2026 Mid-Term Elections

31,392 Views | 525 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by historian
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

For the neverTrumper, everthing is always all about Trump. But in the real world, of course, nothing exists in a vacuum.
. And by no reasonable estimation is Trump (or his supporters) the worst part of our political landscape. Far from it. Dems have literally slit their throats in service to their own vanity that everything to the right of them is fascism, racism, sexism, this-or-thataphobia, etc….completely unable to conceive that spending so much energy to conjure up Republicans as a threat to democracy has allowed the worst of dragons inside the friggin castle. Finally, the sanest among them are starting to wake up






Every one of these "centrist democrats" have taken substantial amounts of money from AIPAC. There is no grass roots movement in Democratic circles for these democrats.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No, link is the bigger issue.

neverTrumpism is perhaps the single greatest pathology of our political system. Democrats are 95% socialist or so socialist-lite, yet the only problem neverTrumpers can see is Trump, who for whatever can be said about his style is quite mainstream in the policy realm.

whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Solid analysis here by David Brooks

william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
well said:

>>
Communism is not a political philosophy; it is a profound declaration of war against human nature, excellence, and spiritual truth.

The democratic process has become an engine for a terrifying pathological movement. When you look at the modern left, you are not looking at a legitimate political alternative; you are looking at a calculated assault on reality itself. They do not win at the ballot box through superior ideas or economic viability. Instead, they weaponize the darkest corners of human nature. The modern voter does not choose the left because they genuinely believe in a utopian paradise; they vote for them out of a deep, bitter hatred for beauty, excellence, and natural hierarchy. It is the resentment of the baseline mediocre looking at the exceptional and wishing to drag it down into the mud. The left understands this psychological vulnerability perfectly. They have realized that the easiest way to conquer a civilization is not through external warfare, but by validating the envy of the masses. They promise an artificial equality that can only be achieved by severing the tallest heads in the room.

To understand the terrifying mechanism of this ideology, one must analyze its deceptive moral architecture. The left cloaks itself in the language of compassion, empathy, and social justice, but this is a calculated obfuscation designed to secure raw political power. They have absolutely no intention of helping the marginalized, the poor, or the working class. To them, human suffering is merely a resource to be mined, an excuse to expand the borders of the state and diminish individual autonomy. They preach a false gospel of virtue while practicing pure, unadulterated Machtpolitik (political action by a person or group which makes use of or is intended to increase their power or influence; power politics). Once they secure control, the masks slip instantly. The compassionate advocate transforms overnight into the ruthless apparatchik, demanding total obedience to the new regime. This is the oldest trick in the political playbook, a strategy that Machiavelli exposed centuries ago: project the illusion of mercy and religious devotion while quietly preparing the tools of absolute subjugation.

The historical record of communism is not a series of noble mistakes; it is an unbroken timeline of deliberate, systemic horror. Wherever this ideological virus has infected a nation, it has followed the exact same trajectory: it lies, it cheats, it steals, and ultimately, it kills. From the frozen, brutal landscape of the Soviet gulag system to the forced starvation of the Holodomor, communism proved itself to be a meat-grinder for human souls. In Maoist China, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution systematically dismantled thousands of years of profound culture, replacing family loyalty with state worship and resulting in the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent lives. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge turned entire cities into literal killing fields, execution chambers where citizens were murdered merely for wearing glasses or speaking a foreign language, a supreme crime against the state's mandatory ignorance. This is the true face of communism: a ravenous beast that consumes its own children in a futile attempt to force reality to conform to a broken, academic theory.

"Communism is not a political philosophy; it is a profound declaration of war against human nature, excellence, and spiritual truth."

