The only surprise to me is that this news is breaking three (3) years prior to the 2028 elections:
John Fetterman faces party plot to kick him to the curb (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/10/16/2348889/-John-Fetterman-faces-party-plot-to-kick-him-to-the-curb)
As per this article:
"Top Pennsylvania Democrats are quietly gearing up for a political showdown three years out.
According to a new report, party officials are laying the groundwork to challenge Sen. John Fetterman in a 2028 primary, frustrated by his increasingly public break with the party line."
I notified The Pennsylvania Democratic Party, back in March, that I would not be voting for Genocide John again under any circumstances. And, I suggested they begin searching for a more suitable candidate to represent them in 2028. It appears I am far from being the only one dissatisfied with his job performance.
This begs the question: Just how vile does a Republicult™ presidential candidate have to be before they can be beaten by a Democratic, female, Black and Asian-American vice president?
'I am not done.' Kamala Harris weighs in on another presidential bid (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/10/25/kamala-harris-2028-president-campaign/86898568007/)
Now, I voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. And, I will vote for her again, if she wins the Democratic nomination for POTUS in 2028. But, voting to nominate her to run for POTUS again in 2028 is a not a risk I'm willing to take. The stakes are just too high for that.
I have once again been reminded why my Certificate of Voter Registration lists me as having NO AFFILIATION since 9/4/2008, even though the last Republican candidate I voted for was Arlen Specter for U.S. Senator in 1992.
Senate Democrats blink on the shutdown after 40 days of pain (https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/news/senate-democrats-blink-shutdown-40-days-pain-rcna242937)
As per this article:
"After nearly six weeks of a painful shutdown, a critical number of Senate Democrats backed a Republican funding bill to reopen government — with little to show for holding out so long."
They folded on everything right? AMA funding is gone right?
Quote from: Faust on November 10, 2025, 06:25:05 PMThey folded on everything right? AMA funding is gone right?
To be honest, I don't even know.
I've been so disgusted, after reading the "Moderate Democrats" folded last night, I've barely looked at the news. My attitude is, if you're kicking your opponent's ass, don't waste your energy, or your time. Finish them off, and move on.
Now, I did look at one highly partisan political site a little while ago. And, those people published an article that read like the Dems had just executed some brilliant, winning strategy. Nevertheless, my reaction was WTF?!
So, after I finally cool down, I'm going to have to study the situation in detail, and get back to you.
Now, this
may be another case of "kicking the can down the road," as American politicians are famous for doing that. But, to do it when you're clearly winning is incredibly stupid. Still, it's not like the Dems have not snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the past.
Quote from: Faust on November 10, 2025, 06:25:05 PMThey folded on everything right? AMA funding is gone right?
The eight senators who recently caved to the Republicult™ to end this government shutdown voted to hold yet another formal vote on the
DIVISION A—CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2026 (https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/11/continuing_appropriations_act_2026_bill_text.pdf). (And, unless you're an accountant with intimate knowledge of the U.S. Federal Budget, I wouldn't waste much time reading this thirty-one (31) page document.)
Now, it does appear the Republicult™ in the senate will have the votes to pass the this continuing appropriations act (CR). But, it only funds the government until January 30, 2026. So, this is basically a "kick the can down the road" move, and everyone gets to argue over another CR again early next year.
Most of the articles written about these negotiations are big on opinions, and low on facts. But, here's one that's as good as any I have read:
Here's what's in the Senate deal that would end the government shutdown (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-shutdown-senate-deal/)
As per this article:
"The eight Democrats had been engaged in bipartisan talks over ending the stalemate for several weeks, and reached the agreement without the support of the party's leaders in the upper chamber.
The agreement they struck does nothing to address the expiring health care tax credits (emphasis mine) — which had been their party's key demand — besides the promise of a future vote on the issue. The deal left many Democrats furious with the eight senators who voted to advance it and with the party's leaders for allowing the defections."
And so, it's my opinion that our eight illustrious senators are saving the Republicult™ from the embarrassment of intentionally bankrupting and starving many of our citizens over the holidays for nothing in return. Now, is this a humanitarian thing to do? Sure, it is, in the short run. But, I don't believe it is in the long run.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong about this. But, this looks to me like yet another case of the Dems snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Maybe that makes sense, it avoids a humanitarian crises in the usa over the Christmas period then allows them to trigger the shutdown again in Jan, that said
If they genuinely think the republicans won't budge, then the shutdown is pointless and harmfull.
