Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On November 10 2026 03:26 dyhb wrote: I'm not the best person to explain how to break a kind of self-sustaining paranoia to let a little reality in.
Once you find that best person, please tell them to assure Donald Trump and the Republican party that every time they lose it's not due to widespread voter fraud.
On November 10 2026 03:03 Jankisa wrote: Oh, look, just as the pretend centrists and other right wingers come to winge about imaginary people who never said that "elections will be canceled" or "Trump will steal the election" with no evidence or quotes because the orange moron was too busy with internal purges up until now, the said moron bleets this shit:
So, I'd say there's a high probability that the right wing talking points machine, now that they recovered from historical shellacking they received will start getting on program once the talking points have been distributed.
And now we are supposed to believe that the guy who constantly claims that elections are rigged, and who says stuff like "It is all about the machines, which are far more important than the voter" while trying to get his agencies to hack the machines and not tell anyone about the exploits except him is not a threat to democracy, and totally wouldn't try to rig elections. That would truly be silly fearmongering.
I guess the next step is that he is just trolling when he says stuff like that.
Yeah, this is a bizarre take from dyhb. I don't disagree with everything dyhb has ever said, but this is a huge L for them.
On November 10 2026 02:13 dyhb wrote: What are you left with, saying that all your fears were wrong, but we should have compassion on you due to the climate that generated those fears?
The "fear" wasn't wrong. It wasn't unfounded; it was justified. The fear was based on a very consistent track record.
Suppose on Sunday, a spouse hits their partner. This can create fear for the partner. And then on Monday, the spouse hits the partner again. This reinforces the fear. Same on Tuesday. This also reinforces the fear. Same on Wednesday. This also reinforces the fear. Thursday rolls around, and the partner is worried that the spouse will hit them again. Fortunately, for some reason, the spouse does not hit the partner on this fifth day! Does that mean the "fear was wrong"? No. The fear was absolutely sensible and legitimate and right to have, even though the spouse didn't end up hitting their partner on that specific day.
Also, moving forwards, it is still correct and justified to worry about Trump messing with future elections (like 2028) too. Just because he took a break from trying to rig elections this year doesn't mean his previous track record is expunged. The spouse may still hit their partner on Friday or Saturday.
Yourself and aligned Democrats are absolutely favored to pull a "Trump conspired to rig the 2026 election, but in the end 'he took a break from trying to rig elections this year.' NOW IN 2028 ALL HIS SCHEMES WE'VE BEEN WARNING YOU ABOUT COME TRUE."
I try really heard to think about underfunded magazines and newspapers and how much real journalism is funded by the fearmongering, but it's ultimately junkie behavior. Listen, you're in the family and I want to get you help, but I can't pretend this is all ok and healthy in the meantime.
On November 10 2026 02:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
On November 10 2026 02:13 dyhb wrote:
On November 09 2026 17:43 Liquid`Drone wrote: 1: The whole Dan Sullivan thing - if the Petolta campaign was involved which by my understanding clearly was the case - is obviously ratfuckery, and it should absolutely be condemned. Condemned isn't necessarily the same as 'legally challenged' or anything of that sort, and you can argue as much as you want that it probably wasn't consequential because a vast majority of people are capable of picking the right option when it says 'republican incumbent' next to the 'real' dan sullivan's name, but just the idea of trying to do this is fucked. I mean, if the argument is 'yeah sure, Petolta tried to do this to potentially void a few would-be republican votes but obviously it's not going to matter because people can read', then that's no different from 'yeah so Trump tried to cheat but he's too incompetent to make it work'.
2: Trump did try to steal the 2020-election, so retrospectively going 'as you can clearly see through him accepting the 2026 election results, the fears that he would try to steal the 2026 election were entirely unfounded' doesn't really make sense to me. If we are instead of a blue tsunami living in a world where democrats take a narrow victory where control of the senate boils down to 3000 mail-in-ballots in a couple states, I'm also not convinced we'd see the same acceptance of the results. That said, I don't think Trump actually has any allegiance to the republican party, so he probably doesn't really care what happens to them after he's done anyway, and even if this clearly was a referendum on him, he also wasn't actually on the ballot, so a narcissist like him can choose to ignore it.
3: The first months of Trump Term 2 were of such a nature that I think at that point, there were legitimate reasons to be worried about the future of American democracy. But since then, I've been positively surprised by the resilience of the American system - and the American people. Courts have been challenging and delaying parts of the agenda more than I thought they could. Honestly - two months ago, I wasn't really worried about election interference because there had been several minor elections that had seemingly been entirely free and fair, and it seemed like stuff had largely mellowed down anyway. I think many prominent right wing voices are actually a bit relieved that this was such a disaster because this is just what they need to actually rid themselves of Trump's influence, which is what they've wanted but haven't been able to vocalize because doing so would oust them from The Party. But one month into Trump's presidency, I wasn't sure at all how this was going to go down, and even if retrospectively it's been shown that my fears were unfounded, I don't think they were at that point, but that's a moot point. I'm honestly just really happy that we might get a bit of a normalization, and hopefully, Trump ends up being an abberation and not a future trend.
I would think a little more circumspection is due from you for being wrong on several counts. Petolta succeeded, Trump failed. The American system in a national sense is resilient, so ultimately your fears were unfounded. What are you left with, saying that all your fears were wrong, but we should have compassion on you due to the climate that generated those fears? Shouldn't this really be a post that tells Introvert that he was right, grudgingly admits that his perspective was more steady and true than yours well before you could see clearly, and intend to give his perspective more consideration in the future?
We're past 11 years of Trump's first candidacy, 10 years since Hillary and elected Democratic leaders said he was an illegitimate president because of Russian interference. I've seen a sad trend of both "It's ok when we do it" and "Our fears are legitimate and understandable, and yours deserve to be ridiculed." The literal first encouraging sign I saw from Democratic officials and elected representatives happened 8 years after the 2016 defeat in Trump's election in 2024. A muted response after all the election rhetoric of saving Democracy (obviously didn't work), no repeat of destructive riots, a real focus on attacking Trump's character and fitness. Reminiscent of the blue tsunami today, the 2024 acceptance by Democrats was helped by also losing the popular vote, without which I couldn't firmly say that Democrats wouldn't have engaged in the same destructive rhetoric attacking the American system. I'd like to see a little more even-handedness in assessing the issues in 2026 and beyond, and not just excusing past anxiety on the way to doing the same damn thing in 2028.
My first point agrees with Introvert. My second and third are partially in agreement, partially saying that in retrospect I am glad to see that my worst fears were shown to not come true (but I also, to my knowledge, never said anything to the effect of 'Trump definitely won't let the midterms happen', this was never a position I had), and partially saying that I'm not sure there would be no interference in an alternative reality where the election was really close. Being worried that someone who definitely attempted to steal an election in the past might try the same in the future isn't particularly paranoid imo.
I'm aiming at what I said, circumspection. It's a little myopic to just focus on how all the anxiety was totally understandable at the time. But that is a little self-serving and doesn't give credit for the moderates and center-right (such that they exist) that have been calling out the strength of the electoral institutions this whole time. I 100% believe you in all sincerity Drone that 2028 comes around, and you're anxious, and I hear this same song and dance about being totally justified at being anxious after 2028.
I think you do a disservice to all the people that called it out at the time, and got blamed, for saying that the CISA story was hogwash, and the Supreme Court wouldn't do Trump's bidding on elections, and all the swing states wouldn't go along with some hairbrained alternate elector scheme, and all the rest. Is there any situation where they get their due? I just don't see a way out of this for you. If you say something eminently believable, like no governor or secretary of state is going to endorse an alternate slate of electors scheme, you're going to get 1) Drone ignoring the attacks against you (he's also scared) and 2) Drone in retrospect simply saying how right he was to be worried.
As someone who normally listens to you and understands where you're coming from, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this line. Trump didn't try steal midterms so everyone who was scared he might try should feel bad for having been scared?
...That seems like a dumbassed line, so I hope... not that?