The modern apologists who sit in coddled Western universities, sipping expensive coffee while defending the virtues of Marx, deserve nothing but absolute ridicule and contempt. They are the useful idiots of our generation, individuals so profoundly disconnected from reality that they believe they would be the intellectual elite directing the utopia, rather than the first casualties lined up against the wall. They claim that true communism has never been tried, a defense so dripping with arrogance and historical illiteracy that it borders on the psychopathic. How many more millions must die before these ideological cultists admit that their system is fundamentally broken? Every single time this experiment has been run, it has resulted in economic devastation, cultural erasure, and mass graves. To support this ideology in the modern era is to display either a total absence of intellect or a terrifying desire for human suffering.

We are entering a period of existential political warfare, and we cannot afford to show an ounce of intellectual mercy to those who wish to destroy our civilization. The time for polite debate, bipartisan compromise, and gentle disagreement is entirely over. The left's ultimate goal is the complete financial and social expropriation of everything you have built, wrapped in the guise of democratic equity. They want a society dominated by a vast, unyielding technocracy where individual merit is treated as a social crime and dependency on the state is mandatory. If we allow even a trace of this ideological poison to remain within our institutions, our schools, or our halls of governance, it will inevitably fester and destroy the nation from the inside out.

We must draw an absolute line in the sand. We will never accept the creeping tyranny of statism, we will never bow to the forced consensus of the mob, and we will never apologize for defending beauty, strength, and truth. Our objective cannot merely be to manage the decline or contain the spread of leftist ideology; our objective must be the total and complete intellectual destruction of any trace of communism within our borders. We must aggressively expose their chicanery, humiliate their pseudo-intellectual leaders, and reclaim the cultural ground that was surrendered through decades of conservative cowardice. The future of our civilization depends on our willingness to look at this terrifying threat, call it by its true name, and utterly eradicate its influence from our society once and for all.

We can and will get through this,
Blessings,
Saggezza Eterna
<<
Go Bears!
TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

whiterock said:

For the neverTrumper, everthing is always all about Trump. But in the real world, of course, nothing exists in a vacuum.
. And by no reasonable estimation is Trump (or his supporters) the worst part of our political landscape. Far from it. Dems have literally slit their throats in service to their own vanity that everything to the right of them is fascism, racism, sexism, this-or-thataphobia, etc….completely unable to conceive that spending so much energy to conjure up Republicans as a threat to democracy has allowed the worst of dragons inside the friggin castle. Finally, the sanest among them are starting to wake up






Every one of these "centrist democrats" have taken substantial amounts of money from AIPAC. There is no grass roots movement in Democratic circles for these democrats.

I think the statement by Bill Maher was slightly inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say his vote is "for sale." It always has been.
“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Necessary first step for political success = consolidating your base.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He is running against Mamdani?

Why not ask if you trust Trump more than Idi Amin...


Consolidate his base? If the GOP is in a position that they have to consolidate their base, they are in deep ***** Their base would vote for Trump if he shot someone on 5th Avenue, it doesn't matter what he does. Cults are like that...
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Necessary first step for political success = consolidating your base.


doesn't matter. Trump and Maga are done and the polls show it. The R's better find someone to run whose name aint Vance. Gonna need to be a new face, anyone in this admin has serious Trump Stank on them and that won't wash off.
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Be careful, very careful of overestimating the memory capability of a proven American public, especially based on polls.
Rubio is one I would not underestimate.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?






“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

He is running against Mamdani?

Why not ask if you trust Trump more than Idi Amin...


Consolidate his base? If the GOP is in a position that they have to consolidate their base, they are in deep ***** Their base would vote for Trump if he shot someone on 5th Avenue, it doesn't matter what he does. Cults are like that...

LOL such obtusity.

Trump's base is secure.
It's the Democrats whose base is in open rebellion with them, forcing Dems to embrace radical policies which have super-majority opposition.

If things were as bad as the neverTrumpers insist, the conversation should be about whether or not Democrats will have a 100 seat majority in the House and a 60+ seat control of the Senate. Instead, we are in a situation where if the election were held today, Dems would have single-digit seat control the House and 50-50 chance for 1-2 seat control of the Senate. And if polling trends continue, the data suggests Dems are in a near toss-up for control of the House and likely fail to recapture the Senate. This is before the GOP even unlimbers a very-well funded campaign to nationalize the election strategy.

