|
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 States44432 Posts
On November 06 2026 02:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2026 23:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 05 2026 23:37 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2026 22:49 KwarK wrote:
Wait, you think it's higher prices or lives?
That's not what a higher price means. It's not like all the oil suppliers got together and rose the floor price. The higher price is because people who need oil are bidding for it and not all of them are getting oil. Supply is down and in the global south that means being outbid for oil they need. Higher prices mean lives lost. Lives lost by the world having to invade Iran. You can quantify your global south deaths and compare and it'll probably be less. Moreover, your global south deaths can be avoided. The global north can just help and save them. Which it should be doing anyway. Like when crude was at $100+ for years under Obama (which is much higher in 2026 dollars) and all those people were dying and at risk of dying. But war deaths and the consequences of that can't be avoided. You can also compare that to the consequences of an inevitable regional war, or the expected losses of a potential regional war in the 30s or 40s, or just the deaths of a nuclear Iran doing something nuclear. But Iran wasn't interested in doing anything nuclear before Trump killed the guy who explicitly forbad Iran from doing anything nuclear. And now after Trumps invasion Iran really wants to do something nuclear because it is te only way to be safe from an insane America. So Trump cause a hell of a lot of deaths by making a future hypothetical Iran do something nuclear. Sure they just had hundreds of kilograms of 60% HEU from centrifuges hundreds of meters under mountains for traditional Persian jewelry. The IAEA said since the early 2000s that they couldn't verify that Iran's nuclear programs are just nice happy rainbow civilian activities. If they had no interest in nuclear weapons there wouldn't be multiple administrations kicking the can down the road trying to negotiate stopgap deals about something they had no interest in to begin with. Don't waste my time.
Your stance is that they’re obviously trying to make a nuclear weapon and have been for nearly 30 years now. And your stance is also that they haven’t got one. Feels like no actual action is needed, if they haven’t succeeded yet then they’re not going to. Even NK managed to do it by now. Whatever stopped them from doing it for all this time will presumably continue as long as nothing else changes.
The “I don’t think they’re really trying” argument you’re trying to disprove by citing 30 years of work seems a lot better than the “they’re bad at it” one but even if we accept your premise that they really are trying it doesn’t mean we need to intervene.
|
On November 06 2026 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 00:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2026 23:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2026 23:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2026 20:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2026 14:33 lestye wrote:On November 05 2026 07:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2026 06:58 Geiko wrote:
[quote]
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. "someone who is not personally anti-abortion and only ever made it so abortion policy should be set by laws rather than courts" is a really silly position seeing how the mechanism they used to overturn affirmed stare decis.....was the courts. I haven't posted since the election, so forgive me for doing slow. I, like many people in this thread are incredibly delighted by this development. I am so exhausted with current administration, I really just want to live in a post-him world, and this was the first step. I can't believe how well we overperformed. I really hope we have the balls to enact real change. Maybe not federally but with all the states we control now. I thought getting a senate seat in Texas would be huge, but the fact we got EVERYTHING is absolutely astounding! I'm mostly glad we got rid of Susan Collins. Out of all the races 6 years ago, the fact Trump lost Maine but voted Susan Collins absolutely made my blood boil. Lauren Boebert is gone too so thats fantastic ! I really hope Leftish Democrats and their policies make a name for themselves so we have something exciting to run on in the next Presidential election. Something I was thinking about.... is Trump is very very selfish and a prick. I wonder if we could convince him to get us to bring 2 new states into the union. For a man obsessed with grandeur and legacy, being a President to add 2 new stars to the flag would be pretty huge for our lifetimes. He can't put his face on mt.rushmore and i think that would be the next best thing. as destructive as that would be for republicans, maybe trump wont gaf I'm exhausted by this administration too, and I share in your hope that Congressional Democrats try to pass as much progressive and popular legislation as possible. Trump can either accept those bills and share in some credit (he does like to take credit for things, after all), or Trump can veto everything which makes the Democratic 2028 platform clear: a Democratic Congress is willing to solve these problems, and now all we need is a Democratic President. We just need Congressional Democrats to lock in and vote to pass as many helpful ideas as possible. They can't spend the next two years in-fighting. After Haley Stevens, can we put AIPAC on the list of things establishment/centrist/thirdway/etc Democrats need to stop infighting over and concede to progressives in order to not self-sabotage? Sure, the in-fighting definitely needs to stop. I don't know if this is truly centrist vs. progressive though (e.g., Buttigieg seems to be one of the biggest, most vocal proponents of pushing for a popular vote path, and I'm not sure where you'd place him on the spectrum of centrist Democrats - progressive Democrats). Maybe if I try asking another way. So you're saying Democrat leaders need to stop collaborating with AIPAC/UDP/etc (especially after their candidate endorsed the Republican in a key race) or that progressives need to concede that issue (as well as everything else they disagree on) to stop the infighting?EDIT: Buttigieg is widely considered a third way/centrist liberal, I don't have sufficient reason to disagree with that widespread consensus. Kind of the opposite, actually. They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths. I'm just saying that I don't know if I agree that the issue is between Centrist (No) and Progressive (Yes). Buttigieg is a fine counterexample to your split here, since you characterize him as Centrist even though he's a Yes. Not all Centrists are No (and maybe not all Progressives are Yes). This is actually nonsensical to me. I don't know what "They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths" even means? Why you're mentioning "popular vote" regarding whether or not establishment/centrist/third way Democrats (especially their leaders in the House and Senate) need to stop infighting with progressives on continuing to collaborate with AIPAC/UDP after Haley Stevens (and plenty of other stuff)? Are you trying to say Buttigieg agrees with progressives on Democrat leadership stopping their collaboration with AIPAC/UDP or what? Instead of forcing the labels of Centrist and Progressive here (which don't fit perfectly), let's just say that anyone who isn't on board needs to get on board. Who are you saying needs to concede what to stop the infighting on AIPAC? (or literally ANYTHING you think the establishment/centrists/thirdway Democrats need to concede to their progressive left to stop the infighting to avoid self-sabotaging) Oh this is my mistake; I got my acronyms mixed up. I was talking about the NPVIC / using the popular vote earlier, and I didn't realize that your question was about a different topic / Israel. Mea culpa! I don't know enough about AIPAC to comment.
I would think the "Haley Stevens" context (or when you typed "AIPAC") would have been a clue, but okay.
So when you (or anyone else really) say something like We just need Congressional Democrats to lock in and vote to pass as many helpful ideas as possible. They can't spend the next two years in-fighting.
You don't actually have any idea what they are infighting about/where/which fights establishment/centrists/third way/dyhb Dems need concede to progressives in order to lock-in and not self-sabotage?
Can you (or literally anyone that is going to use this "stop infighting" cliché/euphemism) identify any specific infights that you think needs to stop, and through what process?
|
On November 06 2026 02:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 02:24 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2026 23:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 05 2026 23:37 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2026 22:49 KwarK wrote:
Wait, you think it's higher prices or lives?