Good thing I didn't write it!
The electoral institutions are stronger than people give them credit for, and claims otherwise deserve more analysis, skepticism, and evidentiary scrutiny. Don't get stuck in the cycle where every election could be the last one, ever, and we all console each other that we were right to be scared in the wake of it. We have to be strong enough to re-evaluate the priors. The media environment is heightening the threats and playing into your fears by feeding you what your anxiety innately wants.
I'm not the best person to explain how to break a kind of self-sustaining paranoia to let a little reality in. I say that regrettably. The threats must be weighed against the facts. Every new claim deserves its own skepticism. The ones this time around were pretty awful. Anonymous sourcing was marketed to third parties to tell everyone why they should be scared. The journalists get paid. The people that are scared want people telling them that they're right to be scared, and the vicious cycle continues. Be a little kinder and more assured when people here rationally examine the latest claims.
Line as in strategic line, not written one.
And I don't get the impression that people who recognise trump's previous attempts at fucking with elections think it was definitely the case that he was going to unilaterally steal midterm elections. He obviously didn't succeed if he did try, but I think we're on the same page with regards to weighing the evidence. It just strikes me as curious that part of weighing the evidence seems to be 'if we ignore Trump's previous attempts...'
And even then, if we are to listen to Kwark, the evidence still isn't unanimously on one side.
On November 10 2026 02:13 dyhb wrote: What are you left with, saying that all your fears were wrong, but we should have compassion on you due to the climate that generated those fears?
The "fear" wasn't wrong. It wasn't unfounded; it was justified. The fear was based on a very consistent track record.
Suppose on Sunday, a spouse hits their partner. This can create fear for the partner. And then on Monday, the spouse hits the partner again. This reinforces the fear. Same on Tuesday. This also reinforces the fear. Same on Wednesday. This also reinforces the fear. Thursday rolls around, and the partner is worried that the spouse will hit them again. Fortunately, for some reason, the spouse does not hit the partner on this fifth day! Does that mean the "fear was wrong"? No. The fear was absolutely sensible and legitimate and right to have, even though the spouse didn't end up hitting their partner on that specific day.
Also, moving forwards, it is still correct and justified to worry about Trump messing with future elections (like 2028) too. Just because he took a break from trying to rig elections this year doesn't mean his previous track record is expunged. The spouse may still hit their partner on Friday or Saturday.
Yourself and aligned Democrats are absolutely favored to pull a "Trump conspired to rig the 2026 election, but in the end 'he took a break from trying to rig elections this year.' NOW IN 2028 ALL HIS SCHEMES WE'VE BEEN WARNING YOU ABOUT COME TRUE."
I try really heard to think about underfunded magazines and newspapers and how much real journalism is funded by the fearmongering, but it's ultimately junkie behavior. Listen, you're in the family and I want to get you help, but I can't pretend this is all ok and healthy in the meantime.
On November 10 2026 02:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
On November 10 2026 02:13 dyhb wrote:
On November 09 2026 17:43 Liquid`Drone wrote: 1: The whole Dan Sullivan thing - if the Petolta campaign was involved which by my understanding clearly was the case - is obviously ratfuckery, and it should absolutely be condemned. Condemned isn't necessarily the same as 'legally challenged' or anything of that sort, and you can argue as much as you want that it probably wasn't consequential because a vast majority of people are capable of picking the right option when it says 'republican incumbent' next to the 'real' dan sullivan's name, but just the idea of trying to do this is fucked. I mean, if the argument is 'yeah sure, Petolta tried to do this to potentially void a few would-be republican votes but obviously it's not going to matter because people can read', then that's no different from 'yeah so Trump tried to cheat but he's too incompetent to make it work'.
2: Trump did try to steal the 2020-election, so retrospectively going 'as you can clearly see through him accepting the 2026 election results, the fears that he would try to steal the 2026 election were entirely unfounded' doesn't really make sense to me. If we are instead of a blue tsunami living in a world where democrats take a narrow victory where control of the senate boils down to 3000 mail-in-ballots in a couple states, I'm also not convinced we'd see the same acceptance of the results. That said, I don't think Trump actually has any allegiance to the republican party, so he probably doesn't really care what happens to them after he's done anyway, and even if this clearly was a referendum on him, he also wasn't actually on the ballot, so a narcissist like him can choose to ignore it.
3: The first months of Trump Term 2 were of such a nature that I think at that point, there were legitimate reasons to be worried about the future of American democracy. But since then, I've been positively surprised by the resilience of the American system - and the American people. Courts have been challenging and delaying parts of the agenda more than I thought they could. Honestly - two months ago, I wasn't really worried about election interference because there had been several minor elections that had seemingly been entirely free and fair, and it seemed like stuff had largely mellowed down anyway. I think many prominent right wing voices are actually a bit relieved that this was such a disaster because this is just what they need to actually rid themselves of Trump's influence, which is what they've wanted but haven't been able to vocalize because doing so would oust them from The Party. But one month into Trump's presidency, I wasn't sure at all how this was going to go down, and even if retrospectively it's been shown that my fears were unfounded, I don't think they were at that point, but that's a moot point. I'm honestly just really happy that we might get a bit of a normalization, and hopefully, Trump ends up being an abberation and not a future trend.
I would think a little more circumspection is due from you for being wrong on several counts. Petolta succeeded, Trump failed. The American system in a national sense is resilient, so ultimately your fears were unfounded. What are you left with, saying that all your fears were wrong, but we should have compassion on you due to the climate that generated those fears? Shouldn't this really be a post that tells Introvert that he was right, grudgingly admits that his perspective was more steady and true than yours well before you could see clearly, and intend to give his perspective more consideration in the future?
We're past 11 years of Trump's first candidacy, 10 years since Hillary and elected Democratic leaders said he was an illegitimate president because of Russian interference. I've seen a sad trend of both "It's ok when we do it" and "Our fears are legitimate and understandable, and yours deserve to be ridiculed." The literal first encouraging sign I saw from Democratic officials and elected representatives happened 8 years after the 2016 defeat in Trump's election in 2024. A muted response after all the election rhetoric of saving Democracy (obviously didn't work), no repeat of destructive riots, a real focus on attacking Trump's character and fitness. Reminiscent of the blue tsunami today, the 2024 acceptance by Democrats was helped by also losing the popular vote, without which I couldn't firmly say that Democrats wouldn't have engaged in the same destructive rhetoric attacking the American system. I'd like to see a little more even-handedness in assessing the issues in 2026 and beyond, and not just excusing past anxiety on the way to doing the same damn thing in 2028.
My first point agrees with Introvert. My second and third are partially in agreement, partially saying that in retrospect I am glad to see that my worst fears were shown to not come true (but I also, to my knowledge, never said anything to the effect of 'Trump definitely won't let the midterms happen', this was never a position I had), and partially saying that I'm not sure there would be no interference in an alternative reality where the election was really close. Being worried that someone who definitely attempted to steal an election in the past might try the same in the future isn't particularly paranoid imo.
I'm aiming at what I said, circumspection. It's a little myopic to just focus on how all the anxiety was totally understandable at the time. But that is a little self-serving and doesn't give credit for the moderates and center-right (such that they exist) that have been calling out the strength of the electoral institutions this whole time. I 100% believe you in all sincerity Drone that 2028 comes around, and you're anxious, and I hear this same song and dance about being totally justified at being anxious after 2028.
I think you do a disservice to all the people that called it out at the time, and got blamed, for saying that the CISA story was hogwash, and the Supreme Court wouldn't do Trump's bidding on elections, and all the swing states wouldn't go along with some hairbrained alternate elector scheme, and all the rest. Is there any situation where they get their due? I just don't see a way out of this for you. If you say something eminently believable, like no governor or secretary of state is going to endorse an alternate slate of electors scheme, you're going to get 1) Drone ignoring the attacks against you (he's also scared) and 2) Drone in retrospect simply saying how right he was to be worried.
