|
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 |
United States10624 Posts
So after the dust has settled, 2 more Senate seats to be called still (and they somehow both look good for Dems), and as I woke up at 11am to get into work at 12 today because my liver is fried, let's try to recap.
Nationally, Democrats hit the Atlas benchmark of a +14 D environment. But in localized states and congressional races, it was even higher, with several districts going +20 or more D shift from 2024. Hispanic dominated regions, like south Texas, saw an absurd shift of 50 points in some cases. Comparatively, Florida and Michigan for the most part resisted the overwhelming D wave and held more modest D shifts of around 7-10 points.
This election was certainly a referendum on Trump, and it really shows when looking at Trump's hand picked appointees. Graham in SC, Paxton in Texas are obvious examples where their counterparts likely would've faired much better. I'm not sure we get a blue sweep of Texas if it was Talarico vs Cornyn. I still think Talarico wins, but maybe only by 2 points which might not have been enough to drag the rest of the ticket past the finish line with him. Btw, Texan state members already talking about trying to wrestle power out of the governor and LT governor's hands now because they lost. They literally have 0 self awareness over why they lost this election.
The problem now is what's next? Gridlock for 2 years until 2028? Democrats will need to get the message right to have another go in 2028 to get the trifecta. And we may even be in talks about another 2008 super majority, with a strong map for Democrats to defend while looking for swing state pickups again like this election.
Ossoff really looks like the frontrunner now to take on the Republicans in the Presidency. His closing speech sounded like a guy who's already been hand picked to lead Democrats into the next generation. Young, handsome, strong, excellent orator, comes from a swing state. Really looking forward to see what he can do on the national stage. Much rather him than Newsom, Harris, or AOC right now.
Til next time, it was lovely being here today with you all. 2024 might've been one of my lowest lows in political coverage, but yesterday makes it all worth it for moments like this. TEXAS IS FUCKING BLUE!!!
|
On November 05 2026 01:23 Legan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2026 00:59 Jankisa wrote:On November 05 2026 00:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
So can someone tell me, in the simplest terms, what avenues the Ds have for investigating all of the corruption? Are they going after DOJ, CIA, DOD, etc? Or just going to try and get the economy back on track with whatever they can? Do they immediately cancel and renegotiate tariffs or how does that play? I think they can, if they actually want to, walk and chew gum at the same time. First thing they will, most likely do, is go for impeachment of the low hanging fruit, so impeaching the obvious crazies that have high visibility and caused a lot of damage, plus are too stupid to cover their tracks well, my top hit list would be, in order of how easy it would be: 1. Pete Hegseath (Iran war, war crimes, slurs, purges, shit OpSec) 2. Kash Patel (drinking, enriching himself, using FBI as his GF's personal bodyguards adn so much more) 3. Todd Blanche (coached Gishlane Maxwel, covered up Epstein files, nice way to get them back into public eye, plus, you know, he's Trump's personal lawyer who said while serving in DOJ his loyalty is to Trump) 4. RFK Junior (insane, dumps dead bears in Central park, has a brain worm, killed 80 kids in Haiti, plus I'm sure enriching himself and doing a bunch of other illegal shit) 5. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (Thomas has been thoroughly documented as a crook, so was his wife, I would prioritize but Schumer the feckless already said no, hopefully he changes his mind) 6. Linda McMahon (enriching herself, likely other scandals easily uncovered) Those are just the impeachments that NEED to happen in my opinion. Then you have investigations into: 1. Kushner (Albania, SA found, Serbia, FIFA, Russia and so much more) 2. Witkoff (Crypto, real estate deals, Russia and so much more) 3. Musk (DOGE, dropped investigations, Philladelphia and Georgia election cases, plenty of fuckery in Texas) Even if these don't result in convictions, the subpoena power and public nature of these cases as well as brazenness that these morons operate will paint a clear picture, but it needs to be prioritized and done, form Jan 20th, every day, an announcement of investigation, subpoenas, testimonies etc. I think they should at least have really long hearings on each issue and just use bullying interrogation tactics. If Hillary could do an 11-hour-long hearing on Benghazi, surely Trump can do one too. They should also have targeted hearings on the underlings to make perjury much harder for people to avoid. Patel and Hegseth would absolutely have had meetings where they did stupid shit in the presence of career staff. They also have fired so many people that there is a wide pool of willing witnesses.
