The two-week temporary ceasefire has done little to quell GOP fears about the war in Iran costing the party seats in November.

Republicans are relieved over Trump’s steps toward reconciliation in Iran — but they worry the measures are too little, too late to save them from a brutal midterm election cycle.

Behind the public celebration by many Republicans of the temporary two-week ceasefire announcement, longtime party operatives continue to warn of a bleak political reality as the cost-of-living concerns around the war including spiking gas prices that are likely to continue for weeks if not longer even if the fragile ceasefire holds.

A person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly, put it bluntly.

“This war in Iran almost cements the fact that we lose the midterms in November — the Senate and House,” the person said.

top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 200 points 7 months ago (52 children)

If democrats ran on a hard stance of "We will prosecute the fuck out of everyone involved in the current administration", they'd sweep the midterms. Then if they actually followed through on it, they'd also sweep in 2028, but we all know they won't do either.

  • source
  • hideshow 52 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    If they ran on that, I wouldn't be surprised if the regime arrested them for sedition and thus proved their point even more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

    It's not like they can do that overnight.

    Also, don't pretend that the Democrats oppose this war on moral grounds. The only criticisms most national Democrats have been able to muster are either that the trump admin has failed to follow appropriate procedure (i.e. not informing Congress, which is a whole tangent alone), or that they are incompetent in their execution of the war, which...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Also, don’t pretend that the Democrats oppose this war on moral grounds.

    They generally oppose it on economic grounds at least. I'll take the outcome of "no war" even if I disagree with the reason we get there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago*

    You're not wrong, I do think that falls under criticism of the execution more than anything, and even the likes of schumer are at least verbally pushing for legislation to force it to end. If that comes around, well, better late than never.

    I still doubt the Democrats willingness to engage in any policymaking that would actually make it difficult for the executive to engage in wards like this in the future

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    If Democrats were capable of that sort of backbone, Donald Trump would never have become president. At least, not for a second term.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Ah yes, the classic blame Democrats for Trump. Because Trump voters don't have agency.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    You’re missing the big picture and blaming the right when the problem isn’t right OR left. It’s UP. As in, the rich. Notice how neither side’s elected representatives really seem to give a shit about you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    Notice how neither side’s elected representatives really seem to give a shit about you?

    THIS!!! Yet, Lemmys keep on mistakenly thinking that the Dem's have their backs. lol

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago

    Correct: We blame democrats for ignoring their own constituents and embracing the status quo and therefore being able to lose to a stupid dipshit like Trump. The truth hurts, sometimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)

    I don't have much faith in the Democrats. I'm reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. It's a great book, and everyone should give it a read. It basically sums up the entire history of America from a Liberal law professor's point of view.

    ... regardless. In terms of taxes, Democrats are largely responsible for increasing taxes on the poor and subsidizing the rich. They at the same time give weak concessions to the lower class, but these are flimsy enough to be overturned the minute Republicans are in charge.

    He summed it up in one sentence:

    In a two-party system, if both parties ignore public opinion, there is no place voters can turn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    In a two-party system, if both parties ignore public opinion, there is no place voters can turn.

    Yup. Combined with a few other things (e.g. gerrymandering, electoral "college", citizens united) and our election system is basically a fucking scam.

    That is not to say that you should sit on the sidelines during the election, just understand that the game is rigged.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

    Honestly, I think voting Republican would be the best course of action to further my preferred Democrat agenda. On the whole, the elections average out to be about 50-50. I don't understand why, but both parties seem to seek equilibrium.

    Maybe the Democrats will be forced to make more popular policy decisions (i.e., universal healthcare) if they start losing by a landslide. Too many major losses would call into question the integrity of a two party system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    The problem is that they wouldn’t see that as a failure due to not adopting a given agenda their base cares about, they’d see it as a loss due to people liking the republican agenda more, and they would then alter their agenda to be closer to the republicans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    Honestly, you smell like a coward too afraid to admit you want to vote republican regardless of agendas.