As someone who normally listens to you and understands where you're coming from, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this line. Trump didn't try steal midterms so everyone who was scared he might try should feel bad for having been scared?
...That seems like a dumbassed line, so I hope... not that?
Good thing I didn't write it!
The electoral institutions are stronger than people give them credit for, and claims otherwise deserve more analysis, skepticism, and evidentiary scrutiny. Don't get stuck in the cycle where every election could be the last one, ever, and we all console each other that we were right to be scared in the wake of it. We have to be strong enough to re-evaluate the priors. The media environment is heightening the threats and playing into your fears by feeding you what your anxiety innately wants.
I'm not the best person to explain how to break a kind of self-sustaining paranoia to let a little reality in. I say that regrettably. The threats must be weighed against the facts. Every new claim deserves its own skepticism. The ones this time around were pretty awful. Anonymous sourcing was marketed to third parties to tell everyone why they should be scared. The journalists get paid. The people that are scared want people telling them that they're right to be scared, and the vicious cycle continues. Be a little kinder and more assured when people here rationally examine the latest claims.
Line as in strategic line, not written one.
And I don't get the impression that people who recognise trump's previous attempts at fucking with elections think it was definitely the case that he was going to unilaterally steal midterm elections. He obviously didn't succeed if he did try, but I think we're on the same page with regards to weighing the evidence. It just strikes me as curious that part of weighing the evidence seems to be 'if we ignore Trump's previous attempts...'
And even then, if we are to listen to Kwark, the evidence still isn't unanimously on one side.
You'd have a point if I was saying that we should all stop talking about Trump's attempts to delegitimize elections and claim that he won elections that he lost. The key word is attempts. His closest attempt garnered zero governors and zero secretaries of state endorsing the plan, and that was six years ago. His other ones were stopped so cold by the courts that lawyers were disbarred.
We actually have a responsibility to look at news stories with rational skepticism and examine the proof despite the loudmouth giving you every reason to think he has ill aims. You're biased to accept every anonymous claim as actual proof that it comprises another Trump attempt (and partial success?), and I'm sad to say that the media industry surrounding this is booming. I want to break that cycle. We don't have some ticket to a brain vacation by saying "Trump's past attempts" on every anonymously-sourced or paranoid-interpretation.
Remember that the real strength of institutions exists apart from what somebody says and what lawsuits he files. If you're honest and have integrity, I don't think this is a real hard point to yield.
The guy who is playing D for Rs for years and thinks that anything to the left of Joe Manchin is a communist Islamist conspiracy to turn the Democratic party socialist in attacking the left boogieman, shocking!
He downplays every Republican excess and comes here with MAGA talking points on regular basis but somehow now the veil falls from people's eyes.
As a reminder, this is his big pre-election takeaway/prediction:
On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote: It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly.
Didn't even remember the leading admission that Trump said this, he is one of us hysterics I guess, but he just forgot.
On October 31 2026 23:12 LightSpectra wrote: None of them made it to sentencing except the NY documents falsification case, and the judge explicitly said he was issuing no jail time because Trump was president-elect at that point.
Hopefully he'll be able to take care of that appeal and get it thrown out in 2029 when he has time (if he doesn't do a third term).
Are there any other child molesters you hope are cleared of felonies upon appeal or is Trump the only one?
This is what I'm talking about, the idea you saw 4 squiggly lines (?) and conclude CNBC published a drawing of a nude prepubescent girl. It's like a Rorschach test that you keep failing.
Gee, I wonder why the White House was so panicked to say it was fake then lol
OBlade is taking challenge with the prepubescent part, and he is technically correct. Epstein was into young teenagers, who have definitely entered puberty. This is one of those cases where rather than exaggerating and then becoming drawn into a discussion around the exaggerations, we can just describe the truth because it is plenty bad already.
Call the people that exaggerate the truth for political purposes as pro-Trump, because that's the only effect they're having on politics. A couple people would accept a President JD Vance if the only means of stopping it would be to stop saying "child rapist" "child molester" and "doodled a nude prepubescent girl." Trump gives a blank check to other people adopting lying and exaggeration into their political discussion, because you can't outdo Trump, and you're lying for noble purposes.
I didn't get a clear answer if he himself was one of those "a couple people" but it's a fascinating look into his psychology.
On November 10 2026 02:13 dyhb wrote: What are you left with, saying that all your fears were wrong, but we should have compassion on you due to the climate that generated those fears?
The "fear" wasn't wrong. It wasn't unfounded; it was justified. The fear was based on a very consistent track record.
Suppose on Sunday, a spouse hits their partner. This can create fear for the partner. And then on Monday, the spouse hits the partner again. This reinforces the fear. Same on Tuesday. This also reinforces the fear. Same on Wednesday. This also reinforces the fear. Thursday rolls around, and the partner is worried that the spouse will hit them again. Fortunately, for some reason, the spouse does not hit the partner on this fifth day! Does that mean the "fear was wrong"? No. The fear was absolutely sensible and legitimate and right to have, even though the spouse didn't end up hitting their partner on that specific day.
Also, moving forwards, it is still correct and justified to worry about Trump messing with future elections (like 2028) too. Just because he took a break from trying to rig elections this year doesn't mean his previous track record is expunged. The spouse may still hit their partner on Friday or Saturday.
Yourself and aligned Democrats are absolutely favored to pull a "Trump conspired to rig the 2026 election, but in the end 'he took a break from trying to rig elections this year.' NOW IN 2028 ALL HIS SCHEMES WE'VE BEEN WARNING YOU ABOUT COME TRUE."
I try really heard to think about underfunded magazines and newspapers and how much real journalism is funded by the fearmongering, but it's ultimately junkie behavior. Listen, you're in the family and I want to get you help, but I can't pretend this is all ok and healthy in the meantime.
On November 10 2026 02:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
On November 10 2026 02:13 dyhb wrote:
On November 09 2026 17:43 Liquid`Drone wrote: 1: The whole Dan Sullivan thing - if the Petolta campaign was involved which by my understanding clearly was the case - is obviously ratfuckery, and it should absolutely be condemned. Condemned isn't necessarily the same as 'legally challenged' or anything of that sort, and you can argue as much as you want that it probably wasn't consequential because a vast majority of people are capable of picking the right option when it says 'republican incumbent' next to the 'real' dan sullivan's name, but just the idea of trying to do this is fucked. I mean, if the argument is 'yeah sure, Petolta tried to do this to potentially void a few would-be republican votes but obviously it's not going to matter because people can read', then that's no different from 'yeah so Trump tried to cheat but he's too incompetent to make it work'.
2: Trump did try to steal the 2020-election, so retrospectively going 'as you can clearly see through him accepting the 2026 election results, the fears that he would try to steal the 2026 election were entirely unfounded' doesn't really make sense to me. If we are instead of a blue tsunami living in a world where democrats take a narrow victory where control of the senate boils down to 3000 mail-in-ballots in a couple states, I'm also not convinced we'd see the same acceptance of the results. That said, I don't think Trump actually has any allegiance to the republican party, so he probably doesn't really care what happens to them after he's done anyway, and even if this clearly was a referendum on him, he also wasn't actually on the ballot, so a narcissist like him can choose to ignore it.
3: The first months of Trump Term 2 were of such a nature that I think at that point, there were legitimate reasons to be worried about the future of American democracy. But since then, I've been positively surprised by the resilience of the American system - and the American people. Courts have been challenging and delaying parts of the agenda more than I thought they could. Honestly - two months ago, I wasn't really worried about election interference because there had been several minor elections that had seemingly been entirely free and fair, and it seemed like stuff had largely mellowed down anyway. I think many prominent right wing voices are actually a bit relieved that this was such a disaster because this is just what they need to actually rid themselves of Trump's influence, which is what they've wanted but haven't been able to vocalize because doing so would oust them from The Party. But one month into Trump's presidency, I wasn't sure at all how this was going to go down, and even if retrospectively it's been shown that my fears were unfounded, I don't think they were at that point, but that's a moot point. I'm honestly just really happy that we might get a bit of a normalization, and hopefully, Trump ends up being an abberation and not a future trend.
