jesus). It worked for Warnock and it seems to be working for Hamilton and Talarico, who are polling better than any other Democrat has in Kansas and Texas in literal decades.
On November 03 2026 04:42 Legan wrote: Being an actual Christian and aggressively using quotes from the Bible seems like a potential strategy that would make it challenging to counter for Republicans. They do not want to repeatedly come off as if they disagree with the Bible. Admitting that the Bible does not actually matter to them would be a major hit to their identity. The symbols of Christianity are still important to many. They are similar to statues of traitors and the flag of the Confederacy.
It's so easy to cherry-pick quotes from the Bible and dismiss any Biblical quotes you don't like as being "taken out of context", so I don't think that strategy would stick. (Unfortunately.)
Yeah, also important is that there is pretty strict information control going on in these groups.
You can find someone who argues for basically any position one can imagine based on the bible.
And these people have been pretty far off the core tenets of what Christianity seems to be all about, and they instead have chosen completely different principles and decided that those are what Christianity means.
The symbols are what these people care about, actual Christianity or what the bible actually says isn't. There are so many different variants of Christians that they can always claim that you are the wrong type if you disagree with them, and they will always find someone that the bible agrees with whatever they want to believe.
Totally agree. What seems to matter to a lot of Christians is the virtue-signaling from calling themselves a Christian, rather than reading the Bible or understanding their religion. I don't see that changing, even with some politicians reading certain verses. I just hope that each generation becomes less and less religiously zealous / fundamentalist / extremist.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://preview.redd.it/l9nwv118d8zh1.jpeg?width=1320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb44b6d50d21fa2372cd7ac68c684a1ff1737eef)