If they think something will have changed by end Jan I dont see what it could be, but they must have something, because otherwise they will be facing two embarrassing climb downs instead of one.
Quote from: Faust on November 10, 2025, 06:25:05 PMThey folded on everything right? AMA funding is gone right?
yes, I can't see that being a good thing for Republicans. A lot of people are not going to have medical insurance now, and any of them that have been paying attention will know that's the Republicans fault.
I believe this is one of the better articles about why the Dems caved, and permitted The Big Beautiful 2025 US Government Shutdown to end with a whimper:
Why Democrats Finally Caved In The Government Shutdown Fight (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-democrats-folded-government-shutdown-health-care_n_69136955e4b0ff332f7d7e0b?origin=home-zone-b-unit)
Donald Trump was willing to make millions of people suffer. Democrats didn't have the stomach for it.
As per this article:
"Democrats walked away with the promise of a symbolic vote on health care that's almost certain to fail, no extension for enhanced subsidies for people enrolled in the Affordable Care Act, and no guardrails to stop Trump from ignoring the law and withholding more funds passed by Congress. Their hope now is to count on a public backlash to Trump's ruthlessness next November."
Now, a lot can happen between now and January 30, 2026, when another continuing resolution (CR) must be approved to fund our government. But, I agree. Unless the "public backlash to Trump" is at Category 5/DEFCON 2 by then, I do not expect the Dems to force another shutdown.
And so, as of right now, it appears that the Dems only "strategy" is to attempt to encourage a substantial majority of Americans to vote in their own best interests on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026.
I don't understand New York City politics. But, I'm beginning to like this guy:
Mamdani stands by 'fascist' claim despite 'productive' Trump meeting (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5619404-nyc-mamdani-trump-meeting-fascist/)
As per this article:
"In an interview on NBC News's "Meet the Press," moderator Kristen Welker noted that, during his press conference with Trump on Friday, a reporter asked Mamdani whether he still believes the president is a "fascist," a label the mayor-elect has used to describe Trump in the past.
"You were about to answer. Then, President Trump sort of jumped in, and he said, quote, 'That's okay. You can just say yes. It's easier than explaining it,'" Welker said in the interview.
She continued: "So, Mr. Mayor-Elect, just to be very clear, do you think that President Trump is a fascist?"
Mamdani defended his response on Friday and doubled down on his position.
"And after President Trump said that, I said, 'Yes,'" Mamdani said, adding, "That's something that I've said in the past. I say it today.""
It went well because Mamdani said all the right things to appeal to trump:
"You and I have both been unfairly treated by the media"
"You have done an lot of good work for New York and brought a lot of business to it"
Trump doesn't care about political ideology at all (other than auctioning to the highest bidder), so he tends to get on well with people who are charming, appeal to his ego, and focus on saying things in a non adversarial way.
Bill and Hillary Clinton refuse to testify on Jeffrey Epstein (https://www.ms.now/news/bill-and-hillary-clinton-skip-jeffrey-epstein-depositions)
"House Oversight Chair James Comer said the committee would launch contempt of Congress proceedings against the former president, who skipped his deposition on Tuesday."
This is an absolutely brilliant political move by the Clintons!
There's a lot of MAGAtry out there right now in positions of power who don't know whether to shit of go blind over this move! So, check your popcorn supply! This is going to be good!
Quote from: Abbot Mythos on January 13, 2026, 06:36:32 PMBill and Hillary Clinton refuse to testify on Jeffrey Epstein (https://www.ms.now/news/bill-and-hillary-clinton-skip-jeffrey-epstein-depositions)
"House Oversight Chair James Comer said the committee would launch contempt of Congress proceedings against the former president, who skipped his deposition on Tuesday."
This is an absolutely brilliant political move by the Clintons!
There's a lot of MAGAtry out there right now in positions of power who don't know whether to shit of go blind over this move! So, check your popcorn supply! This is going to be good!
Could you explain why you see this as such a good move?
Quote from: Pergamos on January 16, 2026, 02:39:39 PMQuote from: Abbot Mythos on January 13, 2026, 06:36:32 PMBill and Hillary Clinton refuse to testify on Jeffrey Epstein (https://www.ms.now/news/bill-and-hillary-clinton-skip-jeffrey-epstein-depositions)
"House Oversight Chair James Comer said the committee would launch contempt of Congress proceedings against the former president, who skipped his deposition on Tuesday."