I would think a little more circumspection is due from you for being wrong on several counts. Petolta succeeded, Trump failed. The American system in a national sense is resilient, so ultimately your fears were unfounded. What are you left with, saying that all your fears were wrong, but we should have compassion on you due to the climate that generated those fears? Shouldn't this really be a post that tells Introvert that he was right, grudgingly admits that his perspective was more steady and true than yours well before you could see clearly, and intend to give his perspective more consideration in the future?
We're past 11 years of Trump's first candidacy, 10 years since Hillary and elected Democratic leaders said he was an illegitimate president because of Russian interference. I've seen a sad trend of both "It's ok when we do it" and "Our fears are legitimate and understandable, and yours deserve to be ridiculed." The literal first encouraging sign I saw from Democratic officials and elected representatives happened 8 years after the 2016 defeat in Trump's election in 2024. A muted response after all the election rhetoric of saving Democracy (obviously didn't work), no repeat of destructive riots, a real focus on attacking Trump's character and fitness. Reminiscent of the blue tsunami today, the 2024 acceptance by Democrats was helped by also losing the popular vote, without which I couldn't firmly say that Democrats wouldn't have engaged in the same destructive rhetoric attacking the American system. I'd like to see a little more even-handedness in assessing the issues in 2026 and beyond, and not just excusing past anxiety on the way to doing the same damn thing in 2028.
My first point agrees with Introvert. My second and third are partially in agreement, partially saying that in retrospect I am glad to see that my worst fears were shown to not come true (but I also, to my knowledge, never said anything to the effect of 'Trump definitely won't let the midterms happen', this was never a position I had), and partially saying that I'm not sure there would be no interference in an alternative reality where the election was really close. Being worried that someone who definitely attempted to steal an election in the past might try the same in the future isn't particularly paranoid imo.
I'm aiming at what I said, circumspection. It's a little myopic to just focus on how all the anxiety was totally understandable at the time. But that is a little self-serving and doesn't give credit for the moderates and center-right (such that they exist) that have been calling out the strength of the electoral institutions this whole time. I 100% believe you in all sincerity Drone that 2028 comes around, and you're anxious, and I hear this same song and dance about being totally justified at being anxious after 2028.
I think you do a disservice to all the people that called it out at the time, and got blamed, for saying that the CISA story was hogwash, and the Supreme Court wouldn't do Trump's bidding on elections, and all the swing states wouldn't go along with some hairbrained alternate elector scheme, and all the rest. Is there any situation where they get their due? I just don't see a way out of this for you. If you say something eminently believable, like no governor or secretary of state is going to endorse an alternate slate of electors scheme, you're going to get 1) Drone ignoring the attacks against you (he's also scared) and 2) Drone in retrospect simply saying how right he was to be worried.
As someone who normally listens to you and understands where you're coming from, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this line. Trump didn't try steal midterms so everyone who was scared he might try should feel bad for having been scared?
...That seems like a dumbassed line, so I hope... not that?
Good thing I didn't write it!
The electoral institutions are stronger than people give them credit for, and claims otherwise deserve more analysis, skepticism, and evidentiary scrutiny. Don't get stuck in the cycle where every election could be the last one, ever, and we all console each other that we were right to be scared in the wake of it. We have to be strong enough to re-evaluate the priors. The media environment is heightening the threats and playing into your fears by feeding you what your anxiety innately wants.
I'm not the best person to explain how to break a kind of self-sustaining paranoia to let a little reality in. I say that regrettably. The threats must be weighed against the facts. Every new claim deserves its own skepticism. The ones this time around were pretty awful. Anonymous sourcing was marketed to third parties to tell everyone why they should be scared. The journalists get paid. The people that are scared want people telling them that they're right to be scared, and the vicious cycle continues. Be a little kinder and more assured when people here rationally examine the latest claims.
Line as in strategic line, not written one.
And I don't get the impression that people who recognise trump's previous attempts at fucking with elections think it was definitely the case that he was going to unilaterally steal midterm elections. He obviously didn't succeed if he did try, but I think we're on the same page with regards to weighing the evidence. It just strikes me as curious that part of weighing the evidence seems to be 'if we ignore Trump's previous attempts...'
And even then, if we are to listen to Kwark, the evidence still isn't unanimously on one side.
You'd have a point if I was saying that we should all stop talking about Trump's attempts to delegitimize elections and claim that he won elections that he lost. The key word is attempts. His closest attempt garnered zero governors and zero secretaries of state endorsing the plan, and that was six years ago. His other ones were stopped so cold by the courts that lawyers were disbarred.
We actually have a responsibility to look at news stories with rational skepticism and examine the proof despite the loudmouth giving you every reason to think he has ill aims. You're biased to accept every anonymous claim as actual proof that it comprises another Trump attempt (and partial success?), and I'm sad to say that the media industry surrounding this is booming. I want to break that cycle. We don't have some ticket to a brain vacation by saying "Trump's past attempts" on every anonymously-sourced or paranoid-interpretation.
Remember that the real strength of institutions exists apart from what somebody says and what lawsuits he files. If you're honest and have integrity, I don't think this is a real hard point to yield.
Let us go on a hypothetical here.
Let's say Trump is given a "Rig the election" button, which makes sure that he wins, and no one will know. Do you really doubt he would press that button?
If yes, why? What gives you the impression that he would not do so?
And if no: is it not really scary that that person is in control of the executive? Is that not a big problem? Because if he would rig the election if he could, we can only hope that he can't. In that case, is it not really, really important to pay very strong attention to every possible attempt at election rigging he may do? Maybe even trying to preempt any ways he could rig an election?
How can you not take it very seriously that the person who is in control of the executive is a person who has tried to rig elections in the past, and who has tried to coup the government after losing an election? And a person who no one doubts would do all of these things again if he thought he could get away with it?
An attempt is nearly as bad as a success, and should be treated as such. People who try to rig elections should be in prison, and never get close to any sort of power ever again. No matter if they succeed or fail. Because people who attempt it once, will attempt it again. And if you give off the impression that attempting is totally okay, as long as you fail, do you not think that that may lead to other people also attempting in the future? How stable do you think a democracy is if people constantly try to rig elections or run coups?
Since your guys love Putin so much: How did he react when Prigozhin tried to coup him? Do you think Prigozhin will get another chance?
On November 10 2026 04:21 Jankisa wrote: The guy who is playing D for Rs for years and thinks that anything to the left of Joe Manchin is a communist Islamist conspiracy to turn the Democratic party socialist in attacking the left boogieman, shocking!
He downplays every Republican excess and comes here with MAGA talking points on regular basis but somehow now the veil falls from people's eyes.
As a reminder, this is his big pre-election takeaway/prediction:
On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote: It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly.
Didn't even remember the leading admission that Trump said this, he is one of us hysterics I guess, but he just forgot.
It's funny how you point out the lack of self-examination on the conspiracy to steal 2026 claims, and people get all defensive and retreat miles to the "but tRuMPs rhetoric."
On November 10 2026 05:06 LightSpectra wrote: This is dyhb's prediction for 2028 btw
On October 31 2026 23:12 LightSpectra wrote: None of them made it to sentencing except the NY documents falsification case, and the judge explicitly said he was issuing no jail time because Trump was president-elect at that point.
Hopefully he'll be able to take care of that appeal and get it thrown out in 2029 when he has time (if he doesn't do a third term).
Are there any other child molesters you hope are cleared of felonies upon appeal or is Trump the only one?
This is what I'm talking about, the idea you saw 4 squiggly lines (?) and conclude CNBC published a drawing of a nude prepubescent girl. It's like a Rorschach test that you keep failing.
Gee, I wonder why the White House was so panicked to say it was fake then lol
OBlade is taking challenge with the prepubescent part, and he is technically correct. Epstein was into young teenagers, who have definitely entered puberty. This is one of those cases where rather than exaggerating and then becoming drawn into a discussion around the exaggerations, we can just describe the truth because it is plenty bad already.