That's not what a higher price means. It's not like all the oil suppliers got together and rose the floor price. The higher price is because people who need oil are bidding for it and not all of them are getting oil. Supply is down and in the global south that means being outbid for oil they need. Higher prices mean lives lost. Lives lost by the world having to invade Iran. You can quantify your global south deaths and compare and it'll probably be less. Moreover, your global south deaths can be avoided. The global north can just help and save them. Which it should be doing anyway. Like when crude was at $100+ for years under Obama (which is much higher in 2026 dollars) and all those people were dying and at risk of dying. But war deaths and the consequences of that can't be avoided. You can also compare that to the consequences of an inevitable regional war, or the expected losses of a potential regional war in the 30s or 40s, or just the deaths of a nuclear Iran doing something nuclear. But Iran wasn't interested in doing anything nuclear before Trump killed the guy who explicitly forbad Iran from doing anything nuclear. And now after Trumps invasion Iran really wants to do something nuclear because it is te only way to be safe from an insane America. So Trump cause a hell of a lot of deaths by making a future hypothetical Iran do something nuclear. Sure they just had hundreds of kilograms of 60% HEU from centrifuges hundreds of meters under mountains for traditional Persian jewelry. The IAEA said since the early 2000s that they couldn't verify that Iran's nuclear programs are just nice happy rainbow civilian activities. If they had no interest in nuclear weapons there wouldn't be multiple administrations kicking the can down the road trying to negotiate stopgap deals about something they had no interest in to begin with. Don't waste my time. Your stance is that they’re obviously trying to make a nuclear weapon and have been for nearly 30 years now. And your stance is also that they haven’t got one. Feels like no actual action is needed, if they haven’t succeeded yet then they’re not going to. Even NK managed to do it by now. Whatever stopped them from doing it for all this time will presumably continue as long as nothing else changes. The “I don’t think they’re really trying” argument you’re trying to disprove by citing 30 years of work seems a lot better than the “they’re bad at it” one but even if we accept your premise that they really are trying it doesn’t mean we need to intervene.
I’m just confused about where we are right now, is the whole program obliterated already last time? Was it obliterated during the start of this current on going 3 day special military operation? Or does it still need to be obliterated now? And if they do it now, how will it not reconstitute again?
|
Iran's nuclear program is so ADHD coded because I, too, am perpetually three weeks away from achieving my 40-year-long aspirations
|
On November 06 2026 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 00:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2026 23:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2026 23:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2026 20:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2026 14:33 lestye wrote:On November 05 2026 07:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
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. "someone who is not personally anti-abortion and only ever made it so abortion policy should be set by laws rather than courts" is a really silly position seeing how the mechanism they used to overturn affirmed stare decis.....was the courts. I haven't posted since the election, so forgive me for doing slow. I, like many people in this thread are incredibly delighted by this development. I am so exhausted with current administration, I really just want to live in a post-him world, and this was the first step. I can't believe how well we overperformed. I really hope we have the balls to enact real change. Maybe not federally but with all the states we control now. I thought getting a senate seat in Texas would be huge, but the fact we got EVERYTHING is absolutely astounding! I'm mostly glad we got rid of Susan Collins. Out of all the races 6 years ago, the fact Trump lost Maine but voted Susan Collins absolutely made my blood boil. Lauren Boebert is gone too so thats fantastic ! I really hope Leftish Democrats and their policies make a name for themselves so we have something exciting to run on in the next Presidential election. Something I was thinking about.... is Trump is very very selfish and a prick. I wonder if we could convince him to get us to bring 2 new states into the union. For a man obsessed with grandeur and legacy, being a President to add 2 new stars to the flag would be pretty huge for our lifetimes. He can't put his face on mt.rushmore and i think that would be the next best thing. as destructive as that would be for republicans, maybe trump wont gaf I'm exhausted by this administration too, and I share in your hope that Congressional Democrats try to pass as much progressive and popular legislation as possible. Trump can either accept those bills and share in some credit (he does like to take credit for things, after all), or Trump can veto everything which makes the Democratic 2028 platform clear: a Democratic Congress is willing to solve these problems, and now all we need is a Democratic President. We just need Congressional Democrats to lock in and vote to pass as many helpful ideas as possible. They can't spend the next two years in-fighting. After Haley Stevens, can we put AIPAC on the list of things establishment/centrist/thirdway/etc Democrats need to stop infighting over and concede to progressives in order to not self-sabotage? Sure, the in-fighting definitely needs to stop. I don't know if this is truly centrist vs. progressive though (e.g., Buttigieg seems to be one of the biggest, most vocal proponents of pushing for a popular vote path, and I'm not sure where you'd place him on the spectrum of centrist Democrats - progressive Democrats). Maybe if I try asking another way. So you're saying Democrat leaders need to stop collaborating with AIPAC/UDP/etc (especially after their candidate endorsed the Republican in a key race) or that progressives need to concede that issue (as well as everything else they disagree on) to stop the infighting?EDIT: Buttigieg is widely considered a third way/centrist liberal, I don't have sufficient reason to disagree with that widespread consensus. Kind of the opposite, actually. They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths. I'm just saying that I don't know if I agree that the issue is between Centrist (No) and Progressive (Yes). Buttigieg is a fine counterexample to your split here, since you characterize him as Centrist even though he's a Yes. Not all Centrists are No (and maybe not all Progressives are Yes). This is actually nonsensical to me. I don't know what "They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths" even means? Why you're mentioning "popular vote" regarding whether or not establishment/centrist/third way Democrats (especially their leaders in the House and Senate) need to stop infighting with progressives on continuing to collaborate with AIPAC/UDP after Haley Stevens (and plenty of other stuff)? Are you trying to say Buttigieg agrees with progressives on Democrat leadership stopping their collaboration with AIPAC/UDP or what? Instead of forcing the labels of Centrist and Progressive here (which don't fit perfectly), let's just say that anyone who isn't on board needs to get on board. Who are you saying needs to concede what to stop the infighting on AIPAC? (or literally ANYTHING you think the establishment/centrists/thirdway Democrats need to concede to their progressive left to stop the infighting to avoid self-sabotaging) Oh this is my mistake; I got my acronyms mixed up. I was talking about the NPVIC / using the popular vote earlier, and I didn't realize that your question was about a different topic / Israel. Mea culpa! I don't know enough about AIPAC to comment. I would think the "Haley Stevens" context (or when you typed "AIPAC") would have been a clue, but okay. So when you (or anyone else really) say something like Show nested quote +We just need Congressional Democrats to lock in and vote to pass as many helpful ideas as possible. They can't spend the next two years in-fighting. You don't actually have any idea what they are infighting about/where/which fights establishment/centrists/third way/dyhb Dems need concede to progressives in order to lock-in and not self-sabotage? Can you (or literally anyone that is going to use this "stop infighting" cliché/euphemism) identify any specific infights that you think needs to stop, and through what process?