For better or worse, it doesn't sound like that's the plan at this point:
|
How Annie Andrews flipped SC:
On Oct. 5, the Andrews campaign received a poll showing her with a 3-point lead over Graham. But the Democrat’s campaign decided against publicly releasing the poll — or any subsequent internal poll — showing Andrews with a lead over Graham, wary of drawing too much attention from national Republicans and jeopardizing a peak at the right time, according to Chas Goldman, a strategist for Andrews.
https://www.semafor.com/article/11/04/2026/how-democrat-annie-andrews-shocked-the-world-in-south-carolina
Smart strategy that paid off compared to what everyone else seemed to do in longshot races, which was to spam the airwaves with polls that looked naively optimistic.
|
On November 05 2026 03:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2026 03:13 dyhb wrote:On November 05 2026 02:31 oBlade wrote:
You psyopped yourself into thinking:
-someone with the border and immigration policy of Clinton and Obama (Deporter-in-Chief)
-someone with weaker crime policy than the "Superpredators" Clintons (if you remember his bipartisan first term First Step Act)
-someone pro gay marriage
-someone who is not personally anti-abortion and only ever made it so abortion policy should be set by laws rather than courts
-someone with the trade policy of a pre-NAFTA Democrat
-someone who's an anti-ground-war anti-neocon anti-interventionist with the military mentality of Obama and Biden of collect all the intel, buy all the expensive MIC toys, and then kill them and/or run away
-someone who wants to cut the bloat of federal government and achieved less to do so than Clinton and Gore's initiatives
-someone who wants the energy and manufacturing of any pre-"Inconvenient Truth" union Democrat
-someone whose best friends are a fucking electric car magnate and an environmental lawyer/Kennedy
-someone who thinks nuclear weapons are the single greatest threat to the world and wants trilateral denuclearization
-someone who loves nuclear power which is what normal environmentalism knew was the clean answer before Three Mile Island made people nuts
-someone who wants to make kids as healthy as Michelle Obama wanted
-someone under whom Congress spent their pants off like Biden
-someone whose 2nd term OBBBA restrictions on welfare eligibility pale in comparison to Clinton's "end welfare as we know it" Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act -partial nationalization of 40+ corporations But the right-wing associations trump that in several ways -more brutal and incompetent of a national deportation strategy than Clinton or Obama would do. Except for kids in cages, perhaps. But everything save for that. -the rhetoric both foreign and domestic. If you do 30 right-wing or right-lunatic statements a week, it doesn't matter. One "poisoning the blood of the country" and it doesn't matter about the rest. Conquer greenland. Withdraw from NATO. You've got a lot of overton-window-shift stuff in there as well. Clinton viewed from today's left wing was a moderate-right to (more trollish) solidly right candidate. It doesn't matter if he was in the Democratic party. The party's gone left, and Clinton's no longer center-left. Remember that Clinton was a pivot to the center from the legacy of Dukakis, Mondale, and (earlier) McGovern. That's not more brutal, it's just in the news more, and in the leftosphere more, and coded to be fascist by them because it's a Republican, their enemy. Obama deports, I sleep. They get in their head that he somehow deported people without removing them from the country. Combine that with the notion that Trump is illegitimate because someone didn't get their way, and it foments insurrection against federal officers who are enforcing federal law, which is normal, as being illegitimate. Completely manufactured hysteria. Ok, both in the news more, and with messaging that is triumphant and mean-spirited. I kind of get that for perpetrators of violent crime and human trafficking. For people that broke immigration law and just live and work afterwards, the exultant rhetoric and cheering for the mass deportations is identifiably right-wing. If Trump was authentically left-wing on that issue, it would be a regretful attitude that failed policies of both parties created such a crisis that necessitated sweeping enforcement.
Reagan was amnesty. In 2007 under Bush they tried to negotiate an immigration deal with... amnesty. In 2013 the Gang of 8 tried... amnesty. Literally the only ones with no push for amnesty were Bush, Sr. (because they already did the huge one in Reagan's first two terms*), and CLINTON. When you actually look at all the polices they share, these are not just suited shells, they're actually men with ideas who came to conclusions. + Show Spoiler +One of which is imported illegal labor, and imported criminals, hurt the US. This and their already existing friendship is why Trump is fonder of Clinton as a president than, say, Biden/Obama. Almost cut from the same cloth.