Call the people that exaggerate the truth for political purposes as pro-Trump, because that's the only effect they're having on politics. A couple people would accept a President JD Vance if the only means of stopping it would be to stop saying "child rapist" "child molester" and "doodled a nude prepubescent girl." Trump gives a blank check to other people adopting lying and exaggeration into their political discussion, because you can't outdo Trump, and you're lying for noble purposes.
I didn't get a clear answer if he himself was one of those "a couple people" but it's a fascinating look into his psychology.
I still think Drone got it right there, and my suggestion that he treats people that lie and exaggerate that way stands.
On November 10 2026 02:13 dyhb wrote: What are you left with, saying that all your fears were wrong, but we should have compassion on you due to the climate that generated those fears?
The "fear" wasn't wrong. It wasn't unfounded; it was justified. The fear was based on a very consistent track record.
Suppose on Sunday, a spouse hits their partner. This can create fear for the partner. And then on Monday, the spouse hits the partner again. This reinforces the fear. Same on Tuesday. This also reinforces the fear. Same on Wednesday. This also reinforces the fear. Thursday rolls around, and the partner is worried that the spouse will hit them again. Fortunately, for some reason, the spouse does not hit the partner on this fifth day! Does that mean the "fear was wrong"? No. The fear was absolutely sensible and legitimate and right to have, even though the spouse didn't end up hitting their partner on that specific day.
Also, moving forwards, it is still correct and justified to worry about Trump messing with future elections (like 2028) too. Just because he took a break from trying to rig elections this year doesn't mean his previous track record is expunged. The spouse may still hit their partner on Friday or Saturday.
Yourself and aligned Democrats are absolutely favored to pull a "Trump conspired to rig the 2026 election, but in the end 'he took a break from trying to rig elections this year.' NOW IN 2028 ALL HIS SCHEMES WE'VE BEEN WARNING YOU ABOUT COME TRUE."
I try really heard to think about underfunded magazines and newspapers and how much real journalism is funded by the fearmongering, but it's ultimately junkie behavior. Listen, you're in the family and I want to get you help, but I can't pretend this is all ok and healthy in the meantime.
On November 10 2026 02:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
On November 10 2026 02:13 dyhb wrote:
On November 09 2026 17:43 Liquid`Drone wrote: 1: The whole Dan Sullivan thing - if the Petolta campaign was involved which by my understanding clearly was the case - is obviously ratfuckery, and it should absolutely be condemned. Condemned isn't necessarily the same as 'legally challenged' or anything of that sort, and you can argue as much as you want that it probably wasn't consequential because a vast majority of people are capable of picking the right option when it says 'republican incumbent' next to the 'real' dan sullivan's name, but just the idea of trying to do this is fucked. I mean, if the argument is 'yeah sure, Petolta tried to do this to potentially void a few would-be republican votes but obviously it's not going to matter because people can read', then that's no different from 'yeah so Trump tried to cheat but he's too incompetent to make it work'.
2: Trump did try to steal the 2020-election, so retrospectively going 'as you can clearly see through him accepting the 2026 election results, the fears that he would try to steal the 2026 election were entirely unfounded' doesn't really make sense to me. If we are instead of a blue tsunami living in a world where democrats take a narrow victory where control of the senate boils down to 3000 mail-in-ballots in a couple states, I'm also not convinced we'd see the same acceptance of the results. That said, I don't think Trump actually has any allegiance to the republican party, so he probably doesn't really care what happens to them after he's done anyway, and even if this clearly was a referendum on him, he also wasn't actually on the ballot, so a narcissist like him can choose to ignore it.
3: The first months of Trump Term 2 were of such a nature that I think at that point, there were legitimate reasons to be worried about the future of American democracy. But since then, I've been positively surprised by the resilience of the American system - and the American people. Courts have been challenging and delaying parts of the agenda more than I thought they could. Honestly - two months ago, I wasn't really worried about election interference because there had been several minor elections that had seemingly been entirely free and fair, and it seemed like stuff had largely mellowed down anyway. I think many prominent right wing voices are actually a bit relieved that this was such a disaster because this is just what they need to actually rid themselves of Trump's influence, which is what they've wanted but haven't been able to vocalize because doing so would oust them from The Party. But one month into Trump's presidency, I wasn't sure at all how this was going to go down, and even if retrospectively it's been shown that my fears were unfounded, I don't think they were at that point, but that's a moot point. I'm honestly just really happy that we might get a bit of a normalization, and hopefully, Trump ends up being an abberation and not a future trend.
I would think a little more circumspection is due from you for being wrong on several counts. Petolta succeeded, Trump failed. The American system in a national sense is resilient, so ultimately your fears were unfounded. What are you left with, saying that all your fears were wrong, but we should have compassion on you due to the climate that generated those fears? Shouldn't this really be a post that tells Introvert that he was right, grudgingly admits that his perspective was more steady and true than yours well before you could see clearly, and intend to give his perspective more consideration in the future?
We're past 11 years of Trump's first candidacy, 10 years since Hillary and elected Democratic leaders said he was an illegitimate president because of Russian interference. I've seen a sad trend of both "It's ok when we do it" and "Our fears are legitimate and understandable, and yours deserve to be ridiculed." The literal first encouraging sign I saw from Democratic officials and elected representatives happened 8 years after the 2016 defeat in Trump's election in 2024. A muted response after all the election rhetoric of saving Democracy (obviously didn't work), no repeat of destructive riots, a real focus on attacking Trump's character and fitness. Reminiscent of the blue tsunami today, the 2024 acceptance by Democrats was helped by also losing the popular vote, without which I couldn't firmly say that Democrats wouldn't have engaged in the same destructive rhetoric attacking the American system. I'd like to see a little more even-handedness in assessing the issues in 2026 and beyond, and not just excusing past anxiety on the way to doing the same damn thing in 2028.
My first point agrees with Introvert. My second and third are partially in agreement, partially saying that in retrospect I am glad to see that my worst fears were shown to not come true (but I also, to my knowledge, never said anything to the effect of 'Trump definitely won't let the midterms happen', this was never a position I had), and partially saying that I'm not sure there would be no interference in an alternative reality where the election was really close. Being worried that someone who definitely attempted to steal an election in the past might try the same in the future isn't particularly paranoid imo.
I'm aiming at what I said, circumspection. It's a little myopic to just focus on how all the anxiety was totally understandable at the time. But that is a little self-serving and doesn't give credit for the moderates and center-right (such that they exist) that have been calling out the strength of the electoral institutions this whole time. I 100% believe you in all sincerity Drone that 2028 comes around, and you're anxious, and I hear this same song and dance about being totally justified at being anxious after 2028.
I think you do a disservice to all the people that called it out at the time, and got blamed, for saying that the CISA story was hogwash, and the Supreme Court wouldn't do Trump's bidding on elections, and all the swing states wouldn't go along with some hairbrained alternate elector scheme, and all the rest. Is there any situation where they get their due? I just don't see a way out of this for you. If you say something eminently believable, like no governor or secretary of state is going to endorse an alternate slate of electors scheme, you're going to get 1) Drone ignoring the attacks against you (he's also scared) and 2) Drone in retrospect simply saying how right he was to be worried.
As someone who normally listens to you and understands where you're coming from, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this line. Trump didn't try steal midterms so everyone who was scared he might try should feel bad for having been scared?
...That seems like a dumbassed line, so I hope... not that?
Good thing I didn't write it!
The electoral institutions are stronger than people give them credit for, and claims otherwise deserve more analysis, skepticism, and evidentiary scrutiny. Don't get stuck in the cycle where every election could be the last one, ever, and we all console each other that we were right to be scared in the wake of it. We have to be strong enough to re-evaluate the priors. The media environment is heightening the threats and playing into your fears by feeding you what your anxiety innately wants.