Medicare For All / healthcare is one such topic where there's in-fighting. Also (again) I'd like to see more Dems get on board with the idea of allocating electoral votes towards the winner of the overall popular vote. And obviously there's also in-fighting in regards to handling Israel's genocide of Palestinians. As far as how these fights are going to stop / the persuasion / "through what process", your guess is as good as mine.
|
On November 06 2026 02:52 LightSpectra wrote:
Hi oBlade, if Trump didn't send Americans to die to stop Iran's nuclear program, would Europe/Israel/whomever else you're imagining have done so?
No.
If they even could.
Iran kills Americans whether we fight back or not. They've killed around ~1000 since the revolution. They wage war on America and our allies, their foreign policy is hostile to multiple allies. If you don't return the favor and stop their conventional buildup and nuclear ambitions, you get them starting the next wars on their terms. Then you don't get to choose. Then you get nasty consequences.
On November 06 2026 02:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 02:24 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2026 23:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 05 2026 23:37 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2026 22:49 KwarK wrote:
Wait, you think it's higher prices or lives?
That's not what a higher price means. It's not like all the oil suppliers got together and rose the floor price. The higher price is because people who need oil are bidding for it and not all of them are getting oil. Supply is down and in the global south that means being outbid for oil they need. Higher prices mean lives lost. Lives lost by the world having to invade Iran. You can quantify your global south deaths and compare and it'll probably be less. Moreover, your global south deaths can be avoided. The global north can just help and save them. Which it should be doing anyway. Like when crude was at $100+ for years under Obama (which is much higher in 2026 dollars) and all those people were dying and at risk of dying. But war deaths and the consequences of that can't be avoided. You can also compare that to the consequences of an inevitable regional war, or the expected losses of a potential regional war in the 30s or 40s, or just the deaths of a nuclear Iran doing something nuclear. But Iran wasn't interested in doing anything nuclear before Trump killed the guy who explicitly forbad Iran from doing anything nuclear. And now after Trumps invasion Iran really wants to do something nuclear because it is te only way to be safe from an insane America. So Trump cause a hell of a lot of deaths by making a future hypothetical Iran do something nuclear. Sure they just had hundreds of kilograms of 60% HEU from centrifuges hundreds of meters under mountains for traditional Persian jewelry. The IAEA said since the early 2000s that they couldn't verify that Iran's nuclear programs are just nice happy rainbow civilian activities. If they had no interest in nuclear weapons there wouldn't be multiple administrations kicking the can down the road trying to negotiate stopgap deals about something they had no interest in to begin with. Don't waste my time. Your stance is that they’re obviously trying to make a nuclear weapon and have been for nearly 30 years now. And your stance is also that they haven’t got one. Feels like no actual action is needed, if they haven’t succeeded yet then they’re not going to. Even NK managed to do it by now. Whatever stopped them from doing it for all this time will presumably continue as long as nothing else changes.
Here the turkey on the eve of Thanksgiving concludes he obviously won't wake up as dinner tomorrow because he survived the last 364 days.
The DPRK already built up the conventional shield. Took them more than 30+ years from start to deliverable weapon if that's the number you want to go by.
One nuke doesn't work because if you have no other power, you lose the nuke (or the pre-nuke). This happened to Syria when their nuke program in a shed (a plutonium reactor for weapons) got obliterated by Israeli jet squadrons.
Or for example the UK's entire military is like two divisions and 6 destroyers. They even took the Seal Team 6 trick of naming their army divisions 1st Division and 3rd Division so it intimidates people by making it look like they actually have at least 3. By the next decade they will have fewer tanks than nukes. (The US probably also has more nukes than tanks, but seems to have enough of both.) In terms of raw security they and their nukes are in a flakier place than the DPRK's. The only reason the UK's nuclear arsenal is safer than the DPRK is external factors - island, surrounded by allies, vs. artificial island flanked by enemies. They lucked out with that draw but discounting DPRK with "even" is a misunderstanding. By most measures Egypt or Argentina or Poland or Australia are better than little "even" DPRK but if they tried to move nuclear ambitions forward they would not make it far enough before getting cut off.
|
I mean, there is a fatwa that the guy USA martyred did against Nuclear weapons.
Iranian president has, as of this September said the fatwa is still in place and nukes are haram.
The only people who are buying Netyanahu's "2 weeks away, any moment now" bullshit he's been pushing for 30 years are Trump and his cultists, and I'm not really sold on Trump buying it, for him it seems more like he believed he'll do another Venezuela, blow up Khamenei, blow up a bunch of ships and airfields and they'll surrender because in his dementia riddled pedo head he's the "great man of history" and things always fall his way.
|
On November 06 2026 03:38 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 02:52 LightSpectra wrote:
Hi oBlade, if Trump didn't send Americans to die to stop Iran's nuclear program, would Europe/Israel/whomever else you're imagining have done so? No. If they even could. Iran kills Americans whether we fight back or not. They've killed around ~1000 since the revolution. They wage war on America and our allies, their foreign policy is hostile to multiple allies. If you don't return the favor and stop their conventional buildup and nuclear ambitions, you get them starting the next wars on their terms. Then you don't get to choose. Then you get nasty consequences.
Okay, so you're withdrawing your statement "Lives lost by the world having to invade Iran" since now you're claiming that never would happen?
|
On November 06 2026 03:42 Jankisa wrote:
I mean, there is a fatwa that the guy USA martyred did against Nuclear weapons.
Iranian president has, as of this September said the fatwa is still in place and nukes are haram.
The only people who are buying Netyanahu's "2 weeks away, any moment now" bullshit he's been pushing for 30 years are Trump and his cultists, and I'm not really sold on Trump buying it, for him it seems more like he believed he'll do another Venezuela, blow up Khamenei, blow up a bunch of ships and airfields and they'll surrender because in his dementia riddled pedo head he's the "great man of history" and things always fall his way.
And lets be honest. If Iran really wants nukes, they just need to wait for this conflict to end. Then they have a ~10-year window to get them where no one will dare to fuck with them again.