This is an absolutely brilliant political move by the Clintons!
There's a lot of MAGAtry out there right now in positions of power who don't know whether to shit of go blind over this move! So, check your popcorn supply! This is going to be good!
Could you explain why you see this as such a good move?
Here are my thoughts:
First of all, this move by the Clintons keeps the Trump-Epstein Files on the MSM and Partisan MAGAt Media's (PMM) front page. And, I think that's important, because the Turd Reich's is currently, intentionally 'flooding the zone' with all kinds of nonsense to distract the public's attention away from the Trump-Epstein Files, since even some of the MAGAtry are appalled by pedophilia. I also believe that what the Turd Reich intentionally started as a distraction now counts as an example of "the Streisand effect."
Second, this move allows the Clintons to control the narrative, not the Turd Reich. MAGAt leadership will no longer be able to hide their attacks behind closed doors, feed the media their version of the Clinton's testimony, and put the Clintons in the position of having to find media outlets willing to allow them to defend themselves in the court of public opinion. Now, the partisan political attacks, and the Clinton's defense against those attacks are all out there in the open for the whole world to see. So, the Clintons are now holding a megaphone.
Third, does the Turd Reich really want to ignite the firestorm that will result from the unprecedented arrest and incarceration of a popular, former, two-term U.S. President, and his former First Lady, who is also a former U.S. Senator, and a former U.S. Secretary of State in her own right? And sure, a lot of the MAGAtry will work themselves into a frenzy chanting "Lock them up! Lock them up!," similar to what they did years ago over Hilary Clinton's emails, if and when the POSOTUS starts the chant, and leads the chorus. But, seriously?! There's no way I see that as being a smart, beneficial move for the Turd Reich. The POSOTUS is no longer popular enough, or powerful enough, to extinguish such a firestorm.
Fourth, I don't believe the majority of 'Merican oligarchs, who fund the GOP (Greedy Oligarchy Party) for their own benefit, see arresting and incarcerating the Clintons as being a smart, beneficial move either. After all, this is already going to be a difficult, expensive election year for them, because they so desperately want to hold onto the ill gotten gains they've already acquired under the POSOTUS. I suspect the oligarchs are already on the phone everyday, telling every MAGAt leader they have on speed dial to make this problem go away A.S.A.P.
Fifth, I don't think it will happen, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see the Clinton's begin taunting the Turd Reich over their hesitation to arrest and incarcerate them. I now see the Clinton's as holding all of the cards in this game.
Last, I have great respect for Jon Stewart, but I totally disagree with him on this issue.
That all sounds like you are assuming Bill wasn't availing of the services on pedo island
Quote from: Faust on January 17, 2026, 10:07:44 AMThat all sounds like you are assuming Bill wasn't availing of the services on pedo island
I'm assuming that if the Turd Reich possessed any evidence that Slick Willie was a pedophile, they would have already gleefully released it to the public. But, the Turd Reich did not do that. Instead, they issued subpoenas to both Bill
AND Hilary Clinton to testify before their congressional committee behind closed doors.
So yes, I am "assuming Bill wasn't availing of the services on pedo island". And, given the Turd Reich's many desperate attempts to divert attention away from Trump's many well-documented visits to "pedo island," I do not believe I am making an unreasonable assumption.
The reason I've always assumed he was guilty is because trump has never once used it as a negative, not now with the photos not during the cooked hillary phase, when he would latch onto basic, barely substantiated or full rumours for everyone else. it makes me think they Shared the dirt.
If hes willing to stick his dick into the girl at the office while holding the most scrutinised job in the world, he would be willing to "party" on the island.
November 7th, 2028 is a long way off, and a lot is going to happen between now and the U.S. Presidential Election. But, at the time of this posting, I think James Carville knows what he's talking about:
The Democrat James Carville thinks is worth watching in 2028 will surprise you (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrat-james-carville-thinks-worth-watching-2028-surprise-you)
"Carville says Kamala Harris 'has no chance' in 2028 Democratic primary"
As per this article:
"Asked about whether he could see Harris as the party's standard-bearer in 2028, Carville responded, "She has no chance."
Harris replaced then-President Joe Biden as the Democrats' 2024 presidential nominee after Biden dropped his bid in July of that year, a month after a disastrous debate performance against Trump. Harris ended up losing the general election to Trump, who narrowly swept all seven key battleground states.