    Your bigotry is on display no matter how much you try to dress it up with what you probably think is clever writing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago (28 children)

    but we all know they won’t do either.

    Which is why I'll keep voting third party. I'm not gonna support a party with no spine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    But but but you voted for Trump then! You want Trump to win again! We promise we're not as bad as the Republicans! Neo-liberals argue much like MAGA does, loaded questions and bad faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (12 children)

    You do you, it's your vote obviously. I hope you're in a safely blue state, though; know that any time the republicans win your state / county / town / whatever, you contributed to that outcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    Never gonna hold my nose to vote. Never gonna vote for "lesser" evil. I vote for who I want to win, regardless of odds. As is my American right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    Sure. Not arguing against the fact that it's your right to vote for whomever you want. However, if we look at the most recent US election, there were a lot of principled people holding that same belief either abstaining or declining to vote strategically, and now we have Trump. If you were one of those people, thinking you are not in small part responsible for the current administration is refusal to take responsibility for your own actions. Just like it would have been in small part my responsibility if Harris had won and decided to do what Trump is doing now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (9 children)

    there were a lot of principled people holding that same belief either abstaining or declining to vote strategically, and now we have Trump.

    I guess the Democrats should get a good enough candidate to offset that.

    If you were one of those people, thinking you are not in small part responsible for the current administration is refusal to take responsibility for your own actions.

    I guess the Democrats should have a good enough candidate to offset that. I proudly voted third party and will do again in upcoming elections unless the Dems choose AOC to run for president.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    Again, that's fine - you've got every right to do that. Is Trump closer to what you want in a president than Harris would have been, do you imagine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (6 children)

    I didn't vote for either one and they are both equally bad. Yes, let me say that again so you don't have to try a "gotcha" moment and try to repeat my words back to me. Yes, they are both equally bad. Yes, I think Harris would have done just as badly. Yes, I think both sides suck and in fact, I think they are practically the same.

    The Democratic party lost to Trump, twice. Twice. That's on you all, not me. Maybe the party should come up with a better candidate this time around.

    It's up the Dem party to inspire people to vote for them. the whole "but, but, but it's not Trump!" strategy didn't work. Either time. So are they gonna do better this time? Or are they just gonna write some harshly-worded press releases again?

    If the Dem party nominates AOC, I'll vote for them. If not, I'm voting third party. No amount of "gotcha" or "what if" scenarios that you are thinking of throwing at me will change my mind. You can throw all the hitler-nazi-fascist-emperor-pedo-king-wwIII-civilwar shit at me all you want. I don't like either party and they both suck.

    AOC or third party. Yep, I'm black and white that way. No, you aren't going to change my mind. And that's ok.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago* (5 children)

    The Democratic party lost to Trump, twice. Twice. That’s on you all, not me. Maybe the party should come up with a better candidate this time around.

    See, this right here is what I take issue with. You're grouping me in with the group that "lost to trump", but you're not acknowledging that you contributed to that loss by not voting strategically. You're putting blame on people who voted for Harris despite her not being our ideal candidate, but not accepting any yourself. Your shit stinks, too, just like everyone else's.

    To put it another way, your candidate, or "you all", to use your terms, also lost to Trump, and in fact performed even worse.

    they are both equally bad.

    Well, I think this is a delusional take, but you're welcome to your opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    but you’re not acknowledging that you contributed to that loss by not voting strategically.

    Why would I vote "strategically"? I voted for who I wanted to win, as everyone should. And yep, my candidate lost to Trump too. I have never thought, nor said, any different. But I don't go around blaming everyone else for my candidates loss, yet I see a lot of Democrats do that.

    Ya know why your candidate lost? Not enough people voted for her. Know why my candidate lost? Not enough people voted for her.

    Let me put it another way, using your logic: Should I blame you for my candidates loss, since you voted for Harris instead of my candidate? Should I say that Trump only won because of people like you not voting for my candidate?

    Because that's exactly what you are trying to do to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    Why would I vote “strategically”?

    Because our (deeply flawed) voting system necessitates it to get good outcomes.