And they have a very good reason to have nukes, too, because they know that if they had had them, the US wouldn't have bombed their stuff. While that seems to be turning out somewhat okay for them, they'd probably have preferred to stay unbombed.
|
Sadly, i only have a German source for this. But it seems to turn out that the ships transporting the Diesel fuel from Trumps deal to the US have turned around and are now heading to other places like Brazil. So, turns out all of that was a complete nothingburger, the whole deal was just theater for the midterms, and Trump sabotaged Ukraine for absolutely nothing at all, and the fuel is going to the people who would normally buy Russian fuel to begin with.
https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Schiffe-drehen-ab-platzt-der-US-Diesel-Deal-mit-Putin-id31498736.html
|
United States10625 Posts
So I'm watching a lot of recap videos and sort of de-briefing from analysts. I've been wondering a few points here:
From Republican's side: messaging across the board from JD Vance, Cruz, even DeSantis has been trying to distance themselves from Trump without outright saying it. The rats are jumping off the boat so to speak. But Trump is still in charge for 2 years, especially while some will begin their 2028 campaign. Realistically, who are the Republicans going to field? JD Vance of course, Rubio, DeSantis again, maybe Cruz? Cruz might not because now that Hinojosa is going to be governor, it means Cruz's seat would be appointed (would be hilarious if she were to appoint Beto in that event). Is there a strong Republican that can rise above the Trump-led Republican party to build a new party from the ashes as Trump fades out? How long might that take? I don't envision that 2028 will be that much better for Republicans. Not a blue tsunami like we saw, but it still might be a mini-referendum to reject Trump and his cronies one more time, giving a potential Dem supermajority in the Senate. Republicans have a lot of work to do to re-imagine the party and deliver a good message for the voters that things will be different in a post-Trump Republican party, but they may not have enough time to do that.
For Democrats, what is their idea forward? There's a lot of ways to review the results and pull conclusions from. Is this the new progressive wave that's taking control of the party? Was this just a rejection of Trump and Dems should still focus on being moderate? This key issue is really going to be important for them to make the right decision moving forward so they don't blow 2028. They have a huge opportunity now to push for even more seats and get a strangle hold of Congress from 2029-2031 and ram through legislation that could ultimately change the course of this country forever. They have to get it right. We have a lot of progressives that won big elections. El Sayed was the notable one. Mamdani is still pushing strong and hauling the progressive wing along with him and his success. Does this position AOC for a legitimate challenge and will Mamdani throw his support behind her to try to push her across for the general? Or will it be the obvious choice right now which is Ossoff? Ossoff has been on fire lately, but his Jewish tag and seemingly favorable views of Israel could be a very large detriment that hurts voter enthusiasm, which we saw from this election is king. Can he appeal to the broader Democratic coalition to get them to turnout and fully clinch that blue tide across 26 and 28?
The country is moving into gridlock for these next 2 years, and Trump is effectively a lame duck. But there's still a lot of work that can still be done. A lot of Democrats have signaled that they are going to work with Trump, but only if Trump is reasonable, to keep the country moving forward. Talarico, El Sayed, all have said they're open to talks with the president. How much vendetta and revenge are they going to look for though? Especially on members like Noem, Hegseth, and Patel, who are the biggest offenders in that cabinet. Jeffries has signaled it will be mostly moving forward and looking into the future to deliver for Americans rather than playing the vengeance card. Will Americans respond well to that?
It's only going to get more interesting, and I think 2026 is merely the prequel to what is going to shape up to be a highly anticipated and interesting 2028 general. Democrats still have a lot of work to do while Republicans likely are going to rebuild from the ashes.
|
On November 06 2026 03:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 00:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2026 23:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2026 23:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2026 20:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2026 14:33 lestye wrote:
[quote]
"someone who is not personally anti-abortion and only ever made it so abortion policy should be set by laws rather than courts" is a really silly position seeing how the mechanism they used to overturn affirmed stare decis.....was the courts.
I haven't posted since the election, so forgive me for doing slow. I, like many people in this thread are incredibly delighted by this development.
I am so exhausted with current administration, I really just want to live in a post-him world, and this was the first step.
I can't believe how well we overperformed. I really hope we have the balls to enact real change. Maybe not federally but with all the states we control now. I thought getting a senate seat in Texas would be huge, but the fact we got EVERYTHING is absolutely astounding!
I'm mostly glad we got rid of Susan Collins. Out of all the races 6 years ago, the fact Trump lost Maine but voted Susan Collins absolutely made my blood boil. Lauren Boebert is gone too so thats fantastic !
I really hope Leftish Democrats and their policies make a name for themselves so we have something exciting to run on in the next Presidential election.
Something I was thinking about.... is Trump is very very selfish and a prick. I wonder if we could convince him to get us to bring 2 new states into the union. For a man obsessed with grandeur and legacy, being a President to add 2 new stars to the flag would be pretty huge for our lifetimes. He can't put his face on mt.rushmore and i think that would be the next best thing.
as destructive as that would be for republicans, maybe trump wont gaf
I'm exhausted by this administration too, and I share in your hope that Congressional Democrats try to pass as much progressive and popular legislation as possible. Trump can either accept those bills and share in some credit (he does like to take credit for things, after all), or Trump can veto everything which makes the Democratic 2028 platform clear: a Democratic Congress is willing to solve these problems, and now all we need is a Democratic President. We just need Congressional Democrats to lock in and vote to pass as many helpful ideas as possible. They can't spend the next two years in-fighting. After Haley Stevens, can we put AIPAC on the list of things establishment/centrist/thirdway/etc Democrats need to stop infighting over and concede to progressives in order to not self-sabotage? Sure, the in-fighting definitely needs to stop. I don't know if this is truly centrist vs. progressive though (e.g., Buttigieg seems to be one of the biggest, most vocal proponents of pushing for a popular vote path, and I'm not sure where you'd place him on the spectrum of centrist Democrats - progressive Democrats). Maybe if I try asking another way. So you're saying Democrat leaders need to stop collaborating with AIPAC/UDP/etc (especially after their candidate endorsed the Republican in a key race) or that progressives need to concede that issue (as well as everything else they disagree on) to stop the infighting?EDIT: Buttigieg is widely considered a third way/centrist liberal, I don't have sufficient reason to disagree with that widespread consensus. Kind of the opposite, actually. They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths. I'm just saying that I don't know if I agree that the issue is between Centrist (No) and Progressive (Yes). Buttigieg is a fine counterexample to your split here, since you characterize him as Centrist even though he's a Yes. Not all Centrists are No (and maybe not all Progressives are Yes). This is actually nonsensical to me. I don't know what "They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths" even means? Why you're mentioning "popular vote" regarding whether or not establishment/centrist/third way Democrats (especially their leaders in the House and Senate) need to stop infighting with progressives on continuing to collaborate with AIPAC/UDP after Haley Stevens (and plenty of other stuff)? Are you trying to say Buttigieg agrees with progressives on Democrat leadership stopping their collaboration with AIPAC/UDP or what? Instead of forcing the labels of Centrist and Progressive here (which don't fit perfectly), let's just say that anyone who isn't on board needs to get on board. Who are you saying needs to concede what to stop the infighting on AIPAC? (or literally ANYTHING you think the establishment/centrists/thirdway Democrats need to concede to their progressive left to stop the infighting to avoid self-sabotaging) Oh this is my mistake; I got my acronyms mixed up. I was talking about the NPVIC / using the popular vote earlier, and I didn't realize that your question was about a different topic / Israel. Mea culpa! I don't know enough about AIPAC to comment. I would think the "Haley Stevens" context (or when you typed "AIPAC") would have been a clue, but okay. So when you (or anyone else really) say something like We just need Congressional Democrats to lock in and vote to pass as many helpful ideas as possible. They can't spend the next two years in-fighting. You don't actually have any idea what they are infighting about/where/which fights establishment/centrists/third way/dyhb Dems need concede to progressives in order to lock-in and not self-sabotage? Can you (or literally anyone that is going to use this "stop infighting" cliché/euphemism) identify any specific infights that you think needs to stop, and through what process? Medicare For All / healthcare is one such topic where there's in-fighting. Also (again) I'd like to see more Dems get on board with the idea of allocating electoral votes towards the winner of the overall popular vote. And obviously there's also in-fighting in regards to handling Israel's genocide of Palestinians. As far as how these fights are going to stop / the persuasion / "through what process", your guess is as good as mine.