Are trends working in their direction? Or against them? Are they helping themselves, or doing themselves harm?

That there is even a remote (much less reasonable) chance that GOP retains one and possibly even both chambers just serves to prove that they are in a shockingly weak position and about to take a turn to the left which will further complicate their situation. They are literally doing all the right things to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I do agree that the Dems are stepping on it again. If there was a time to take back the Senate and House, now is it and they can't get out of their own way.


So, why show Trump versus someone he is not running against????
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

I do agree that the Dems are stepping on it again. If there was a time to take back the Senate and House, now is it and they can't get out of their own way.


So, why show Trump versus someone he is not running against????

Because he is the most dominant and successful political figure of the last decade. he's going to frame the battlefield to the disadvantage of his opponents, and ironically they are helping him do it .

You don't like him. But in sheer political effectiveness, he has no peer at this time. Dude picks and usually wins messy fights that career politicians instinctively avoid. And there's a very good chance he will win another mudfest this fall.

What's the bigger problem: A lame duck ******** inflaming establishments which have manifestly failed, or Democrat Party which has turning shrill, intolerant, and embracing a rising islamo-marxist revolution?
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ok, if you think that POTUS taking on a Mayor is significant?

historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mamdani represents a national movement as others in NYC, Seattle, & elsewhere demonstrate. When it comes to radical Marxists, it's best to be proactive instead of passive and to take their threats seriously early on. History is clear about this: Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, and everywhere else those tyrannical ideas gained any power.

Right now the nut cases are in the minority but they are gaining numbers because too many people are ignorant and complacent.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fair enough.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Ok, if you think that POTUS taking on a Mayor is significant?



Alinksy's Rukes for Radicals #13:

""Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

This is far from the first time I've noted Trump clearly, obviously using Linsky tactics……

POTUS is going to frame all Dems as proto commies by citing actual Democrats proudly citing communism as their goal. As I've noted several times, he is going to have a cash advantage in doing so. It WILL move the needle in his favor. Will it be enough? Yeah, possibly so.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What??

FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

FLBear5630 said:

Ok, if you think that POTUS taking on a Mayor is significant?



Alinksy's Rukes for Radicals #13:

""Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

This is far from the first time I've noted Trump clearly, obviously using Linsky tactics……

POTUS is going to frame all Dems as proto commies by citing actual Democrats proudly citing communism as their goal. As I've noted several times, he is going to have a cash advantage in doing so. It WILL move the needle in his favor. Will it be enough? Yeah, possibly so.


Dont forget redistricting. Get rid of as many opposing districts as possible helps.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The fascists have been redistricting away GOP representation for decades. It's about time the Republicans do the same. The fascists will whine and mean (they do that about everything) but gave no room to talk until they restore proper GOO representation in blue states: New England (currently zero representatives), California, Illinois, and other blue states.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

The fascists have been redistricting away GOP representation for decades. It's about time the Republicans do the same. The fascists will whine and mean (they do that about everything) but gave no room to talk until they restore proper GOO representation in blue states: New England (currently zero representatives), California, Illinois, and other blue states.

Every state that is dominated by one political party will at some point gerrymander. It was true in Democratic controlled Texas for 100 years and has been so for Republican Texas the past 30. Political parties exist to gain, keep and extend power. When they have the votes and the courts won't stop them, they are going to redistrict.