Cite "conquer Greenland" by the way. They just signed (formalized) the new agreement. This essentially ignores the rhetoric to skip to the results. You can both believe such brash treatment was necessary to get results, and recognize it as inherently right wing. I'm talking about the "The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland" and "That's our territory."
|
Thank you FlaShFTW, excellent analysis and coverage yesterday, really enjoyed both!
I think Ossoff is now almost inevitable, since Georgia governor is now a Dem, they can name his replacement and he is free to go and run, I guess from the political circus standpoint, the primaries start today and he has strong winds in his sails.
My read on the "what's next" really depends, I guess there won't be a shutdown this December because why would Democrats do that, and even more, what would the Republicans do it for? Maybe someone who is more in the weeds like micro might have some insight since I saw in your chat yesterday that he mentioned shutdown on Dec 12th is likely.
The thing that seems likely and is already rumored is that Alito and Thomas might retire in order to push through their replacements before the new Senate is seated, that would, of course be insane rattuckery and hypocrisy (see Merick Garland) but at the same time would be absolutely nothing new for GOP.
After that, or precisely after Jan 20th, investigations galore, I have a feeling Ossoff will be the main "prosecutor" for the Senate hearings and that's where his campaign will start, in fact, across house and Senate that might be the main plot line of 2027.
Exciting season ahead, hopefully no new wars or crazy shit and just good old politicking.
|
On November 05 2026 03:28 hitthat wrote:
My feeling right now is something between relief, schadenfreude, satisfied bitterness and anger that Trump did worse damage than I expected (except of formaly leaving NATO, I though he would dare to do that. He didn't) Because he can't.
During Trumps first term Congress passed a bipartisan law (passed 357-22 in the House and 87 to 13 in the Senate) that prohibits the President from leaving NATO without Congressional approval.
And yes its extremely sad that Congress had to pass a law to specifically stop Trump from leaving NATO.
|
United States44428 Posts
On November 05 2026 04:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2026 03:28 hitthat wrote:
My feeling right now is something between relief, schadenfreude, satisfied bitterness and anger that Trump did worse damage than I expected (except of formaly leaving NATO, I though he would dare to do that. He didn't) Because he can't. During Trumps first term Congress passed a bipartisan law (passed 357-22 in the House and 87 to 13 in the Senate) that prohibits the President from leaving NATO without Congressional approval. And yes its extremely sad that Congress had to pass a law to specifically stop Trump from leaving NATO.
Leaving NATO would actually be safer than what he did though which was create ambiguity. When two nuclear blocs are facing off against each other you really want clear communication. “Don’t do X, if you do X then I’ll nuke you”. Trump declaring that he thinks some NATO members don’t count and that the US might not defend them is way more dangerous to the world than saying he won’t defend them. “I’ll probably let it slide but maybe we’ll all die, it depends on the Fox News commentator and whether I’m watching it” is not a good nuclear stance.
|
On November 05 2026 04:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2026 03:28 hitthat wrote:
My feeling right now is something between relief, schadenfreude, satisfied bitterness and anger that Trump did worse damage than I expected (except of formaly leaving NATO, I though he would dare to do that. He didn't) Because he can't. During Trumps first term Congress passed a bipartisan law (passed 357-22 in the House and 87 to 13 in the Senate) that prohibits the President from leaving NATO without Congressional approval. And yes its extremely sad that Congress had to pass a law to specifically stop Trump from leaving NATO.
Was there not a bipartisan law passed about not purchasing hydrocarbons from Russia? Dude doesn’t care if something is legal.
Also, even if it doesn’t happen it would be a massive win for dictatorships if he just tries. It will make them seem weaker than ever.
|
On November 05 2026 04:48 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2026 04:19 Gorsameth wrote:On November 05 2026 03:28 hitthat wrote:
My feeling right now is something between relief, schadenfreude, satisfied bitterness and anger that Trump did worse damage than I expected (except of formaly leaving NATO, I though he would dare to do that. He didn't) Because he can't. During Trumps first term Congress passed a bipartisan law (passed 357-22 in the House and 87 to 13 in the Senate) that prohibits the President from leaving NATO without Congressional approval. And yes its extremely sad that Congress had to pass a law to specifically stop Trump from leaving NATO. Was there not a bipartisan law passed about not purchasing hydrocarbons from Russia? Dude doesn’t care if something is legal. Also, even if it doesn’t happen it would be a massive win for dictatorships if he just tries. It will make them seem weaker than ever. Correct, which is why governors are warning ports that accepting the shipment would be a violation of federal law, but until they try to unload no law has been broken.