Well since "Medicare For All" is a policy with pretty established factions (I doubt there's a united progressive faction in opposition of NPVIC like there is AIPAC?) for and against in the party, let's get into what people believe the in-fight about M4A is and who needs to concede what to make it stop to avoid self-sabotaging?
It's possibly the best example of something that meets these hopes/plans/etc:
... hope Leftish Democrats and their policies make a name for themselves so we have something exciting to run on in the next Presidential election.
and/or
Democrats try to pass as much progressive and popular legislation as possible. Trump can either accept those bills and share in some credit (he does like to take credit for things, after all), or Trump can veto everything which makes the Democratic 2028 platform clear: a Democratic Congress is willing to solve these problems, and now all we need is a Democratic President.
+ Show Spoiler +Hell, even Trump once said things like: We must have universal healthcare. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many horror stories of people dying who could not afford insurance.
Another way to think about what I'm asking is "What does dyhb's faction of centrist/establishment Democrats have to concede to LightSpectra's progressive faction of Democrats (in this case on Universal Healthcare) in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests"?
The "progressives/LS/DPB" faction has to be able to identify what the "establishment/corporate/dyhb" faction needs to concede or else "not infighting" is logically/literally just conceding to/uncritically falling in line behind the "establishment/corporate/dyhb" faction.
|
From outside looking in, to me, it seems like the second biggest (other then the economy, stupid) driver of enthusiasm and turnout among the voters was the anti-corruption message.
It absolutely sunk the fuck out of Paxton in Texas and with that he pulled others across the line to a blue Texas. I find it hard to believe that Collins could have lost Maine if she wasn't caught in her scandal a few weeks ahead of the elections.
Trump's low popularity was absolutely on the ballot as well, given that again, after the economy his most visible flaw during this administration is just an unbelievable and brazen levels of corruption, I don't see how this anti-corruption message wasn't at least top 3, if not the second biggest factor in this tremendous defeat.
If all of that is true, electing Jeffries and Schumer again who are signaling, as they always do, fecklessness and "unity" despite GOP laughing in their faces for 20 years is a very stupid idea. I don't think that this should be the hill to die on for Democrats and I'd be fine if the compromise between the progressive new blood and the conservative old one was "you get to keep your leadership we get all the relevant comity appointments and you remove the gloves and let us go after corruption".
Unfortunately, for me, I've been burn too many times in having faith that the Democratic leadership will do the right thing, but, then again, there are some good signs like Robert Garcia who will almost inevitably be set as the Oversight chair and who is out for blood, so let's hope that all happens, the leadership sees how popular it is and goes all in on it.
First thing that Democrats should do on Jan 21st (assuming there is a session) is ban Congress and Senate stock trading, sending a strong "we are not like them" message and opening investigations and handing out subpoenas to Hegseth and the rest of the clown car, that would be a good start and make me very optimistic.
Don't think that can happen if Jeffries and Schumer stay as leaders.
![[image loading]](https://s.yimg.com/lo/mysterio/api/caa4c1f2aaacabeadcce7ca082a72c87c6ccbd2eed499a0497f6ac7b4768fb13/lightyear_networkapi/resizefill_w860_h857%3Bquality_80%3Bformat_webp/https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen%2Fmediaite_845%2Fd86285bebe1c648dfa8c2c7a4f724811)
|
On November 06 2026 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 03:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 00:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2026 23:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2026 23:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2026 20:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I'm exhausted by this administration too, and I share in your hope that Congressional Democrats try to pass as much progressive and popular legislation as possible. Trump can either accept those bills and share in some credit (he does like to take credit for things, after all), or Trump can veto everything which makes the Democratic 2028 platform clear: a Democratic Congress is willing to solve these problems, and now all we need is a Democratic President.
We just need Congressional Democrats to lock in and vote to pass as many helpful ideas as possible. They can't spend the next two years in-fighting. After Haley Stevens, can we put AIPAC on the list of things establishment/centrist/thirdway/etc Democrats need to stop infighting over and concede to progressives in order to not self-sabotage? Sure, the in-fighting definitely needs to stop. I don't know if this is truly centrist vs. progressive though (e.g., Buttigieg seems to be one of the biggest, most vocal proponents of pushing for a popular vote path, and I'm not sure where you'd place him on the spectrum of centrist Democrats - progressive Democrats). Maybe if I try asking another way. So you're saying Democrat leaders need to stop collaborating with AIPAC/UDP/etc (especially after their candidate endorsed the Republican in a key race) or that progressives need to concede that issue (as well as everything else they disagree on) to stop the infighting?EDIT: Buttigieg is widely considered a third way/centrist liberal, I don't have sufficient reason to disagree with that widespread consensus. Kind of the opposite, actually. They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths. I'm just saying that I don't know if I agree that the issue is between Centrist (No) and Progressive (Yes). Buttigieg is a fine counterexample to your split here, since you characterize him as Centrist even though he's a Yes. Not all Centrists are No (and maybe not all Progressives are Yes). This is actually nonsensical to me. I don't know what "They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths" even means? Why you're mentioning "popular vote" regarding whether or not establishment/centrist/third way Democrats (especially their leaders in the House and Senate) need to stop infighting with progressives on continuing to collaborate with AIPAC/UDP after Haley Stevens (and plenty of other stuff)? Are you trying to say Buttigieg agrees with progressives on Democrat leadership stopping their collaboration with AIPAC/UDP or what? Instead of forcing the labels of Centrist and Progressive here (which don't fit perfectly), let's just say that anyone who isn't on board needs to get on board. Who are you saying needs to concede what to stop the infighting on AIPAC? (or literally ANYTHING you think the establishment/centrists/thirdway Democrats need to concede to their progressive left to stop the infighting to avoid self-sabotaging) Oh this is my mistake; I got my acronyms mixed up. I was talking about the NPVIC / using the popular vote earlier, and I didn't realize that your question was about a different topic / Israel. Mea culpa! I don't know enough about AIPAC to comment. I would think the "Haley Stevens" context (or when you typed "AIPAC") would have been a clue, but okay. So when you (or anyone else really) say something like We just need Congressional Democrats to lock in and vote to pass as many helpful ideas as possible. They can't spend the next two years in-fighting. You don't actually have any idea what they are infighting about/where/which fights establishment/centrists/third way/dyhb Dems need concede to progressives in order to lock-in and not self-sabotage? Can you (or literally anyone that is going to use this "stop infighting" cliché/euphemism) identify any specific infights that you think needs to stop, and through what process? Medicare For All / healthcare is one such topic where there's in-fighting. Also (again) I'd like to see more Dems get on board with the idea of allocating electoral votes towards the winner of the overall popular vote. And obviously there's also in-fighting in regards to handling Israel's genocide of Palestinians. As far as how these fights are going to stop / the persuasion / "through what process", your guess is as good as mine. Well since "Medicare For All" is a policy with pretty established factions (I doubt there's a united progressive faction in opposition of NPVIC like there is AIPAC?) for and against in the party, let's get into what people believe the in-fight about M4A is and who needs to concede what to make it stop to avoid self-sabotaging? It's possibly the best example of something that meets these hopes/plans/etc: Show nested quote + ... hope Leftish Democrats and their policies make a name for themselves so we have something exciting to run on in the next Presidential election.