The only thing that stops this consistently is when there is real fear that the other party can push back. Some of the states that have gerrymandered this year are quietly worried that they may have stretched some of their safe districts a bit thin, making them vulnerable in a 10pt voter turnaround. You may not like the 2 party system, but it beats a one party one by a mile. In Texas, they gerrymandered the most populous congressional district in the US , and conceded it to the Democrats. In the past election they did not even offer a candidate in opposition to a guy who some would argue was non compos mentis...
“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Exactly
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

Exactly

I appreciate you may agree with me there, but my continuing may find us in disagreement!
I deplore the current situation where one party has to dominate, and districts are altered to unrecognizable ends largely to accommodate the whims of a leader or in reprisal for what someone else did. Far too many of us today have given up or forgotten that we got to where we are by compromise: Our Constitution, our national capitol, our very nation are all products of compromise. For 80 years, we coexisted as half slave, half free, through a series of tortured compromises by Henry Clay and others. It was only when Chief Justice Taney in his Dred Scott decision, closed the door on any possible further compromise that war between the states became inevitable. You and I can argue about the causes and the results of that war all day long, but my point is war begins when a people are convinced that no other compromise is possible. Compromise is only possible when opposing parties recognize their own limits and are forced to consider the viewpoints on the other side. The best, the important decisions in the history of our Republic have almost always been bipartisan. I see little hope for the future without our rediscovering the lost virtue of compromise.
“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree with almost all of that.

In my mind, it would be best if redistricting were fine on the basis of actual representation. Ironically, that's what Virginia has: apx 40% of voters are Republican and they have just under half the state's members in congress. They are probably the most representative state in the country. I say "ironic" because the Dems tried to gerrymander the GOP into only one seat but failed because they violated the state constitution in the process. Their representation is accidental because of the arrogance and incompetence of the fascist politicians. The state & nation lucked out.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TWD 1974 said:

historian said:

Exactly

I appreciate you may agree with me there, but my continuing may find us in disagreement!
I deplore the current situation where one party has to dominate, and districts are altered to unrecognizable ends largely to accommodate the whims of a leader or in reprisal for what someone else did. Far too many of us today have given up or forgotten that we got to where we are by compromise: Our Constitution, our national capitol, our very nation are all products of compromise. For 80 years, we coexisted as half slave, half free, through a series of tortured compromises by Henry Clay and others. It was only when Chief Justice Taney in his Dred Scott decision, closed the door on any possible further compromise that war between the states became inevitable. You and I can argue about the causes and the results of that war all day long, but my point is war begins when a people are convinced that no other compromise is possible. Compromise is only possible when opposing parties recognize their own limits and are forced to consider the viewpoints on the other side. The best, the important decisions in the history of our Republic have almost always been bipartisan. I see little hope for the future without our rediscovering the lost virtue of compromise.

THANK YOU!
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

TWD 1974 said:

historian said:

Exactly

I appreciate you may agree with me there, but my continuing may find us in disagreement!
I deplore the current situation where one party has to dominate, and districts are altered to unrecognizable ends largely to accommodate the whims of a leader or in reprisal for what someone else did. Far too many of us today have given up or forgotten that we got to where we are by compromise: Our Constitution, our national capitol, our very nation are all products of compromise. For 80 years, we coexisted as half slave, half free, through a series of tortured compromises by Henry Clay and others. It was only when Chief Justice Taney in his Dred Scott decision, closed the door on any possible further compromise that war between the states became inevitable. You and I can argue about the causes and the results of that war all day long, but my point is war begins when a people are convinced that no other compromise is possible. Compromise is only possible when opposing parties recognize their own limits and are forced to consider the viewpoints on the other side. The best, the important decisions in the history of our Republic have almost always been bipartisan. I see little hope for the future without our rediscovering the lost virtue of compromise.

THANK YOU!

To compromise requires broad agreement in basic principles. To date, the "basic principle" was classical liberalism. Dems and GOP would usually disagree on the "how" part, but we're in large measure in agreement on the "what" part. That is no longer so. Dems abandoned classical liberalism for post modernism and all its odious intersectional derivatives. We see that borne out in general, where there are intergalactic differences on the question of whether not one is proud of being American. And we see it borne out in specific on things that should not be remotely contentious, like what is the definition of a boy and what is the definition of a girl. Such a gulf is simply not reconcilable. The left is intent on revolutionary changes on which the right is not prepared to give an inch.