I'm not the best person to explain how to break a kind of self-sustaining paranoia to let a little reality in. I say that regrettably. The threats must be weighed against the facts. Every new claim deserves its own skepticism. The ones this time around were pretty awful. Anonymous sourcing was marketed to third parties to tell everyone why they should be scared. The journalists get paid. The people that are scared want people telling them that they're right to be scared, and the vicious cycle continues. Be a little kinder and more assured when people here rationally examine the latest claims.
Line as in strategic line, not written one.
And I don't get the impression that people who recognise trump's previous attempts at fucking with elections think it was definitely the case that he was going to unilaterally steal midterm elections. He obviously didn't succeed if he did try, but I think we're on the same page with regards to weighing the evidence. It just strikes me as curious that part of weighing the evidence seems to be 'if we ignore Trump's previous attempts...'
And even then, if we are to listen to Kwark, the evidence still isn't unanimously on one side.
You'd have a point if I was saying that we should all stop talking about Trump's attempts to delegitimize elections and claim that he won elections that he lost. The key word is attempts. His closest attempt garnered zero governors and zero secretaries of state endorsing the plan, and that was six years ago. His other ones were stopped so cold by the courts that lawyers were disbarred.
We actually have a responsibility to look at news stories with rational skepticism and examine the proof despite the loudmouth giving you every reason to think he has ill aims. You're biased to accept every anonymous claim as actual proof that it comprises another Trump attempt (and partial success?), and I'm sad to say that the media industry surrounding this is booming. I want to break that cycle. We don't have some ticket to a brain vacation by saying "Trump's past attempts" on every anonymously-sourced or paranoid-interpretation.
Remember that the real strength of institutions exists apart from what somebody says and what lawsuits he files. If you're honest and have integrity, I don't think this is a real hard point to yield.
Let us go on a hypothetical here.
Let's say Trump is given a "Rig the election" button, which makes sure that he wins, and no one will know. Do you really doubt he would press that button?
If yes, why? What gives you the impression that he would not do so?
And if no: is it not really scary that that person is in control of the executive? Is that not a big problem? Because if he would rig the election if he could, we can only hope that he can't. In that case, is it not really, really important to pay very strong attention to every possible attempt at election rigging he may do? Maybe even trying to preempt any ways he could rig an election?
How can you not take it very seriously that the person who is in control of the executive is a person who has tried to rig elections in the past, and who has tried to coup the government after losing an election? And a person who no one doubts would do all of these things again if he thought he could get away with it?
An attempt is nearly as bad as a success, and should be treated as such. People who try to rig elections should be in prison, and never get close to any sort of power ever again. No matter if they succeed or fail. Because people who attempt it once, will attempt it again. And if you give off the impression that attempting is totally okay, as long as you fail, do you not think that that may lead to other people also attempting in the future? How stable do you think a democracy is if people constantly try to rig elections or run coups?
Since your guys love Putin so much: How did he react when Prigozhin tried to coup him? Do you think Prigozhin will get another chance?
You're really dodging the point here with the hypothetical. I don't know if it's intentional, but on the off-chance that it is, I'll restate the problem for the benefit of anybody else reading. There were a number of anonymously sourced and mostly bare accusations that such-and-such was part of a conspiracy to steal the 2026 election. Guys like Liquid`Drone paid scant attention to the attacks and vitriol directed at people in this thread exposing their lack of foundation and the very motivated reasoning behind it.
Now, for Drone, it's ignoring what happened to focus only on the side point of Alaska and how understandable everybody was to be scared. For others, it's deflecting to other topics, like Trump's rhetoric and Trump's past attempts. I say that the sum of the behavior is very clearly punishing people for being right, and rewarding people who let their fear and anxiety trump their skepticism and evidentiary scrutiny. From past interactions with Drone, he's able to do this kind of self-analysis on occasion, and depart from major left-wing consensuses (pronouns, exaggerations). I was wondering if he saw the truth in this line of reasoning, given that he's "positively surprised by the resilience of the American system," and maybe could extend it to people that knew it from the start, suffered widespread condemnation for believing it, and were ultimately (silently) vindicated.
For those that never said they were "positively surprised by the resilience of the American system," and think that's false and we got lucky, I don't think I have anything more to say than in my previous posts. Nobody wants to talk about the media environment, and everybody wants to restate history we already know about Trump.
On November 10 2026 04:21 Jankisa wrote: The guy who is playing D for Rs for years and thinks that anything to the left of Joe Manchin is a communist Islamist conspiracy to turn the Democratic party socialist in attacking the left boogieman, shocking!
He downplays every Republican excess and comes here with MAGA talking points on regular basis but somehow now the veil falls from people's eyes.
As a reminder, this is his big pre-election takeaway/prediction:
On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote: It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly.
Didn't even remember the leading admission that Trump said this, he is one of us hysterics I guess, but he just forgot.
It's funny how you point out the lack of self-examination on the conspiracy to steal 2026 claims, and people get all defensive and retreat miles to the "but tRuMPs rhetoric."
Bro. Your guy tried to coup the last time he lost. Is that just rhetoric?
On November 10 2026 05:14 dyhb wrote: I still think Drone got it right there, and my suggestion that he treats people that lie and exaggerate that way stands.
Just for the record, how many people (in a percentage or absolute number, whichever your preference) do you suppose would be heavily inclined to vote for a Democratic POTUS candidate, but will instead vote for JD Vance (or whomever is the Republican candidate) for the primary reason that they're either tired of hearing about Epstein allegations, or because they're infuriated when people say "pedophile" when "ephebophile" is more technically correct?
On November 10 2026 02:13 dyhb wrote: What are you left with, saying that all your fears were wrong, but we should have compassion on you due to the climate that generated those fears?
The "fear" wasn't wrong. It wasn't unfounded; it was justified. The fear was based on a very consistent track record.
Suppose on Sunday, a spouse hits their partner. This can create fear for the partner. And then on Monday, the spouse hits the partner again. This reinforces the fear. Same on Tuesday. This also reinforces the fear. Same on Wednesday. This also reinforces the fear. Thursday rolls around, and the partner is worried that the spouse will hit them again. Fortunately, for some reason, the spouse does not hit the partner on this fifth day! Does that mean the "fear was wrong"? No. The fear was absolutely sensible and legitimate and right to have, even though the spouse didn't end up hitting their partner on that specific day.
Also, moving forwards, it is still correct and justified to worry about Trump messing with future elections (like 2028) too. Just because he took a break from trying to rig elections this year doesn't mean his previous track record is expunged. The spouse may still hit their partner on Friday or Saturday.
Yourself and aligned Democrats are absolutely favored to pull a "Trump conspired to rig the 2026 election, but in the end 'he took a break from trying to rig elections this year.' NOW IN 2028 ALL HIS SCHEMES WE'VE BEEN WARNING YOU ABOUT COME TRUE."
I try really heard to think about underfunded magazines and newspapers and how much real journalism is funded by the fearmongering, but it's ultimately junkie behavior. Listen, you're in the family and I want to get you help, but I can't pretend this is all ok and healthy in the meantime.
On November 10 2026 02:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
On November 10 2026 02:13 dyhb wrote:
On November 09 2026 17:43 Liquid`Drone wrote: 1: The whole Dan Sullivan thing - if the Petolta campaign was involved which by my understanding clearly was the case - is obviously ratfuckery, and it should absolutely be condemned. Condemned isn't necessarily the same as 'legally challenged' or anything of that sort, and you can argue as much as you want that it probably wasn't consequential because a vast majority of people are capable of picking the right option when it says 'republican incumbent' next to the 'real' dan sullivan's name, but just the idea of trying to do this is fucked. I mean, if the argument is 'yeah sure, Petolta tried to do this to potentially void a few would-be republican votes but obviously it's not going to matter because people can read', then that's no different from 'yeah so Trump tried to cheat but he's too incompetent to make it work'.