and/or Show nested quote +Democrats try to pass as much progressive and popular legislation as possible. Trump can either accept those bills and share in some credit (he does like to take credit for things, after all), or Trump can veto everything which makes the Democratic 2028 platform clear: a Democratic Congress is willing to solve these problems, and now all we need is a Democratic President. + Show Spoiler +Hell, even Trump once said things like: We must have universal healthcare. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many horror stories of people dying who could not afford insurance. Another way to think about what I'm asking is "What does dyhb's faction of centrist/establishment Democrats have to concede to LightSpectra's progressive faction of Democrats (in this case on Universal Healthcare) in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests"? The "progressives/LS/DPB" faction has to be able to identify what the "establishment/corporate/dyhb" faction needs to concede or else "not infighting" is logically/literally just conceding to/uncritically falling in line behind the "establishment/corporate/dyhb" faction.
What's wrong with the examples I just mentioned, such as M4A? As I said before: Congressional Dems should try to propose and pass as much as possible, and force Trump to either veto or accept popular progressive policies that the American people support. Hell, there's a 50/50 chance that Trump changes his mind about M4A if we promise to call it Trumpcare and tell him it's even better than Obamacare.
|
On November 06 2026 04:28 Jankisa wrote:
If all of that is true, electing Jeffries and Schumer again who are signaling, as they always do, fecklessness and "unity" despite GOP laughing in their faces for 20 years is a very stupid idea.
Where did they say this?
I don't think most people realize that party leaders in Congress aren't supposed to be popular. They take the heat for unpopular decisions because the alternatives are politically unfeasible/unrealistic, that's why they always come from safe seats. Most intra-party fighting you see is just keyfabe so congresspeople can run against them.
Having said that, sure, Schumer and Jeffries have said and supported a lot of things that don't sit well with me, but people thinking Congress is going to behave a lot differently if they're ousted is not a realistic expectation. If AOC became Speaker and Ossoff became Senate Majority Leader they'd become hated for the same reasons Schumer and Jeffries are.
|
On November 06 2026 04:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 03:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 00:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2026 23:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2026 23:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
After Haley Stevens, can we put AIPAC on the list of things establishment/centrist/thirdway/etc Democrats need to stop infighting over and concede to progressives in order to not self-sabotage?
Sure, the in-fighting definitely needs to stop. I don't know if this is truly centrist vs. progressive though (e.g., Buttigieg seems to be one of the biggest, most vocal proponents of pushing for a popular vote path, and I'm not sure where you'd place him on the spectrum of centrist Democrats - progressive Democrats). Maybe if I try asking another way. So you're saying Democrat leaders need to stop collaborating with AIPAC/UDP/etc (especially after their candidate endorsed the Republican in a key race) or that progressives need to concede that issue (as well as everything else they disagree on) to stop the infighting?EDIT: Buttigieg is widely considered a third way/centrist liberal, I don't have sufficient reason to disagree with that widespread consensus. Kind of the opposite, actually. They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths. I'm just saying that I don't know if I agree that the issue is between Centrist (No) and Progressive (Yes). Buttigieg is a fine counterexample to your split here, since you characterize him as Centrist even though he's a Yes. Not all Centrists are No (and maybe not all Progressives are Yes). This is actually nonsensical to me. I don't know what "They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths" even means? Why you're mentioning "popular vote" regarding whether or not establishment/centrist/third way Democrats (especially their leaders in the House and Senate) need to stop infighting with progressives on continuing to collaborate with AIPAC/UDP after Haley Stevens (and plenty of other stuff)? Are you trying to say Buttigieg agrees with progressives on Democrat leadership stopping their collaboration with AIPAC/UDP or what? Instead of forcing the labels of Centrist and Progressive here (which don't fit perfectly), let's just say that anyone who isn't on board needs to get on board. Who are you saying needs to concede what to stop the infighting on AIPAC? (or literally ANYTHING you think the establishment/centrists/thirdway Democrats need to concede to their progressive left to stop the infighting to avoid self-sabotaging) Oh this is my mistake; I got my acronyms mixed up. I was talking about the NPVIC / using the popular vote earlier, and I didn't realize that your question was about a different topic / Israel. Mea culpa! I don't know enough about AIPAC to comment. I would think the "Haley Stevens" context (or when you typed "AIPAC") would have been a clue, but okay. So when you (or anyone else really) say something like We just need Congressional Democrats to lock in and vote to pass as many helpful ideas as possible. They can't spend the next two years in-fighting. You don't actually have any idea what they are infighting about/where/which fights establishment/centrists/third way/dyhb Dems need concede to progressives in order to lock-in and not self-sabotage? Can you (or literally anyone that is going to use this "stop infighting" cliché/euphemism) identify any specific infights that you think needs to stop, and through what process? Medicare For All / healthcare is one such topic where there's in-fighting. Also (again) I'd like to see more Dems get on board with the idea of allocating electoral votes towards the winner of the overall popular vote. And obviously there's also in-fighting in regards to handling Israel's genocide of Palestinians. As far as how these fights are going to stop / the persuasion / "through what process", your guess is as good as mine. Well since "Medicare For All" is a policy with pretty established factions (I doubt there's a united progressive faction in opposition of NPVIC like there is AIPAC?) for and against in the party, let's get into what people believe the in-fight about M4A is and who needs to concede what to make it stop to avoid self-sabotaging? It's possibly the best example of something that meets these hopes/plans/etc: ... hope Leftish Democrats and their policies make a name for themselves so we have something exciting to run on in the next Presidential election.