One side is going to have to win, and the other is going to lose. I suspect it will be the Democrats. We are already seeing the sane ones start to squirm.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are you working for the GOP or MAGA?
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TWD 1974 said:

historian said:

Exactly

I appreciate you may agree with me there, but my continuing may find us in disagreement!
I deplore the current situation where one party has to dominate, and districts are altered to unrecognizable ends largely to accommodate the whims of a leader or in reprisal for what someone else did. Far too many of us today have given up or forgotten that we got to where we are by compromise: Our Constitution, our national capitol, our very nation are all products of compromise. For 80 years, we coexisted as half slave, half free, through a series of tortured compromises by Henry Clay and others. It was only when Chief Justice Taney in his Dred Scott decision, closed the door on any possible further compromise that war between the states became inevitable. You and I can argue about the causes and the results of that war all day long, but my point is war begins when a people are convinced that no other compromise is possible. Compromise is only possible when opposing parties recognize their own limits and are forced to consider the viewpoints on the other side. The best, the important decisions in the history of our Republic have almost always been bipartisan. I see little hope for the future without our rediscovering the lost virtue of compromise.

That sounds nice, however your read on history is a little misguided.

During Henry Clay's time and before the Civil War, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, there was exponentially less power seated in Washington and most power was held by the states. So it was much easier to "compromise" when the stakes were relatively low. Once the federal government reached the size and scope, the stakes became much larger and thus compromise much more difficult. This of course is exacerbated when one party has become dominated by radical, extremist positions that would have seen absolutely looney five, 10, 20, 50 years ago. Add to the fact that Congress basically has stopped functioning.

To your point on gerrymandering I agree 100%, but the Democrat Party will never agree.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Are you working for the GOP or MAGA?

Just curious: Are you asking on behalf of AOC or Chairman Xi?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Are you working for the GOP or MAGA?

This is another weird post - what was your intent? Are you trying to communicate something?
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well, since you didnt get it I must of done a good job. If you get it or worse agree, i am worried.

Nobody mentioned MAGA or GOP or any other Bannon-esque subject. Just that we need compromise for our system to work. And like clockwork old Mr MAGA has to go into political class war BS. I was wondering if he was on their payroll, get it....
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Well, since you didnt get it I must of done a good job. If you get it or worse agree, i am worried.

Nobody mentioned MAGA or GOP or any other Bannon-esque subject. Just that we need compromise for our system to work. And like clockwork old Mr MAGA has to go into political class war BS. I was wondering if he was on their payroll, get it....


What specifically that he posted is factually incorrect?
TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

TWD 1974 said:

historian said:

Exactly

I appreciate you may agree with me there, but my continuing may find us in disagreement!
I deplore the current situation where one party has to dominate, and districts are altered to unrecognizable ends largely to accommodate the whims of a leader or in reprisal for what someone else did. Far too many of us today have given up or forgotten that we got to where we are by compromise: Our Constitution, our national capitol, our very nation are all products of compromise. For 80 years, we coexisted as half slave, half free, through a series of tortured compromises by Henry Clay and others. It was only when Chief Justice Taney in his Dred Scott decision, closed the door on any possible further compromise that war between the states became inevitable. You and I can argue about the causes and the results of that war all day long, but my point is war begins when a people are convinced that no other compromise is possible. Compromise is only possible when opposing parties recognize their own limits and are forced to consider the viewpoints on the other side. The best, the important decisions in the history of our Republic have almost always been bipartisan. I see little hope for the future without our rediscovering the lost virtue of compromise.

That sounds nice, however your read on history is a little misguided.

During Henry Clay's time and before the Civil War, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, there was exponentially less power seated in Washington and most power was held by the states. So it was much easier to "compromise" when the stakes were relatively low. Once the federal government reached the size and scope, the stakes became much larger and thus compromise much more difficult. This of course is exacerbated when one party has become dominated by radical, extremist positions that would have seen absolutely looney five, 10, 20, 50 years ago. Add to the fact that Congress basically has stopped functioning.