"No Democrat wants anything to do with anybody that had anything to do with 2024," Carville emphasized, as he reasoned why Harris couldn't win the 2028 nomination. He also questioned whether Harris, the nation's first female and first Black vice president, had the ability to energize the Black community if she launched another White House run.
Carville said that the Democrats' mantra heading into 2028 is "just win," and argued that "if we nominate two white males, nobody's going to give a s---.""
And, I couldn't agree more.
The Oldest Political Party won a big one:
The Supreme Court lets California use its new, Democratic-friendly congressional map (https://www.npr.org/2026/02/04/nx-s1-5691890/supreme-court-california-redistricting-map)
As per this article:
"The Supreme Court is allowing California to use its new congressional map for this year's midterm election, clearing the way for the state's gerrymandered districts as Democrats and Republicans continue their fight for control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The state's voters approved the redistricting plan last year as a Democratic counterresponse to Texas' new GOP-friendly map, which President Trump pushed for to help Republicans hold on to their narrow majority in the House."
Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
the band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
and somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
but there is no joy in Mudville the Republicult™—mighty Casey POSOTUS has struck out.
Quote from: Abbot Mythos on February 03, 2026, 11:05:51 PMNovember 7th, 2028 is a long way off, and a lot is going to happen between now and the U.S. Presidential Election. But, at the time of this posting, I think James Carville knows what he's talking about:
The Democrat James Carville thinks is worth watching in 2028 will surprise you (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrat-james-carville-thinks-worth-watching-2028-surprise-you)
"Carville says Kamala Harris 'has no chance' in 2028 Democratic primary"
As per this article:
"Asked about whether he could see Harris as the party's standard-bearer in 2028, Carville responded, "She has no chance."
Harris replaced then-President Joe Biden as the Democrats' 2024 presidential nominee after Biden dropped his bid in July of that year, a month after a disastrous debate performance against Trump. Harris ended up losing the general election to Trump, who narrowly swept all seven key battleground states.
"No Democrat wants anything to do with anybody that had anything to do with 2024," Carville emphasized, as he reasoned why Harris couldn't win the 2028 nomination. He also questioned whether Harris, the nation's first female and first Black vice president, had the ability to energize the Black community if she launched another White House run.
Carville said that the Democrats' mantra heading into 2028 is "just win," and argued that "if we nominate two white males, nobody's going to give a s---.""
And, I couldn't agree more.
The candidate's race and gender matter a lot less than their positions. If we nominate Newsom and Buttigeig they'll repeat Harris' losing strategy of attempting to pursue GOP voters while ignoring progressives and the left. At this point a candidate that campaigns on cutting off Israel, and dismantling ICE can win, one that supports genocide and retaining the American Gestapo isn't going to be able to out fascist Vance, or whoever the GOP puts up, but they will be able to alienate a huge portion of their base.
My preference would be for a working class patriot who wants to take down the pedophiles and the system that enabled their predation. I haven't seen a candidate like that yet, but I'm sure there are some out there. I know that would resonate with not only the left, and the mainstream Democrats, but also QAnon types and a lot of the folks who voted for Sanders and Trump, or Trump and Mamdani.
Quote from: Pergamos on February 08, 2026, 05:55:34 PMThe candidate's race and gender matter a lot less than their positions.
Vice President and Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris lost because of her race(s), gender, and political party affiliation.
I guess I'm going to have to revive my old
Hard Lessons to be Learned Before the Next Election (https://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,39449.0.html) topic. I thought I had just about beaten it to death, and became bored with it. But, obviously, there are still unbelievers out there. So, I'd better get back to it, and complete my editing.
That was part of it but she was also continuing very tried and tested voice of the establishment that Biden had represented, there's no appetite for that.
Its the reason AOC had a chance and Harris would have none
Quote from: Faust on February 08, 2026, 08:00:36 PMThat was part of it but she was also continuing very tried and tested voice of the establishment that Biden had represented, there's no appetite for that.
Its the reason AOC had a chance and Harris would have none
AOC was not on the ballot seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for POTUS in 2024. Joe Biden won the majority of the pledged delegates during the party's primary process, easily beating two (2) other already long forgotten male contenders. But, Biden ended his campaign for reelection before being officially nominated. Then, as per Rule 13J of the party's delegate selection rules, pledged delegates were left free to vote for whoever they wanted to be their candidate. And, after the delegates negotiated among themselves, Kamala Harris was nominated to run for POTUS, without a second national level Democratic Party primary vote being held. So, I'm unaware of any serious possibility where "AOC had a chance" to run for the office, much less become the current POTUS.