www.reuters.com
|
On November 05 2026 03:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2026 03:13 dyhb wrote:On November 05 2026 02:31 oBlade wrote:
You psyopped yourself into thinking:
-someone with the border and immigration policy of Clinton and Obama (Deporter-in-Chief)
-someone with weaker crime policy than the "Superpredators" Clintons (if you remember his bipartisan first term First Step Act)
-someone pro gay marriage
-someone who is not personally anti-abortion and only ever made it so abortion policy should be set by laws rather than courts
-someone with the trade policy of a pre-NAFTA Democrat
-someone who's an anti-ground-war anti-neocon anti-interventionist with the military mentality of Obama and Biden of collect all the intel, buy all the expensive MIC toys, and then kill them and/or run away
-someone who wants to cut the bloat of federal government and achieved less to do so than Clinton and Gore's initiatives
-someone who wants the energy and manufacturing of any pre-"Inconvenient Truth" union Democrat
-someone whose best friends are a fucking electric car magnate and an environmental lawyer/Kennedy
-someone who thinks nuclear weapons are the single greatest threat to the world and wants trilateral denuclearization
-someone who loves nuclear power which is what normal environmentalism knew was the clean answer before Three Mile Island made people nuts
-someone who wants to make kids as healthy as Michelle Obama wanted
-someone under whom Congress spent their pants off like Biden
-someone whose 2nd term OBBBA restrictions on welfare eligibility pale in comparison to Clinton's "end welfare as we know it" Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act -partial nationalization of 40+ corporations But the right-wing associations trump that in several ways -more brutal and incompetent of a national deportation strategy than Clinton or Obama would do. Except for kids in cages, perhaps. But everything save for that. -the rhetoric both foreign and domestic. If you do 30 right-wing or right-lunatic statements a week, it doesn't matter. One "poisoning the blood of the country" and it doesn't matter about the rest. Conquer greenland. Withdraw from NATO. You've got a lot of overton-window-shift stuff in there as well. Clinton viewed from today's left wing was a moderate-right to (more trollish) solidly right candidate. It doesn't matter if he was in the Democratic party. The party's gone left, and Clinton's no longer center-left. Remember that Clinton was a pivot to the center from the legacy of Dukakis, Mondale, and (earlier) McGovern. That's not more brutal, it's just in the news more, and in the leftosphere more, and coded to be fascist by them because it's a Republican, their enemy. Obama deports, I sleep.
Trump's immigration policy isn't why he's fascist.
Trump has tried to consolidate power in the executive branch, he complains about checks-and-balances, he appoints Yes Men and Yes Women who'll do anything he says instead of appointing experts, he fires and badmouths and tries to sabotage anyone who disagrees with him, he defunds programs and non-partisan organizations that would provide oversight or evaluate his ideas, he has tried to undermine our elections so that he can retain power even when he's voted out, and he complains that other countries' dictators have more power and control than he does.
Those are just some of the many reasons why he has earned the labels "fascist", "authoritarian", and even "America's Hitler", and not just from Democrats / "the leftosphere". Military generals and Republicans have called him those as well.
|
United States10624 Posts
On November 05 2026 04:14 LightSpectra wrote:How Annie Andrews flipped SC: Show nested quote +On Oct. 5, the Andrews campaign received a poll showing her with a 3-point lead over Graham. But the Democrat’s campaign decided against publicly releasing the poll — or any subsequent internal poll — showing Andrews with a lead over Graham, wary of drawing too much attention from national Republicans and jeopardizing a peak at the right time, according to Chas Goldman, a strategist for Andrews. https://www.semafor.com/article/11/04/2026/how-democrat-annie-andrews-shocked-the-world-in-south-carolinaSmart strategy that paid off compared to what everyone else seemed to do in longshot races, which was to spam the airwaves with polls that looked naively optimistic.