2: Trump did try to steal the 2020-election, so retrospectively going 'as you can clearly see through him accepting the 2026 election results, the fears that he would try to steal the 2026 election were entirely unfounded' doesn't really make sense to me. If we are instead of a blue tsunami living in a world where democrats take a narrow victory where control of the senate boils down to 3000 mail-in-ballots in a couple states, I'm also not convinced we'd see the same acceptance of the results. That said, I don't think Trump actually has any allegiance to the republican party, so he probably doesn't really care what happens to them after he's done anyway, and even if this clearly was a referendum on him, he also wasn't actually on the ballot, so a narcissist like him can choose to ignore it.
3: The first months of Trump Term 2 were of such a nature that I think at that point, there were legitimate reasons to be worried about the future of American democracy. But since then, I've been positively surprised by the resilience of the American system - and the American people. Courts have been challenging and delaying parts of the agenda more than I thought they could. Honestly - two months ago, I wasn't really worried about election interference because there had been several minor elections that had seemingly been entirely free and fair, and it seemed like stuff had largely mellowed down anyway. I think many prominent right wing voices are actually a bit relieved that this was such a disaster because this is just what they need to actually rid themselves of Trump's influence, which is what they've wanted but haven't been able to vocalize because doing so would oust them from The Party. But one month into Trump's presidency, I wasn't sure at all how this was going to go down, and even if retrospectively it's been shown that my fears were unfounded, I don't think they were at that point, but that's a moot point. I'm honestly just really happy that we might get a bit of a normalization, and hopefully, Trump ends up being an abberation and not a future trend.
I would think a little more circumspection is due from you for being wrong on several counts. Petolta succeeded, Trump failed. The American system in a national sense is resilient, so ultimately your fears were unfounded. What are you left with, saying that all your fears were wrong, but we should have compassion on you due to the climate that generated those fears? Shouldn't this really be a post that tells Introvert that he was right, grudgingly admits that his perspective was more steady and true than yours well before you could see clearly, and intend to give his perspective more consideration in the future?
We're past 11 years of Trump's first candidacy, 10 years since Hillary and elected Democratic leaders said he was an illegitimate president because of Russian interference. I've seen a sad trend of both "It's ok when we do it" and "Our fears are legitimate and understandable, and yours deserve to be ridiculed." The literal first encouraging sign I saw from Democratic officials and elected representatives happened 8 years after the 2016 defeat in Trump's election in 2024. A muted response after all the election rhetoric of saving Democracy (obviously didn't work), no repeat of destructive riots, a real focus on attacking Trump's character and fitness. Reminiscent of the blue tsunami today, the 2024 acceptance by Democrats was helped by also losing the popular vote, without which I couldn't firmly say that Democrats wouldn't have engaged in the same destructive rhetoric attacking the American system. I'd like to see a little more even-handedness in assessing the issues in 2026 and beyond, and not just excusing past anxiety on the way to doing the same damn thing in 2028.
My first point agrees with Introvert. My second and third are partially in agreement, partially saying that in retrospect I am glad to see that my worst fears were shown to not come true (but I also, to my knowledge, never said anything to the effect of 'Trump definitely won't let the midterms happen', this was never a position I had), and partially saying that I'm not sure there would be no interference in an alternative reality where the election was really close. Being worried that someone who definitely attempted to steal an election in the past might try the same in the future isn't particularly paranoid imo.
I'm aiming at what I said, circumspection. It's a little myopic to just focus on how all the anxiety was totally understandable at the time. But that is a little self-serving and doesn't give credit for the moderates and center-right (such that they exist) that have been calling out the strength of the electoral institutions this whole time. I 100% believe you in all sincerity Drone that 2028 comes around, and you're anxious, and I hear this same song and dance about being totally justified at being anxious after 2028.
I think you do a disservice to all the people that called it out at the time, and got blamed, for saying that the CISA story was hogwash, and the Supreme Court wouldn't do Trump's bidding on elections, and all the swing states wouldn't go along with some hairbrained alternate elector scheme, and all the rest. Is there any situation where they get their due? I just don't see a way out of this for you. If you say something eminently believable, like no governor or secretary of state is going to endorse an alternate slate of electors scheme, you're going to get 1) Drone ignoring the attacks against you (he's also scared) and 2) Drone in retrospect simply saying how right he was to be worried.
As someone who normally listens to you and understands where you're coming from, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this line. Trump didn't try steal midterms so everyone who was scared he might try should feel bad for having been scared?
...That seems like a dumbassed line, so I hope... not that?
Good thing I didn't write it!
The electoral institutions are stronger than people give them credit for, and claims otherwise deserve more analysis, skepticism, and evidentiary scrutiny. Don't get stuck in the cycle where every election could be the last one, ever, and we all console each other that we were right to be scared in the wake of it. We have to be strong enough to re-evaluate the priors. The media environment is heightening the threats and playing into your fears by feeding you what your anxiety innately wants.
I'm not the best person to explain how to break a kind of self-sustaining paranoia to let a little reality in. I say that regrettably. The threats must be weighed against the facts. Every new claim deserves its own skepticism. The ones this time around were pretty awful. Anonymous sourcing was marketed to third parties to tell everyone why they should be scared. The journalists get paid. The people that are scared want people telling them that they're right to be scared, and the vicious cycle continues. Be a little kinder and more assured when people here rationally examine the latest claims.
Line as in strategic line, not written one.
And I don't get the impression that people who recognise trump's previous attempts at fucking with elections think it was definitely the case that he was going to unilaterally steal midterm elections. He obviously didn't succeed if he did try, but I think we're on the same page with regards to weighing the evidence. It just strikes me as curious that part of weighing the evidence seems to be 'if we ignore Trump's previous attempts...'
And even then, if we are to listen to Kwark, the evidence still isn't unanimously on one side.
You'd have a point if I was saying that we should all stop talking about Trump's attempts to delegitimize elections and claim that he won elections that he lost. The key word is attempts. His closest attempt garnered zero governors and zero secretaries of state endorsing the plan, and that was six years ago. His other ones were stopped so cold by the courts that lawyers were disbarred.
We actually have a responsibility to look at news stories with rational skepticism and examine the proof despite the loudmouth giving you every reason to think he has ill aims. You're biased to accept every anonymous claim as actual proof that it comprises another Trump attempt (and partial success?), and I'm sad to say that the media industry surrounding this is booming. I want to break that cycle. We don't have some ticket to a brain vacation by saying "Trump's past attempts" on every anonymously-sourced or paranoid-interpretation.
Remember that the real strength of institutions exists apart from what somebody says and what lawsuits he files. If you're honest and have integrity, I don't think this is a real hard point to yield.
So I'm just gonna respond to all the points I feel like responding to here.
Firstly, I feel like you're a bit incoherent. It's like, I'm trying to give you a hand, and you go 'but I want to eat your whole upper body' and I'm like nope. Your representations of what 'Drone' thinks or says don't really read like representations of what I say or think, and if your point is about media sensationalism, then well, sure?
But it's not that I've been duped into beliveing that 'Trump is going to steal the election' by the sensationalist media. It's that following a) Trump tried to steal the 2020 election, b) some key figures surrounding him weren't entirely loyal to him c) the early stages of Trump 2.0 were characterized by a greatly intensified attempted 'breaking the system' with far more loyalty checks of public officials - and a seemingly more concentrated effort at purging the nonbelievers (including in the military) d) him occasionally floating the idea of running again and (I'll clarify that this wasn't ever something I was really concerned with - I thought he was too old. 60 year old Trump would've worried me more.) e) it honestly felt like there was no coherent effort made towards stopping him, the opposition seemed paralyzed by so much happening at the same time - and him now controlling all branches of government, being worried that his regime cared more about preserving power than about the principle of free and fair elections seems entirely reasonable to me.