But, let me get this straight:
On Tuesday, Election Day, November 5th, 2024, 77,303,568 'Mericans had the choice between a very old, unhealthy looking, white, male, boorish, misogynist, racist, Putin lovin', pedophile friending, twice impeached, economy sinking, COVID-19 pandemic denying, 2020 election losing, failed January 6th insurrection leading, convicted felon, and adjudicated rapist, that was on the ballot with an 'R' after its name, and Vice President Kamala Harris. And, each of those voters said to themselves something to the effect of, "Oh, hell yeah, baby! Gimme some more of that first one! I don't want no "very tried and tested voice of the establishment" politician runnin' no gubernment of mine!
Come on?! Seriously?! Are you really going to go with that?!
Quote from: Abbot Mythos on February 09, 2026, 02:31:35 AMQuote from: Faust on February 08, 2026, 08:00:36 PMThat was part of it but she was also continuing very tried and tested voice of the establishment that Biden had represented, there's no appetite for that.
Its the reason AOC had a chance and Harris would have none
AOC was not on the ballot seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for POTUS in 2024. Joe Biden won the majority of the pledged delegates during the party's primary process, easily beating two (2) other already long forgotten male contenders. But, Biden ended his campaign for reelection before being officially nominated. Then, as per Rule 13J of the party's delegate selection rules, pledged delegates were left free to vote for whoever they wanted to be their candidate. And, after the delegates negotiated among themselves, Kamala Harris was nominated to run for POTUS, without a second national level Democratic Party primary vote being held. So, I'm unaware of any serious possibility where "AOC had a chance" to run for the office, much less become the current POTUS.
But, let me get this straight:
On Tuesday, Election Day, November 5th, 2024, 77,303,568 'Mericans had the choice between a very old, unhealthy looking, white, male, boorish, misogynist, racist, Putin lovin', pedophile friending, twice impeached, economy sinking, COVID-19 pandemic denying, 2020 election losing, failed January 6th insurrection leading, convicted felon, and adjudicated rapist, that was on the ballot with an 'R' after its name, and Vice President Kamala Harris. And, each of those voters said to themselves something to the effect of, "Oh, hell yeah, baby! Gimme some more of that first one! I don't want no "very tried and tested voice of the establishment" politician runnin' no gubernment of mine!
Come on?! Seriously?! Are you really going to go with that?!
You're missing the option that most people picked, which was "none of the above" That's what happens when the choices are "the bad you're used to" and "worse"
Quote from: Pergamos on February 09, 2026, 06:45:04 AMQuote from: Abbot Mythos on February 09, 2026, 02:31:35 AMQuote from: Faust on February 08, 2026, 08:00:36 PMThat was part of it but she was also continuing very tried and tested voice of the establishment that Biden had represented, there's no appetite for that.
Its the reason AOC had a chance and Harris would have none
On Tuesday, Election Day, November 5th, 2024, 77,303,568 'Mericans had the choice between ...
You're missing the option that most people picked, which was "none of the above" That's what happens when the choices are "the bad you're used to" and "worse"
No, I didn't miss a thing. I intentionally, and specifically provide the statistic about the 77,303,568 'Mericans who voted for the most vile former president, as well as the most vile presidential candidate ever nominated by either of 'Merica's two major political parties in my lifetime. Those 77,303,568 'Merican voters
WON the election for the POSOTUS.
And, as I've written before with slightly different wording, this begs the question: Just how vile does a Republicult™ presidential candidate have to be before they can be beaten by a Black and Asian-American, female, Democratic Vice President?
And, as I've also written before: "Vice President and Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris lost because of her race(s), gender, and political party affiliation."
All of the registered members of the Democratic Party had ample time and opportunity to chose to run for their party's nomination for POTUS themselves, or encourage other members of their political party to run for their party's nomination for POTUS, as well as to nominate an acceptable write-in candidate(s) for their party's nomination for POTUS. I've already provided details about how they first chose Joe Biden, and later nominated Kamala Harris to be their party's candidate for POTUS.