Those +2 R polls in SC were crazy, but apparently not really all that crazy. Andrews completely rug pulled Graham.
|
Will the Democrats control enough states to have the opening to hypothetically push through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, thus neutering the Electoral College and potentially deciding a presidential election based on popular vote?
Edit: Yes. https://www.axios.com/2026/11/04/democrats-electoral-college-popular-vote-2028
Now the question is: Do the Democrats have the courage to do this? It would make for a fairer election system - hell, Trump even won the popular vote last time - and it'd be legal too.
|
United States44428 Posts
On November 05 2026 06:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Will the Democrats control enough states to have the opening to hypothetically push through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, thus neutering the Electoral College and potentially deciding a presidential election based on popular vote?
No, because you can’t pass a Federal Law that tells states to assign their electors to someone who didn’t win that state. That has to be done at a state level, one at a time, and there’s a prisoner’s dilemma at play. It’s also the opposite of the right direction, rather than force each state to assign electors to the national winner states should be forced to assign electors proportionate to the state’s votes. The goal is to give the White House to the person who won the country, that’s the right way to do it. If you win 60% of every state you get 60% of each state’s electors.
You have to control the state to change state law.
|
On November 05 2026 02:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2026 01:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2026 00:29 PoulsenB wrote:
Some excellent, unhinged Jimmy posts today, this is the stuff I come here for. Between JJR's ignorance of Trump's infamous ogling, harassment, and assault of kids and oBlade's insistence that Trump is actually a Democrat in disguise, I really feel like they're trying to one-up each other. Why do you want to misunderstand, every single time, no matter what it is? You were a professor at one point and you can't get the point about Trump being a Democrat? Forget agree or disagree, you can't even get it? Jesus. You psyopped yourself into thinking: -someone with the border and immigration policy of Clinton and Obama (Deporter-in-Chief) -someone with weaker crime policy than the "Superpredators" Clintons (if you remember his bipartisan first term First Step Act) -someone pro gay marriage -someone who is not personally anti-abortion and only ever made it so abortion policy should be set by laws rather than courts -someone with the trade policy of a pre-NAFTA Democrat -someone who's an anti-ground-war anti-neocon anti-interventionist with the military mentality of Obama and Biden of collect all the intel, buy all the expensive MIC toys, and then kill them and/or run away -someone who wants to cut the bloat of federal government and achieved less to do so than Clinton and Gore's initiatives -someone who wants the energy and manufacturing of any pre-"Inconvenient Truth" union Democrat -someone whose best friends are a fucking electric car magnate and an environmental lawyer/ Kennedy-someone who thinks nuclear weapons are the single greatest threat to the world and wants trilateral denuclearization -someone who loves nuclear power which is what normal environmentalism knew was the clean answer before Three Mile Island made people nuts -someone who wants to make kids as healthy as Michelle Obama wanted -someone under whom Congress spent their pants off like Biden -someone whose 2nd term OBBBA restrictions on welfare eligibility pale in comparison to Clinton's "end welfare as we know it" Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act ...into thinking that person was the antichrist Hitler. You fixated 10 years of your life on this misapprehension and let it rewire your whole brain for probably the next 10 at least. If you actually noticed the antichrist you worship against was basically a Democrat, it would make you go oops Democrats from 20-30 years ago were the antichrist Hitler but thank god we've made so much progress since then. Must keep out the cognitive dissonance.
Why do you want to misunderstand, every single time, no matter what it is? You were a centrist at one point and you can’t get the point about Biden being a Republican? Forget agree or disagree, you can’t even get it? Jesus.
You psyopped yourself into thinking:
-someone with the border and immigration policy of Bush and Trump (asylum restrictions by executive order, expanded Title 42, wall construction)
-someone with tougher crime policy than the “law and order” Republicans (if you remember his bipartisan 1994 Crime Bill)
-someone who is a pro-Israel, pro-NATO Cold War hawk
-someone who is personally Catholic, personally opposed to abortion, and who spent decades saying it shouldn’t be imposed
-someone with the trade policy of a Trump Republican (he kept the China tariffs and raised them)
-someone with the military mentality of Bush: vote for Iraq, buy all the expensive MIC toys, record defense budgets, and then run away from Afghanistan
-someone who wants the energy of any pre-“Inconvenient Truth” Republican: Willow, record oil production, LNG export terminals
-someone whose best friends are Delaware credit-card bankers and Wall Street donors
-someone who thinks Russia is the single greatest threat to the world and wants it contained with armed allies
-someone who loves nuclear power and put tax credits behind it
-someone under whom Congress spent their pants off like Bush and Trump
-someone whose 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Act vote pales... no, exceeds anything Republicans ever did to debtors
...into thinking that person was the radical-left Marxist destroyer of America. You fixated years of your life on this misapprehension and let it rewire your whole brain. If you actually noticed the socialist you rail against was basically a Republican, it would make you go oops, Republicans from 20-30 years ago were the radical left, but thank god we’ve made so much progress since then. Must keep out the cognitive dissonance.