and/or Democrats try to pass as much progressive and popular legislation as possible. Trump can either accept those bills and share in some credit (he does like to take credit for things, after all), or Trump can veto everything which makes the Democratic 2028 platform clear: a Democratic Congress is willing to solve these problems, and now all we need is a Democratic President. + Show Spoiler +Hell, even Trump once said things like: We must have universal healthcare. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many horror stories of people dying who could not afford insurance. Another way to think about what I'm asking is "What does dyhb's faction of centrist/establishment Democrats have to concede to LightSpectra's progressive faction of Democrats (in this case on Universal Healthcare) in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests"? The "progressives/LS/DPB" faction has to be able to identify what the "establishment/corporate/dyhb" faction needs to concede or else "not infighting" is logically/literally just conceding to/uncritically falling in line behind the "establishment/corporate/dyhb" faction. What's wrong with the examples I just mentioned, such as M4A? As I said before: Congressional Dems should try to propose and pass as much as possible, and force Trump to either veto or accept popular progressive policies that the American people support. Hell, there's a 50/50 chance that Trump changes his mind about M4A if we promise to call it Trumpcare and tell him it's even better than Obamacare.
Is this another misunderstanding?
I was trying to advance the discussion on the M4A example specifically ala
1."What is the in-fight on Medicare for All (or whatever iteration) specifically about?"
2. "Who needs to concede what to make the in-fighting on M4A stop in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests".
I don't think there's necessarily something wrong with your other examples, just that I don't think there's an organized opposition to NPVIC in the party is there? Also, as I mentioned AIPAC to start, I'd be open to diving into those questions regarding that/Israel too (as it certainly overlaps with Schumer and Jeffries as leaders), but I figured the healthcare example had the best potential for productive discussion to the widest audience.
|
On November 06 2026 03:54 Simberto wrote:Sadly, i only have a German source for this. But it seems to turn out that the ships transporting the Diesel fuel from Trumps deal to the US have turned around and are now heading to other places like Brazil. So, turns out all of that was a complete nothingburger, the whole deal was just theater for the midterms, and Trump sabotaged Ukraine for absolutely nothing at all, and the fuel is going to the people who would normally buy Russian fuel to begin with. https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Schiffe-drehen-ab-platzt-der-US-Diesel-Deal-mit-Putin-id31498736.html It was always show, it wasn't enough diesel for even a day.
But also recently governors were warning the ports that despite Trumps 'deal' there is still a law in effect that makes it illegal to buy Russian diesel and that if they unloaded those ships they would be prosecuted.
|
On November 06 2026 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 04:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 03:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2026 00:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2026 00:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2026 23:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Sure, the in-fighting definitely needs to stop. I don't know if this is truly centrist vs. progressive though (e.g., Buttigieg seems to be one of the biggest, most vocal proponents of pushing for a popular vote path, and I'm not sure where you'd place him on the spectrum of centrist Democrats - progressive Democrats). Maybe if I try asking another way. So you're saying Democrat leaders need to stop collaborating with AIPAC/UDP/etc (especially after their candidate endorsed the Republican in a key race) or that progressives need to concede that issue (as well as everything else they disagree on) to stop the infighting?EDIT: Buttigieg is widely considered a third way/centrist liberal, I don't have sufficient reason to disagree with that widespread consensus. Kind of the opposite, actually. They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths. I'm just saying that I don't know if I agree that the issue is between Centrist (No) and Progressive (Yes). Buttigieg is a fine counterexample to your split here, since you characterize him as Centrist even though he's a Yes. Not all Centrists are No (and maybe not all Progressives are Yes). This is actually nonsensical to me. I don't know what "They need to all get on board with AIPAC / popular vote paths" even means? Why you're mentioning "popular vote" regarding whether or not establishment/centrist/third way Democrats (especially their leaders in the House and Senate) need to stop infighting with progressives on continuing to collaborate with AIPAC/UDP after Haley Stevens (and plenty of other stuff)? Are you trying to say Buttigieg agrees with progressives on Democrat leadership stopping their collaboration with AIPAC/UDP or what? Instead of forcing the labels of Centrist and Progressive here (which don't fit perfectly), let's just say that anyone who isn't on board needs to get on board. Who are you saying needs to concede what to stop the infighting on AIPAC? (or literally ANYTHING you think the establishment/centrists/thirdway Democrats need to concede to their progressive left to stop the infighting to avoid self-sabotaging) Oh this is my mistake; I got my acronyms mixed up. I was talking about the NPVIC / using the popular vote earlier, and I didn't realize that your question was about a different topic / Israel. Mea culpa! I don't know enough about AIPAC to comment. I would think the "Haley Stevens" context (or when you typed "AIPAC") would have been a clue, but okay. So when you (or anyone else really) say something like We just need Congressional Democrats to lock in and vote to pass as many helpful ideas as possible. They can't spend the next two years in-fighting. You don't actually have any idea what they are infighting about/where/which fights establishment/centrists/third way/dyhb Dems need concede to progressives in order to lock-in and not self-sabotage? Can you (or literally anyone that is going to use this "stop infighting" cliché/euphemism) identify any specific infights that you think needs to stop, and through what process? Medicare For All / healthcare is one such topic where there's in-fighting. Also (again) I'd like to see more Dems get on board with the idea of allocating electoral votes towards the winner of the overall popular vote. And obviously there's also in-fighting in regards to handling Israel's genocide of Palestinians. As far as how these fights are going to stop / the persuasion / "through what process", your guess is as good as mine. Well since "Medicare For All" is a policy with pretty established factions (I doubt there's a united progressive faction in opposition of NPVIC like there is AIPAC?) for and against in the party, let's get into what people believe the in-fight about M4A is and who needs to concede what to make it stop to avoid self-sabotaging? It's possibly the best example of something that meets these hopes/plans/etc: ... hope Leftish Democrats and their policies make a name for themselves so we have something exciting to run on in the next Presidential election.