To your point on gerrymandering I agree 100%, but the Democrat Party will never agree.

I agree that the world, Washington, Federal Govt. and Power of the President have changed exponentially in their complexity. The problem in my view is not that government is too big, but that staying in political power demands a win, to dominate. Gerrymandering districts winnow out the possibility of compromise because compromise normally begins with purple state senators and Congressmen who have survived in the contested districts that have to find a way to serve all of the voters. Safe district politicians today sing one of two songs, "I love the President more than anyone, or I hate the President more than anyone."
You may be right that the Democrats would not agree to reform the gerrymandering. If Abbott had called Newson and said "we'll stop if you stop" would there have been a deal? We will never know. No one made the call. We no longer elect leaders with the courage to make that kind of call.
“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TWD 1974 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

TWD 1974 said:

historian said:

Exactly

I appreciate you may agree with me there, but my continuing may find us in disagreement!
I deplore the current situation where one party has to dominate, and districts are altered to unrecognizable ends largely to accommodate the whims of a leader or in reprisal for what someone else did. Far too many of us today have given up or forgotten that we got to where we are by compromise: Our Constitution, our national capitol, our very nation are all products of compromise. For 80 years, we coexisted as half slave, half free, through a series of tortured compromises by Henry Clay and others. It was only when Chief Justice Taney in his Dred Scott decision, closed the door on any possible further compromise that war between the states became inevitable. You and I can argue about the causes and the results of that war all day long, but my point is war begins when a people are convinced that no other compromise is possible. Compromise is only possible when opposing parties recognize their own limits and are forced to consider the viewpoints on the other side. The best, the important decisions in the history of our Republic have almost always been bipartisan. I see little hope for the future without our rediscovering the lost virtue of compromise.

That sounds nice, however your read on history is a little misguided.

During Henry Clay's time and before the Civil War, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, there was exponentially less power seated in Washington and most power was held by the states. So it was much easier to "compromise" when the stakes were relatively low. Once the federal government reached the size and scope, the stakes became much larger and thus compromise much more difficult. This of course is exacerbated when one party has become dominated by radical, extremist positions that would have seen absolutely looney five, 10, 20, 50 years ago. Add to the fact that Congress basically has stopped functioning.

To your point on gerrymandering I agree 100%, but the Democrat Party will never agree.

I agree that the world, Washington, Federal Govt. and Power of the President have changed exponentially in their complexity. The problem in my view is not that government is too big, but that staying in political power demands a win, to dominate. Gerrymandering districts winnow out the possibility of compromise because compromise normally begins with purple state senators and Congressmen who have survived in the contested districts that have to find a way to serve all of the voters. Safe district politicians today sing one of two songs, "I love the President more than anyone, or I hate the President more than anyone."
You may be right that the Democrats would not agree to reform the gerrymandering. If Abbott had called Newson and said "we'll stop if you stop" would there have been a deal? We will never know. No one made the call. We no longer elect leaders with the courage to make that kind of call.

You do know when gerrymandering started, right? It's hardly a new concept - the Democrat Party used it to maintain an iron grip on Congress for most the of the 20th Century. It's like most Democrat hysterics, when they say they oppose gerrymandering they actually mean they oppose Republican gerrymandering.

In terms of "we'll never know" is another naive comment - the Democrat-led gerrymandering is exponentially more extreme than the Republican-led states. That is how it has managed to stay in power despite being generally less popular than the GOP in most years.

You sort of glossed over part of my comments. Do you think increasingly radical and extreme positions makes it more difficult or challenging to compromise? Do you think the Democrats would be willing to stop the emotional hysterics, hyperbole, and disinformation in order to have a more irenic climate that would facilitate compromise? Said another way would they give up the theater kids act for the good of the nation?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FLBear5630 said:

Are you working for the GOP or MAGA?

gonna keep pointing out the obvious until you see it.


 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.