|
On November 05 2026 06:58 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2026 02:31 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2026 01:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2026 00:29 PoulsenB wrote:
Some excellent, unhinged Jimmy posts today, this is the stuff I come here for. Between JJR's ignorance of Trump's infamous ogling, harassment, and assault of kids and oBlade's insistence that Trump is actually a Democrat in disguise, I really feel like they're trying to one-up each other. Why do you want to misunderstand, every single time, no matter what it is? You were a professor at one point and you can't get the point about Trump being a Democrat? Forget agree or disagree, you can't even get it? Jesus. You psyopped yourself into thinking: -someone with the border and immigration policy of Clinton and Obama (Deporter-in-Chief) -someone with weaker crime policy than the "Superpredators" Clintons (if you remember his bipartisan first term First Step Act) -someone pro gay marriage -someone who is not personally anti-abortion and only ever made it so abortion policy should be set by laws rather than courts -someone with the trade policy of a pre-NAFTA Democrat -someone who's an anti-ground-war anti-neocon anti-interventionist with the military mentality of Obama and Biden of collect all the intel, buy all the expensive MIC toys, and then kill them and/or run away -someone who wants to cut the bloat of federal government and achieved less to do so than Clinton and Gore's initiatives -someone who wants the energy and manufacturing of any pre-"Inconvenient Truth" union Democrat -someone whose best friends are a fucking electric car magnate and an environmental lawyer/ Kennedy-someone who thinks nuclear weapons are the single greatest threat to the world and wants trilateral denuclearization -someone who loves nuclear power which is what normal environmentalism knew was the clean answer before Three Mile Island made people nuts -someone who wants to make kids as healthy as Michelle Obama wanted -someone under whom Congress spent their pants off like Biden -someone whose 2nd term OBBBA restrictions on welfare eligibility pale in comparison to Clinton's "end welfare as we know it" Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act ...into thinking that person was the antichrist Hitler. You fixated 10 years of your life on this misapprehension and let it rewire your whole brain for probably the next 10 at least. If you actually noticed the antichrist you worship against was basically a Democrat, it would make you go oops Democrats from 20-30 years ago were the antichrist Hitler but thank god we've made so much progress since then. Must keep out the cognitive dissonance. Why do you want to misunderstand, every single time, no matter what it is? You were a centrist at one point and you can’t get the point about Biden being a Republican? Forget agree or disagree, you can’t even get it? Jesus. You psyopped yourself into thinking: -someone with the border and immigration policy of Bush and Trump (asylum restrictions by executive order, expanded Title 42, wall construction) -someone with tougher crime policy than the “law and order” Republicans (if you remember his bipartisan 1994 Crime Bill) -someone who is a pro-Israel, pro-NATO Cold War hawk -someone who is personally Catholic, personally opposed to abortion, and who spent decades saying it shouldn’t be imposed -someone with the trade policy of a Trump Republican (he kept the China tariffs and raised them) -someone with the military mentality of Bush: vote for Iraq, buy all the expensive MIC toys, record defense budgets, and then run away from Afghanistan -someone who wants the energy of any pre-“Inconvenient Truth” Republican: Willow, record oil production, LNG export terminals -someone whose best friends are Delaware credit-card bankers and Wall Street donors -someone who thinks Russia is the single greatest threat to the world and wants it contained with armed allies -someone who loves nuclear power and put tax credits behind it -someone under whom Congress spent their pants off like Bush and Trump -someone whose 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Act vote pales... no, exceeds anything Republicans ever did to debtors ...into thinking that person was the radical-left Marxist destroyer of America. You fixated years of your life on this misapprehension and let it rewire your whole brain. If you actually noticed the socialist you rail against was basically a Republican, it would make you go oops, Republicans from 20-30 years ago were the radical left, but thank god we’ve made so much progress since then. Must keep out the cognitive dissonance.