Quote from: Abbot Mythos on February 09, 2026, 02:31:35 AMQuote from: Faust on February 08, 2026, 08:00:36 PMThat was part of it but she was also continuing very tried and tested voice of the establishment that Biden had represented, there's no appetite for that.
Its the reason AOC had a chance and Harris would have none
AOC was not on the ballot seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for POTUS in 2024. Joe Biden won the majority of the pledged delegates during the party's primary process, easily beating two (2) other already long forgotten male contenders. But, Biden ended his campaign for reelection before being officially nominated. Then, as per Rule 13J of the party's delegate selection rules, pledged delegates were left free to vote for whoever they wanted to be their candidate. And, after the delegates negotiated among themselves, Kamala Harris was nominated to run for POTUS, without a second national level Democratic Party primary vote being held. So, I'm unaware of any serious possibility where "AOC had a chance" to run for the office, much less become the current POTUS.
But, let me get this straight:
On Tuesday, Election Day, November 5th, 2024, 77,303,568 'Mericans had the choice between a very old, unhealthy looking, white, male, boorish, misogynist, racist, Putin lovin', pedophile friending, twice impeached, economy sinking, COVID-19 pandemic denying, 2020 election losing, failed January 6th insurrection leading, convicted felon, and adjudicated rapist, that was on the ballot with an 'R' after its name, and Vice President Kamala Harris. And, each of those voters said to themselves something to the effect of, "Oh, hell yeah, baby! Gimme some more of that first one! I don't want no "very tried and tested voice of the establishment" politician runnin' no gubernment of mine!
Come on?! Seriously?! Are you really going to go with that?!
Yes because as vile as Trump is he had:
The racists
The disgruntled youth with no hope of ever owning a home in a society that bailed themselves out by sacrificing their kids futures.
The accelerationists and those looking for an outsider.
Conservatives that hold their nose and vote the party.
AoC would have appealed to two of the above groups.
If you keep assuming that every one of his voters was a racist then the same exact thing will happen again next time
So, you really are going to go with that. Well ... it's your call.
Quote from: Faust on February 09, 2026, 03:44:16 PMYes because as vile as Trump is he had:
The racists
The disgruntled youth with no hope of ever owning a home in a society that bailed themselves out by sacrificing their kids futures.
The accelerationists and those looking for an outsider.
Conservatives that hold their nose and vote the party.
AoC would have appealed to two of the above groups.
Some of 'Merica's disgruntled youth not understanding which political candidates, and which political party represents their best hope of securing 'The American Dream' is a communications and an educational problem. Still, you can't fix stupid. You can only do your best to recognize it, and outsmart it.
However, accelerationists who can not bring themselves to vote for someone who is clearly the lesser of two evils lack the pragmatism required to make right, but unpleasant choices. I believe it's misplaced optimism to count on them to save anyone, including themselves, from anything.
And, anyone who has been paying attention knows the POSOTUS began his political career as an outsider. So, besides lacking the ability to make right, but unpleasant choices, I believe it's misplaced optimism to count on people to save anyone, including themselves, from anything, who do not realize 'Merica is in the situation it's in today because it chose to elect a political outsider to the highest office in the land.
Again, AOC was not on the ballot seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for POTUS in 2024. And, early on, people were publicly encouraging her to seek that nomination. But, she's way more than intelligent enough, and way more than politically savvy enough to know her chances of winning that nomination were slim. Further, she knew that starting a long, ugly fight to secure the party's nomination would reduce her chances of actually winning the presidency to between slim and none. So, AOC made the smart choice, and then campaigned enthusiastically for the Biden/Harris ticket. And, if that wasn't good enough to get out the 'disgruntled youth vote,' the 'accelerationist vote,' and the 'outsider seekers vote,' then I have to wonder: Wouldn't the party be wise to move on, and maximize its efforts in securing 'Merica's blue collar vote again?
Now, the belief that AOC would have been the Democratic Party's savior in 2024 isn't anywhere near as bad as when some QAnon followers believed JFK Jr. would somehow reappear, become Trump's VP, and magic him back into the White House in 2021. But, that said, I don't realistically see either case as being anything more than wishful thinking after taking stunning election losses.
Quote from: Faust on February 09, 2026, 03:44:16 PMIf you keep assuming that every one of his voters was a racist then the same exact thing will happen again next time
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, and assume you unintentionally wrote a clumsy sentence. My assumptions, quite obviously, have little influence on anyone's vote but my own.