    What you should be doing is pushing hard for your 3rd party of preference to run (and win) elections on the local and state level, not the presidency. You'd see far more actual, tangible change if you started getting those folks elected in smaller elections than just losing the presidential election with 2% of the votes every 4 years. Look at Zohran Mamdami - he's doing a great job in NYC and actually doing a lot of positive things. If he'd run for president, do you think he'd have won? Not a chance in hell.

    However, once candidates like that start doing good things at the local level, then they become more palatable candidates to elect to the House / Senate. And once we start getting Senators / House Reps from those parties, they become more palatable candidates on the national level.

    Let me put it another way, using your logic: Should I blame you for my candidates loss, since you voted for Harris instead of my candidate? Should I say that Trump only won because of people like you not voting for my candidate?

    There were exactly 2 candidates who had a chance of winning that election. You know that. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous. See the above for how to change that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    What you should be doing is pushing hard for your 3rd party of preference to run (and win) elections on the local and state level, not the presidency.

    They do. My party has won local elections and state elections and hold office.

    There were exactly 2 candidates who had a chance of winning that election.

    Dems and Repubs teamed up in 1987 to create the Commission on Presidential Debates. They set strict rules that have excluded virtually every third-party candidate from the national stage ever since.

    It’s one of the rare things they publicly agree on: maintaining the two-party lock on the biggest platform in politics.

    IMHO, if you vote for Dems, you support that. Harris voters and the non-voters, not voting for my candidate are why Trump won. You know that. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    They do. My party has won local elections and state elections and hold office.

    Great! So the next step, then, would be to push those candidates into senate / house seats, while protecting the presidency from the candidates who are interested in a fascist takeover of the country and its voting process, because that isn't going to help your candidates get elected anywhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    So the next step, then, would be to push those candidates into senate / house seats, while protecting the presidency from the candidates who are interested in a fascist takeover

    We already do that. And we have 9 candidates running (or actively trying to run) for governor in the 2026 elections.

    And I do my part to protect the presidency from bad people, by voting who I want to win. And during the last election it was 3rd party. Proud of my vote then, proud of my vote now.

    And I'll gladly vote 3rd party in future elections too. Harris voters and the non-voters not voting for my candidate are why Trump won.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    I'm right there with you but until there's an alternative voting system (like RCV, STV, or STAR or something), a vote for a 3rd party is as good as a vote for the opposition party. It sucks but that's the price of a ridiculous divided 2 party system. Well, there's many prices to pay for that actually but that's one of them...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    But if people keep thinking and what you are saying, then it never happens. Trust me, if everyone would suddenly vote for a third party, shit would. The duopoly wants you to keep being afraid to vote for at third party. Which is why I'll keep voting third party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    I mean yeah of course. But look at how many people in the country actually are 3rd party. Like I said if the country wasn't very clearly and decisively divided into 2 parties it would be different. But the fact is people in the US now are typically either pretty far left or pretty far right. The amount of people in the middle (like truly in the middle) is absolutely miniscule - less than 3% last I checked. If 100% of the 3rd party people voted 3rd party, it wouldn't amount to much sadly. I would absolutely love for that to change but we are wedged so far into these two parties that it will be a loooong time before that happens.

    Your opposition party would be absolutely thrilled if you voted 3rd party. There is no conspiracy to stop you from doing so. I'd argue the bigger conspiracy is against changing how we vote and how a winner gets chosen as that would make it much easier for a 3rd party candidate to make headway. As it stands, the more people they can get to throw their votes away instead of voting for someone that actually has a chance of winning (unless it's their party of course) the happier they'll be.

    I would be so happy to be wrong here but over the years this has only gotten worse and worse, exacerbating the problem and pushing us farther into this hellhole of diametrically opposed political theatre. But at least we are HOT HOT HOT as a country now right?! 🔥🚒 🔥

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    But the fact is people in the US now are typically either pretty far left or pretty far right.