My favorite part of oBlade's list was how Trump's pro-choice stance is evidence for him being a Democrat. Ya know, that pro-choice stance signified by appointing all conservative Supreme Court Justices, overturning Roe v. Wade, and outlawing abortions in many states. Yeah, that pro-choice stance. Super Democratic, obviously.
|
On November 05 2026 06:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Will the Democrats control enough states to have the opening to hypothetically push through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, thus neutering the Electoral College and potentially deciding a presidential election based on popular vote? Edit: Yes. https://www.axios.com/2026/11/04/democrats-electoral-college-popular-vote-2028 Now the question is: Do the Democrats have the courage to do this? It would make for a fairer election system - hell, Trump even won the popular vote last time - and it'd be legal too.
I expect the SCOTUS will block it from taking effect for any number of reasons. But I'd love if Democrats tried to do it anyway.
|
The interesting part is how quickly he is willing to kick him to the curb after a massive loss . The question is where will all these people who live outside of reality go when Trump is gone. I hope not the Dems, people want the short term boost of these people easily influenced by populist BS but they cause massive long term damage.
|
On November 05 2026 06:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2026 06:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Will the Democrats control enough states to have the opening to hypothetically push through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, thus neutering the Electoral College and potentially deciding a presidential election based on popular vote? No, because you can’t pass a Federal Law that tells states to assign their electors to someone who didn’t win that state. That has to be done at a state level, one at a time, and there’s a prisoner’s dilemma at play. It’s also the opposite of the right direction, rather than force each state to assign electors to the national winner states should be forced to assign electors proportionate to the state’s votes. The goal is to give the White House to the person who won the country, that’s the right way to do it. If you win 60% of every state you get 60% of each state’s electors. You have to control the state to change state law.
The core problem with that plan is that it would require the party who won a state (in the current setup) to give some electors to the other party, while the other party probably won't do anything like that in return.
It really only works if it happens in all states at the same time. But there will always be one party who thinks they will lose from this, so they will not do it in their states.
It is a bit sad, but there seem to be few ways out of this silly situation, because you will always need to convince the people who win in the current situation to give up some of their advantage. And "country before party" or "doing the right thing" is not something US parties do.
|
United States44428 Posts
On November 05 2026 07:34 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2026 06:57 KwarK wrote:On November 05 2026 06:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Will the Democrats control enough states to have the opening to hypothetically push through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, thus neutering the Electoral College and potentially deciding a presidential election based on popular vote? No, because you can’t pass a Federal Law that tells states to assign their electors to someone who didn’t win that state. That has to be done at a state level, one at a time, and there’s a prisoner’s dilemma at play. It’s also the opposite of the right direction, rather than force each state to assign electors to the national winner states should be forced to assign electors proportionate to the state’s votes. The goal is to give the White House to the person who won the country, that’s the right way to do it. If you win 60% of every state you get 60% of each state’s electors. You have to control the state to change state law. The core problem with that plan is that it would require the party who won a state (in the current setup) to give some electors to the other party, while the other party probably won't do anything like that in return. It really only works if it happens in all states at the same time. But there will always be one party who thinks they will lose from this, so they will not do it in their states. It is a bit sad, but there seem to be few ways out of this silly situation, because you will always need to convince the people who win in the current situation to give up some of their advantage. And "country before party" or "doing the right thing" is not something US parties do.
Yep, that’s the prisoner’s dilemma.
|
Trump says Canada will eventually be the 51st state...
so many pillars of Canadian society have crumbled these past 10 years under the weight of zero economic growth and a plummeting birth rate.
the only thing they can discuss is the U.S. of by God "A".
Recently , I was at Canada's largest, busiest, and #1 rail and multi-modal transportation hub... "Union Station".
The place used to have all-Canadian pillars like the burger chain " Harvey's " , Canada's #1 submarine sandwich chain "Mr. Submarine", and chocolate//ice cream chain "Laura Secord". All that stuff is gone.
Now its "Jersey Mike's Subs" ... Replacing Harvey's is teh Shake Shack and Mcdonalds... there is nothing Canadian at Union Station. Its all American all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/2ngcl4r.png)