And, as I've written before: "Just how vile does a Republicult™ presidential candidate have to be before they can be beaten by a Black and Asian-American, female, Democratic Vice President?"
And again, as I've also written before: "Vice President and Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris lost because of her race(s), gender, and political party affiliation."
Last, I'll add: I have no reason to believe a Presidential Candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could have won, given her ethnicity, gender, and political party affiliation.
Being black and Asian American is dismissing the fact that she represented "more of the same" an outsider would have had better odds
Quote from: Pergamos on February 08, 2026, 05:55:34 PMQuote from: Abbot Mythos on February 03, 2026, 11:05:51 PMNovember 7th, 2028 is a long way off, and a lot is going to happen between now and the U.S. Presidential Election. But, at the time of this posting, I think James Carville knows what he's talking about:
The Democrat James Carville thinks is worth watching in 2028 will surprise you (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrat-james-carville-thinks-worth-watching-2028-surprise-you)
"Carville says Kamala Harris 'has no chance' in 2028 Democratic primary"
As per this article:
"Asked about whether he could see Harris as the party's standard-bearer in 2028, Carville responded, "She has no chance."
Harris replaced then-President Joe Biden as the Democrats' 2024 presidential nominee after Biden dropped his bid in July of that year, a month after a disastrous debate performance against Trump. Harris ended up losing the general election to Trump, who narrowly swept all seven key battleground states.
"No Democrat wants anything to do with anybody that had anything to do with 2024," Carville emphasized, as he reasoned why Harris couldn't win the 2028 nomination. He also questioned whether Harris, the nation's first female and first Black vice president, had the ability to energize the Black community if she launched another White House run.
Carville said that the Democrats' mantra heading into 2028 is "just win," and argued that "if we nominate two white males, nobody's going to give a s---.""
And, I couldn't agree more.
The candidate's race and gender matter a lot less than their positions. If we nominate Newsom and Buttigeig they'll repeat Harris' losing strategy of attempting to pursue GOP voters while ignoring progressives and the left. At this point a candidate that campaigns on cutting off Israel, and dismantling ICE can win, one that supports genocide and retaining the American Gestapo isn't going to be able to out fascist Vance, or whoever the GOP puts up, but they will be able to alienate a huge portion of their base.
My preference would be for a working class patriot who wants to take down the pedophiles and the system that enabled their predation. I haven't seen a candidate like that yet, but I'm sure there are some out there. I know that would resonate with not only the left, and the mainstream Democrats, but also QAnon types and a lot of the folks who voted for Sanders and Trump, or Trump and Mamdani.
Mind you, it's an easy mistake to make. The stay-at-home lefties are worthless. They're not going to shift their arses to vote under any circumstances because nobody can be good enough for them.
They have failed to realize that voting is a
strategy, not a marriage proposal.
So if you have to ignore someone - and let's be realistic, you do - you ignore the people who are too busy clutching their pearls to fill out a ballot.
Quote from: Faust on February 10, 2026, 07:19:19 PMBeing black and Asian American is dismissing the fact that she represented "more of the same" an outsider would have had better odds
How has that "outsider" thing been working so far? :lulz:
I think I've had enough of outsiders. The whole outsider thing is playing right into the dumbass fallacy that "Everyone else's job looks easy," and while it might help get elected,
you wind up with shit like we have right now, at this moment. Alongside shit like DOGE. Watching the administration having to rehire 80% of the people they fired has been nothing short of hilarious, especially since only half of the people came back.
Now I agree with cutting the deadwood (Schumer, Jeffries, etc), deciding that we need some dumb fucking dark horse populist will at best change the brand of the dumbassery. Which accomplishes nothing at all.
If it were up to me, we'd run Mark Kelly for president and either Buttigig or AOC as VP. I don't particularly like Mayor Pete on account of selling out his demographic for a chicken sandwich, but he would be an effective VP candidate.
Quote from: Abbot Mythos on February 10, 2026, 10:56:04 AMHowever, accelerationists who can not bring themselves to vote for someone who is clearly the lesser of two evils lack the pragmatism required to make right, but unpleasant choices. I believe it's misplaced optimism to count on them to save anyone, including themselves, from anything.
This.
This is what I was just saying.
Quote from: Faust on January 17, 2026, 10:07:44 AMThat all sounds like you are assuming Bill wasn't availing of the services on pedo island
If anyone was, he was.