    This is interesting. From the outside it looks like you have a lot of far right groups - the Republicans being the biggest example of an organised political presence. The Democrats are centre-right at best, but presumably you're talking about the people, not the political parties? In which case, surely it's on the Democrats to move left to meet the people? And if as many people are as far left as you say, that should be simple...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I'm not going to pretend I'm a political expert but from everything I can tell you are spot on. The right here is moving farther right at a much faster rate than the left is moving left. The other interesting (and depressing) caveat is that people that lean right, at least recently, tend to be much more staunchly right in their beliefs. People that lean left are often times more splintered. Which is why you get people like Bernie Sanders that are outspokenly independent but run as a left Democrat because they have a much better chance of winning if they join up with one of the two parties and they find a good amount of support on the left but virtually none on the right.

    And yes! From the rooftops yes! I agree with you that it's on the Democrats (or either party really but since the Democrats have ground to make up we'll go with them) to move the party and meet the voters but so far they absolutely refuse to do so. This is why you are seeing such a high degree of dissatisfaction within the democratic voter base. The party is forcing candidates out that the people in their own party don't really want, much less people that are undecided. It is truly surprising how out of touch they are with their own voter base. Which stinks because the right is (at least until very recently) very strongly united behind their movement.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (6 children)

    Like I said if the country wasn’t very clearly and decisively divided into 2 parties it would be different.

    Because people like you keep repeating it and people get scared and don't wanna take the chance.

    Your opposition party would be absolutely thrilled if you voted 3rd party.

    Even if every single person who voted for 3rd party in 2024 voted for Harris, she still would have lost. That's how big her margin of loss was. Look it up.

    It wasn't 3rd party voters that destroyed her chances, it was non-voters.

    As it stands, the more people they can get to throw their votes away instead of voting for someone that actually has a chance of winning (unless it’s their party of course) the happier they’ll be.

    Again, because people like you keep saying that and scaring people. Let me piggback on your conspiracy theory: Both major parties actively work to keep third-party candidates from having a real shot.

    And one of the clearest examples is how they teamed up in 1987 to create the Commission on Presidential Debates. They set strict rules that have excluded virtually every third-party candidate from the national stage ever since.

    It’s one of the rare things they publicly agree on: maintaining the two-party lock on the biggest platform in politics.

    Add every time you vote for them, you support them doing that. I refuse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    Even if every single person who voted for 3rd party in 2024 voted for Harris, she still would have lost. That's how big her margin of loss was. Look it up.

    Okay, I did. Harris lost the popular vote by roughly 2.285 million votes.

    Green Party (Stein/Aware): 862,000 votes. Independent (Kennedy/Shanahan): 756,000 votes.
    Libertarian (Oliver/Maat): 650,000 votes.
    Other: 650,000 votes. Combined: 2.919 million.

    Disproving your point technically, but your point is still taken.

    But the popular vote doesn't decide the election, you say.

    In Trump's three largest swing states, that if lost would've meant he lost the election, 31k greater votes went to a third party (260k) than his eventual margin (230k).

    I'm not here to say there's no place for voting 3rd party, but rather to refute your point that Trump would've won without the third party voters. Demonstratively not necessary true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    Popular vote doesn't decide the election and NEVER has decided the presidential election. U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) has always required the president to be chosen by the Electoral College or by the House of Representatives in rare cases where no one gets a majority of electoral votes.

    The popular vote is only used by states to help choose their electors. It has never overridden or replaced the Electoral College.

    Your popular-vote math is correct about shifting all ~2.92 million actual third-party votes to Harris flips the popular vote. But the presidency is decided by the Electoral College.

    In the three big swing states you mentioned:

    Pennsylvania: Trump’s margin (120,266) > third-party votes (~68k–92k) → PA does not flip.

    Michigan + Wisconsin: yes, they flip (+25 EV).

    Result: Harris ends at 251 EV, Trump at 287 EV. Trump still wins the presidency.

    So the numbers actually confirm my point: even if every person who voted third-party had voted for Harris instead, Trump still becomes president.

    All of this is straight from the official FEC certified results.