You may further add that 'stealing the election' comes in many shapes and forms. I never really thought we were looking at a potential military coup or whatever, but more along the lines of disenfranchisement, gerrymandering efforts, potentially scaring certain minority groups from participating, 'something happening' to mail-in-ballots from certain districts.. These all have in common that they can shift a close election; but they won't impact a landslide. We saw a landslide. Many countries in the world have experienced some degree of democratic backsliding over the past decade. We don't see countries move from 'fully functional democracy' to 'dictatorship', we see 'functional democracy into flawed democracy into arguably a hybrid regime but still salvagable', or 'arguably a hybrid regime but seriously troubled' into 'more of a dictatorship'. Scholars from all sorts of departure points have downgraded the democracy-rating of the US over the past decade; this isn't just clickbaity journalists.
Additionally, something changed at some point. I think we saw one turning point in Minnesota, where people stood up to ICE in a way that seemed to largely neuter them going forward, and another one in Iran, where one of the real reasons why a lot of people had voted for Trump ended up imploding. I've talked to several who genuinely thought that at least, he'd be less likely to involve the US in a big military conflict in the middle east. And then this also fucks up the economy, and what we're left with, is a deeply unpopular MAGA.
That the last paragraph happened doesn't mean worries about paragraph 3 justified by paragraph 2 were entirely unfounded. But like, if say, the Senate was 50 dem 49 republican and alaska was the state yet to be called, ends up being called for Democrats by 1000 votes, would you be confident that Trump would be like 'yeah I guess they won fair and square'? - because I'm thinking, in that case, probably not.
On November 10 2026 05:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: But it's not that I've been duped into beliveing that 'Trump is going to steal the election' by the sensationalist media.
This is a partial answer. The real claim was "X and Y stories show that Trump is planning to steal the 2026 election." Or "are the evidence we've been looking for that Trump is..." They were backed by motivated reasoning that rejected alternative explanations, and were as you say "sensationalist." Myself and oBlade gave the obvious criticism of such claims at the time, and you didn't have to post. But you should've read that the people duped by those kinds of stories were throwing a fit about some pretty obvious criticism.
On November 09 2026 17:43 Liquid`Drone wrote: But since then, I've been positively surprised by the resilience of the American system - and the American people. Courts have been challenging and delaying parts of the agenda more than I thought they could
I thought it was only fair to give the correct side their due for knowing the resilience before you, and eating shit for saying it over and over again. Again, with your silence. The other half, which you did give, was saying that the people who were anxious and scared had an understandable basis for their emotions. I'm a both halves kind of guy. If you read people in the forum that were given shit for obvious criticism of sensationalist stories/conclusions from stories, and say nothing, I think the post-election time of reliving the feelings from pre-election is the right time to revisit the silence.
But like, if say, the Senate was 50 dem 49 republican and alaska was the state yet to be called, ends up being called for Democrats by 1000 votes, would you be confident that Trump would be like 'yeah I guess they won fair and square'? - because I'm thinking, in that case, probably not.
I already pretty much covered this with the person that declared he could only accept manipulation or "the US is just completely lost" if Republicans won it in any way. I was always willing to accept it whichever way it landed. You never gave your opinion back then, and I don't really see us having a disagreement unless you detail on.
I have read quite a few right-wing propaganda posts on social media lately, and they are absolutely spinning that there is something fishy about the last election. Some claims:
-20 million voters appeared in Texas, mixing up numbers for the whole country and the single state.
-The swings were massive, and "statistically impossible". This is taken as proof that the DEMs cheated.
-Mainstream media was being mean and unfair to their Grand leader
-Trump is still a hero, who deserves endless respect for getting back up again after being pulled down by mean people.
-Blaming too soft rules on voter ID and mail voting, there must be cheating.
-Demanding investigation, there MUST have been something very fishy going on, as there can be no other explanation.
At least with those guys, no accountability, and no no mention that voter turnout is generally quite low in mid terms, so everything can be explained quite easily.
The entitlement to power in certain groups of the US right feel is honesty scary, and they have no shame of showing it.
On November 10 2026 04:21 Jankisa wrote: The guy who is playing D for Rs for years and thinks that anything to the left of Joe Manchin is a communist Islamist conspiracy to turn the Democratic party socialist in attacking the left boogieman, shocking!
He downplays every Republican excess and comes here with MAGA talking points on regular basis but somehow now the veil falls from people's eyes.
As a reminder, this is his big pre-election takeaway/prediction:
On October 22 2026 04:02 dyhb wrote: It's dangerous to be pre-clearing the same kinds of conspiracy theories that Trump engages with in his rhetoric. He's said repeatedly that if he loses the election, then it's because the eleciton was rigged or because Democrats cheat.
Now, the other option (thankfully you present one) misses a few key things. First, republicans can "win the election in any way" by holding the Senate. There are only a few Senate seats that are up for vote in every election. In this election, the map leans favorable to Republicans.
On top of that, the Democrats ran a candidate credibly accused of sexual assault and rape and sporting a Nazi tattoo in Maine. After the accusations worsened, they swapped in another candidate that has little time to establish himself as an alternative. The Democratic candidate in Michigan is busy trying to distance himself from a letter he signed supporting the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian president to "purge the media and the police" and his family's social media posts describing long-time Muslim Brotherhood support that El-Sayed denies. Talarico (Texas dem candidate) has his odd "God is nonbinary," Mary's example supports abortion for Christians, and "Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country." Not exactly a good message in very white and pretty religious Texas. If Republicans hang on to the Senate, it will be in part due to candidate quality as well as a favorable map.
No need to count America out if this election goes poorly.
Didn't even remember the leading admission that Trump said this, he is one of us hysterics I guess, but he just forgot.
It's funny how you point out the lack of self-examination on the conspiracy to steal 2026 claims, and people get all defensive and retreat miles to the "but tRuMPs rhetoric."
Bro. Your guy tried to coup the last time he lost. Is that just rhetoric?
Yeah seriously. Either dyhb didn't follow the 2020 election and Trump's numerous attempts to steal it, or dyhb is acting in seriously bad faith. Trump doesn't only complain about election results ("but tRuMPs rhetoric"); he's also known for trying to cheat and rig them too.
Let's not forget that they tried to find vulnerabilities in the voting machines to exploit, as well invalidate mail-in ballots on a massive scale. They couldn't be more transparent with their efforts to rig the elections, yet you still have clowns like dyhb downplaying it.
Thomas Massie on the Articles of Impeachment he introduced against Pete Hegseth: "I hope Hegseth addresses the 8 articles of impeachment, and doesn‘t get up and misquote the Bible in Quentin Tarantino fashion and do some pull-ups and call everybody fat and gay. I may have just given you half his speech, I don't know."
On November 10 2026 06:24 LightSpectra wrote: Thomas Massie on the Articles of Impeachment he introduced against Pete Hegseth: "I hope Hegseth addresses the 8 articles of impeachment, and doesn‘t get up and misquote the Bible in Quentin Tarantino fashion and do some pull-ups and call everybody fat and gay. I may have just given you half his speech, I don't know."
This week, JO appropriately ripped PH to shreds too:
I have absolutely zero doubt that 2028 will have the same sensationalist news stories about how the Republicans are going to steal the election, and the Simbertos and DarkPlasmaBalls of the world will say "Remember 2020?" I don't even know if you're saying that in full knowledge of the bad faith you're engaging in, or if it just doesn't register anymore. There's a problem in this media environment that abandons normal checks like anonymous sourcing, third party commentary, and motivated reasoning and affects both moderate democrats and progressive democrats + Show Spoiler +
Republicans generally have it worse, because I know somebody's going to bring it up.
Junkies like their rage bait stories, and clicks matter in an attention economy. The news sources will just feed you back exactly the sensationalist claims that you crave and click on. When called out on it, we get the defensive rationalization to maintain the cognitive dissonance. That's the 2020 line.
I care about the future of the Democratic party and how we use this majority to pull back some control from the Executive Branch for the next time Republicans take the White House. It matters how this coalition pursues investigations and tries to get special counsels for corruption and other abuses of power. It's still an uneasy alliance between a lot of factions that only truly share their dislike of Trump. There's little blame you can assign the Republicans when you have a lame duck Republican president and bigger Democratic majorities in House and Senate than Trump ever had while in office to enact his agenda.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bInF9xe.png)