and/or Democrats try to pass as much progressive and popular legislation as possible. Trump can either accept those bills and share in some credit (he does like to take credit for things, after all), or Trump can veto everything which makes the Democratic 2028 platform clear: a Democratic Congress is willing to solve these problems, and now all we need is a Democratic President. + Show Spoiler +Hell, even Trump once said things like: We must have universal healthcare. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many horror stories of people dying who could not afford insurance. Another way to think about what I'm asking is "What does dyhb's faction of centrist/establishment Democrats have to concede to LightSpectra's progressive faction of Democrats (in this case on Universal Healthcare) in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests"? The "progressives/LS/DPB" faction has to be able to identify what the "establishment/corporate/dyhb" faction needs to concede or else "not infighting" is logically/literally just conceding to/uncritically falling in line behind the "establishment/corporate/dyhb" faction. What's wrong with the examples I just mentioned, such as M4A? As I said before: Congressional Dems should try to propose and pass as much as possible, and force Trump to either veto or accept popular progressive policies that the American people support. Hell, there's a 50/50 chance that Trump changes his mind about M4A if we promise to call it Trumpcare and tell him it's even better than Obamacare. Is this another misunderstanding? I was trying to advance the discussion on the M4A example specifically ala 1."What is the in-fight on Medicare for All (or whatever iteration) specifically about?" 2. "Who needs to concede what to make the in-fighting on M4A stop in order to not self-sabotage their mutual interest in Democrats obtaining and utilizing their power for all of our collective best interests". I don't think there's necessarily something wrong with your other examples, just that I don't think there's an organized opposition to NPVIC in the party is there? Also, as I mentioned AIPAC to start, I'd be open to diving into those questions regarding that/Israel too (as it certainly overlaps with Schumer and Jeffries as leaders), but I figured the healthcare example had the best potential for productive discussion to the widest audience.
1. A lot of the in-fighting seems to be between 3 groups: keep healthcare in its current form vs. add an optional Medicare alternative (Medicare For All *Who Want It* - Buttigieg had taken this position back in the day; maybe he still prefers this) vs. a true "mandatory" single-payer overhaul (real M4A).
2. I think the first group (not changing healthcare at all) needs to completely concede and buy in to either group two (M4AWWI) or ideally group three (true M4A). It'll be more realistic for them to scoot over a bit to M4AWWI than all the way over to true M4A, if they agree to budge at all. I'd love to get all group one and group two Dems into group three, but I'd settle for some sort of consensus that at least deserts the group one notion that no changes in healthcare are needed.
I'd like to see some sort of healthcare policy evolve from that starting point, and be proposed before Trump's term is over. If something like group two (M4AWWI) ends up being the most progressive they can agree on, then I imagine an interesting topic for the 2028 presidential primary could be group two Dem candidates vs. group three Dem candidates.
|
On November 06 2026 04:45 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 04:28 Jankisa wrote:
If all of that is true, electing Jeffries and Schumer again who are signaling, as they always do, fecklessness and "unity" despite GOP laughing in their faces for 20 years is a very stupid idea. Where did they say this? I don't think most people realize that party leaders in Congress aren't supposed to be popular. They take the heat for unpopular decisions that are politically unfeasible/unrealistic, that's why they always come from safe seats. Most intra-party fighting you see is just keyfabe so congresspeople can run against them. Having said that, sure, Schumer and Jeffries have said and supported a lot of things that don't sit well with me, but people thinking Congress is going to behave a lot differently if they're ousted is not a realistic expectation. If AOC became Speaker and Ossoff became Senate Majority Leader they'd become hated for the same reasons Schumer and Jeffries are.
That's just an unprovable "point", so why would you even bring it up?
No progressive, non-corporate and super popular Democrat was even elected to either position, so throwing out a statement like that makes no sense.
Schumer and Pelosi never worked outside of politics in their lives, Jeffries was a corporate lawyer for 9 years, similarly, Harry Reid was a lawyer for a bit, Tom Daschle has no private sector experience and Dick Gephardt was a lawyer for 6 years before becoming a professional politician.
People are sick of those people, especially if those people try to present themselves as their champions while refusing to support bipartisan bills to stop stock trading and enriching themselves while in office.
Democrats never tried to actually put popular people in these positions, but you are certain that it wouldn't work for, reasons, I guess.
“The American people don’t want us to get even. They want us to get things done on their behalf because life is way too expensive,”
That is a stupid thing to say. That is 100 % playing into hands of the Republican "lawfare" bullshit, holding people accountable for the crimes they did while in office is not revenge, it's justice, and this guy in his first move after the election says something like this.
It's also dumb from an economics standpoint, "things being too expensive" is broad and unachievable goal, inflation never goes down and there is nothing that is not veto proof they can actually do on affordability, again, not a very strategic thing to say even if we get over the "get even" idiocy.
It's bad, he is not the man for the job, it's pretty simple.
|
On November 06 2026 05:25 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2026 04:45 LightSpectra wrote:On November 06 2026 04:28 Jankisa wrote:
If all of that is true, electing Jeffries and Schumer again who are signaling, as they always do, fecklessness and "unity" despite GOP laughing in their faces for 20 years is a very stupid idea. Where did they say this? I don't think most people realize that party leaders in Congress aren't supposed to be popular. They take the heat for unpopular decisions that are politically unfeasible/unrealistic, that's why they always come from safe seats. Most intra-party fighting you see is just keyfabe so congresspeople can run against them. Having said that, sure, Schumer and Jeffries have said and supported a lot of things that don't sit well with me, but people thinking Congress is going to behave a lot differently if they're ousted is not a realistic expectation. If AOC became Speaker and Ossoff became Senate Majority Leader they'd become hated for the same reasons Schumer and Jeffries are. That's just an unprovable "point", so why would you even bring it up? No progressive, non-corporate and super popular Democrat was even elected to either position, so throwing out a statement like that makes no sense. Schumer and Pelosi never worked outside of politics in their lives, Jeffries was a corporate lawyer for 9 years, similarly, Harry Reid was a lawyer for a bit, Tom Daschle has no private sector experience and Dick Gephardt was a lawyer for 6 years before becoming a professional politician. People are sick of those people, especially if those people try to present themselves as their champions while refusing to support bipartisan bills to stop stock trading and enriching themselves while in office. Democrats never tried to actually put popular people in these positions, but you are certain that it wouldn't work for, reasons, I guess.
I really didn't say that, but ok. Did you have strong feelings about either Schumer or Jeffries before they became party leaders or did you only notice them doing unpopular stuff afterwards?
That is a stupid thing to say. That is 100 % playing into hands of the Republican "lawfare" bullshit, holding people accountable for the crimes they did while in office is not revenge, it's justice, and this guy in his first move after the election says something like this.
Uh, that's the exact point he's making, he's not going to do lawfare, he's going to seek justice.
People really want them to be like "my fellow Americans. We come here today to start a brutal partisan witch-hunt to string up our enemies for their sins of defiance. To any court who may hear any litigation arising from these acts I want to make myself clear: no, this is not an earnest attempt to find the facts. It is revenge. Pure, bloody, and sweet. Republicans accused us of weaponizing the Justice Department. They will now learn how wrong they were when we show them very meaning of weaponizing. They will feel the boot of the Democratic Party on their neck. They think they know dirty politics. We were dirty politics when they were a bunch of free soil log cabin hicks. They will pray for justice which, though severe, would be merciful compared to what we will do to them. No questions at this time."
I mean, it'd be funny as shit but I don't think it's a good idea after we're done laughing about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