    The popular vote does not matter, and has not mattered for a while. The Electoral vote decides the election. Which by the way, BOTH parties refuse to change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    It's essentially unknowable, because the moment we remove third party votes, we can't say for certain that margins the major parties would've ended up with. There's too many variables to say with certainty. I'll concede that all else being equal third party votes wouldn't have shifted any EC votes, but my point is that all else isn't equal in this hypothetical. What is true third party voting could've shifted the popular vote, and if it did and Trump still won we'd be looking at the third time the popular vote didn't match the popular vote in the last seven elections, all benefiting republicans. I'm not saying those wins weren't valid (except maybe 2000), but it does highlight something worth reevaluating.

    BOTH parties refuse to change

    The [National Popular Vote Interstate Compact](National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) would like a word. Just because there isn't support in Congress for an amendment abolishing the EC, doesn't mean there isn't bipartisan support for overriding it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago

    It’s essentially unknowable, because the moment we remove third party votes, we can’t say for certain that margins the major parties would’ve ended up with

    But you didnd't say that in your reply to me. You specifically said, "Disproving your point technically" and "but rather to refute your point that Trump would’ve won without the third party voters."

    Also, I think it is knowable by numbers. I specifically said that if all the people who voted third party in 2024 prez election had voted for Harris instead, she still would have lost the election. The numbers show it.

    We don't base it on popular vote and NEVER have. It's Electoral votes. Now I wish we went by popular vote. And I'm all for going by popular vote. But that hasn't happened yet, and wasn't a reality in 2024, which is the time frame for my example.

    I'm behind ya on wanting popular vote. But you were incorrect in you orginal reply by implying that my statement was wrong. The numbers prove it.

    The popular vote/electoral vote argument has been happening during every election in my lifetime. I ready for that to change, but that doesn't make my statement or facts incorrect.

    Harris lost to Trump by such a large margin, that even if 3rd party voters had voted for her instead, Trump still would have won.

    If you wanna point fingers, point them at non-voters. That's what would have changed the election.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    Because people like you...

    Ah damn. I thought there was a decent chance at a constructive political discourse. But I see I we're just skipping straight to finger pointing (which is quite entertaining as all signs point to us being at least ostensibly politically aligned). But you are right. I concede. This is all because of me and evil people like me. You're 100% right. Surely it has nothing to do with the system that has all of us boxed into nicely manicured corners.

    Just remember the 1st and only rule of political finger pointing in the US. Keep it eye level or lower. Don't look up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    Surely it has nothing to do with the system that has all of us boxed into nicely manicured corners.

    That's totally the reason for most of the problems. I just refuse to stay in those corners.

    And like I said, even if every single person who voted for 3rd party in 2024 voted for Harris, she still would have lost. That’s how big her margin of loss was.

    It wasn’t 3rd party voters that destroyed her chances, it was non-voters.

    Be mad at them, not me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    It amazes me how many of them are in hard bubbles. I work with tradesmen, some of them are just the worst fucking people. I had one tell me yesterday that at least Hegseth is assertive unlike 'that black guy that went awol for heart surgery'. I'm convinced absolutely nothing will sway about 25% of the population. It's psychopathic.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Thankfully a decent portion of those imbeciles don't vote

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    WTF? Of course they vote, they vote HARD! The Conservative Propaganda Machine is constantly hyping them up to vote against the Liberals and their Woke. That's why they control all three branches of government. How do you think that happened if they don't vote?

    Claiming they don't vote is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Yep. Travel and talk to people or have an unfortunate in-law and you will see how dark the rural American can be. It’s so much more prevalent than anyone in a blue bubble wants to admit. And they are motivated and mobilized. These are the angry, racist people that helped Trump get in, twice! The sad thing is that the people I have met are way more adjusted, normal people in disguise than we think. They are all mad but for the wrong reasons but there are full networks of misinformation and peers backing them up. It’s not just the poor, rural people anymore. We’re fucked!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Don't believe it for a second. This is just like all those articles of people walking out of Trump rallies during the end of the last election.

    MAGA goons are still chugging that Kool-Aid.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 7 months ago

    Maybe it should be costing them their livelihoods and their freedoms. Throw the bastards in jail.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I've been seeing these type of headlines of Republican "fear" of losing elections due to the horrible shit they do when they are in power. The money behind Republicans don't care. It's built into the plan. Republicans just hunker down, switch to obstructionsm to limit undoing the damage they caused and wait for the voters to get fed up with the lack of change and blame the party in power (not the party that created the situation and is preventing it from changing). Then they find themselves back in power and continue burning the world and push for every more oppression.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    That assumes that the current narcissist in power is even willing to accept that he has lost... given that they seem to be preparing to label everything to the left of MAGA as terrorism and the federal government is currently buying tear gas in bulk, I would put a big question mark on that.

    “Those who fall asleep in a democracy may wake up in a dictatorship.”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    I don't want them to merely lose the midterms. I want Republicans to cease existing. Politically AND physically.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    I agree 100%, and here's how we can realistically accomplish it:

    First, we have to make everybody understand that the Republican Party is already dead. That was just the larval stage, before they morphed into their final form - MAGA. Republicans don't exist any more, they are as dead as the Whigs, and should only be referred to in historical, scholarly contexts. ALL Republicans are MAGAs now.

    The next step requires fighting hard enough, viciously enough, that the Dems take back ALL the power, all three branches. As low as they are now, all those things are actually easily within their reach within the next 5-6 years. MAGA is virtuosically incompetent, and are doing their very best to hand over the entire government to the Dems. All the Dems have to do is get out of the way, and accept it.

    Once they've accomplished the taking back of the government, America will have to undergo a massive recovery effort, to rebuild the damage that MAGA will leave in its wake, not just in America, but in the places around the world that we have destroyed.

    We can never go back to where we were, and too much institutional knowledge knowledge will be lost, but that presents us with a rare challenge in America, the the opportunity to rebuild our society. We did a terrible job after the Civil War, and now we are dealing with that long festering wound. We either have to finally heal it, or hack off the limb, but we can't allow it to continue to rot, and poison the rest of our system. That starts with wide-spread investigations into EVERY instance of MAGA corruption, with indictments, prosecutions, and prison sentences.

    It will be absolutely IMPERATIVE to officially declare MAGA to be a genuine National Security Threat, and abolish them, and prohibit them from existing in any form. They launched a violent Insurrection, stole hundreds of classified documents, election manipulation/fraud, war profiteering, market manipulation, insider trading, war crimes, bribery, treason, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, PEDOPHILIA, and much, much more. It is no exaggeration at all to say that they have openly committed numerous high crimes directly in front of the entire world, with absolutely no remorse. They still.our country in a rigged election, and proceeded to wreck the entire world. They aren't just a threat, they are an ongoing international criminal enterprise, they danger to America and the world is PROVEN.

    As a National Security Threat, we can prohibit them from existing, and arrest anyone who attempts to organize under the MAGA banner. And since Republicans became MAGA, there won't be any Republicans either. It will be illegal. We will reinforce that with a Federal Educational Curriculum that emphasizes Critical Thinking Skills, and a history curriculum that acknowledges the stains of slavery and the Native American Genocide, and teaches young citizens how to recognize and avoid propaganda and attempts at political recruitment and indoctrination.

    That will require EXTREMELY strong, committed, courageous leadership, which the current MAGA comedy act of Schmuck & Jeffries does not possess. In fact, it would not be surprising if future investigations discover that both of those weak-ass losers were on the MAGA payroll. We are in unprecedented times, and the fight, and the aftermath, will require unprecedented solutions. Insipid politicians who only want to continue with business as usual need to be replaced with those who are enthusiastic about crushing the treasonous MAGA threat, and rebuilding an America that works for all of us, and not the wealthy.

    There is a LOT more that needs to be done, like enlarging the Supreme Court, and codifying a lot of important government anti-corruption policies and limitations, but this was just about how to get rid of MAGA, and thus, the Republican Party.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    that kind of verbiage only promotes political division and confrontation. So being precise with what you say does matter. Should dissenting opinions exist? Should there be guardrails AGAINST blatant breaks of law (domestic and international)? Should people be jailed or exterminated for their political views? Who has monopoly on violence? etc. etc. Political demise for republicans would be nice but then take into consideration how very close Mainstream Democrats are to republicans. This is not solved by political extermination of Republicans but by pluralistic government, proportional representation that allows for more nuance and forces compromise... would still need strong and independent judicial branch to hold government to account. Calls for extermination of "other" was always a prerogative of radical extremes, ability to set the framework that prevents any abuse and having a dialogue is what defines "civilized" society

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    You want nuance? We will never have a "normal" Republican president again. If that doesn't strike you as a threat to civilization then you haven't been paying attention.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    VERY dramatic. Maybe even accurate. But does it really matter? System needs to change. Otherwise same people will hijack Dems and you'll have NOTHING to tramp it with having a single party. So yeah, nuance, grasshopper.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I mean it puts it in perspective. We have a system where the two parties take turns being president and one party is a death cult. So the system is guaranteed to change, but if that change doesn't include the extinction of the GOP then it won't change for the better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    The fallacy above is the Tolerance of Intolerance. Democrats, up until this presidency, generally respected the rule of law. There has been nothing close in any of their behavior.

    When the "other" is an identity formed through place of birth, race, or cultural upbringing, I agree that extermination is a horrific thing that serves as a warning bell. But when the "other" is an intentional ideology formed through mature, conscious decision as a functioning adult, especially when it originates from boundless hatred, I don't see any particular issue in full, total extermination of its source.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    methods of extermination matter. Did you ever try to train an animal? Did you exterminate one for not listening? Do you know anyone who did exterminate animals for bad behaviour and put it on their resume? Do you want to be like them? Ideas and movements do not grow in a vacuum. Uneducated underpaid masses will find the most unpleasant outlet for their anger. Mainstream Democrats will not resolve that issue and those same Democrats will choke off any progressive agenda. So it's a hydra, you cut off one head only to get two staring back at you. Extermination of effect solves absolutely nothing. So, you were saying?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (20 children)

    Don't underestimate the Democratic establishment's ability to run godawful candidates. I think they actually believe they can run even worse candidates when the Republicans are unpopular

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (13 children)

    Shhh, don't let the Dem supporters and Blue No Matter Who types hear this. They'll say you voted for Trump personally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    Everyone outside the country knows Harris was an excellent candidate.

    Saying "I voted republican because of the dems" is typical american behaviour.

    That's why you are where you are, but it's not your fault, it never is.

    You guys are saying that what Trump did to your country is because of the democrats?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    You guys are saying that what Trump did to your country is because of the democrats?

    If you're not familiar with our politics then you don't know how right you are. The Democrats have a strategy of giving Republicans rope to hang themselves. The "adults" of the Democratic party are encouraging self-harm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (8 children)

    I voted Harris. So good strawman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    It's not a strawman, they're directly responding to what you said. Regardless of how you voted

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Man, I came to Lemmy thinking I'd encounter less neo-liberals or those who apologize for them. It's rather unfortunate really.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I mailed in my primary vote from overseas weeks ago. Other mail I've sent since has arrived with my family in that and another state. I voted for the progressive candidate that was anti-ice. We'll see just how fucked democracy is for those of us overseas voters

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -2 points 7 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago*

    It's never 'no reason', getting the votes out is an essential part of being a politician in a democratic country. If voters don't connect with an otherwise good candidate, blame the politician, not the electorate.II think the campaign was bad and too invisible. She was running on "not Trump" and lacked a positive vision for the country

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Yep. Dems have been running on, "but, but...but our candidate isn't republican" strategy for so long. And they still haven't changed.

    And from some of the comments in this thread, they are supported in doing that. So they'll keep fucking it up. lol

    I'll happily admit I'm wrong if they put AOC forward as pres candidate. If they don't put AOC in there, then I'll keep voting third party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›