- 148comments
- 200comments
- 36comments
- 236comments
- 11comments
- 62comments
- 11comments
- 46comments
- 254comments
- 72comments
- 50comments
- 38comments
- 239comments
- —discuss
- 11comments
- 17comments
- 51comments
- 169comments
- 3comments
- 13comments
- 156comments
- 27comments
- 89comments
- 16comments
- 178comments
- 76comments
- —discuss
- 149comments
- 18comments
- —discuss
And all the republicans will still vote red for the lying, cheating, grifting man.
All my life I have had faith in the governments reports and statistics for the most part. This admin has torn everything down and for what?
To keep the grift going, of course.
That's fair to say, but lacks details.
Most of Trump's public statements are done through a company that he owns. That same company charges a modest $100,000 per month for early access to his posts; just straight up facilitating insider trading for the President's personal profit. Plus people might find the administration making decision in their favor while paying the $100,000 a month.
There's also Trumpcoin through which people can transfer money to the President. This just happens in the open. Remember when Trump had personal 1-on-1 meetings with the top Trumpcoin holders? I remember.
I've barely scratched the surface here. Trump's personal worth has increased $3,000,000,000 during his second term, so far.
Corruption has existed before, but it's never been this out in the open.
Which can only probably be a benefit. If the corruption is this blatant and bad maybe the next swing around the pendulum there is less because people realize how much it's bad.
They had a firm belief that the reports and statistics were fake. Let's see how this turns out.
*by "they" I mean the voters... the people that were elected were, and are well informed
People tend to vote with their wallets in mind more than anything. I think that's why it ping ponged(inflation), and why they're getting destroyed in the midterm polling. The next president will likely have a D next to their name(more inflation).
Both times Trump won, the polls predicted he would lose.
Not by anything like the 8-9 points we're seeing in midterm polling right now.
Legally can't run a third time or be voted for again. But then again, legality hasn't stopped the things he does. Others need to step up.
I heard a good quote once: People don't vote to say thank you. People vote to say fuck you.
I don't trust polling.
Trump himself only happened because Ds abandoned the working class for grievance politics circa 2010 — forming “public private partnerships” to tear open old wounds while screwing the working class on behalf of corporations.
Still have my fingers crossed that the guy in Kentucky gunning for McConnell's seat can pull off a historic upset.
For a sizable fraction of people, when the facts conflict with their biases, they choose to reject the facts and double-down on their biases.
Racism is a very powerful belief system.
-isms of all kind are powerful. But the most powerful are those that give the believer a distant group of people for them to blame for all their troubles, which are often self-inflicted.
Are you saying that calling people racist is the worst bigotry?
[delayed]
May I assume you ask "for what?" rhetorically?
That tells a lot about Christian values
now we get to wonder why
we're no strangers to troops dying due to ongoing conflict pretty much everywhere
so why are they seemingly hiding a small number like this?
They deny everything, no matter how low the stakes. See, for example, the reflecting pool fuss.
Indeed it's likely foolish to read into all the pure stupidity at this point
That's the point, right? If you lie about everything, nothing really matters
Because they are flailing? Fuel prices will decide the midterms. There are pockets of die hards but after asking plenty of trump voters, they aren't happy. As long as the democrats in the US keep the identity shit to a minimum and make gains on actual issues likr housing and healthcare they can't lose.
Thanks for the laugh. The Dems have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I never said it wasn't going to be an incompetence slugfest
You think those "losses" aren't (to a degree) calculated? They are going to try their damnedest to win enough seats to do what they want, without winning so many that they'd have to do what they must.
Because they claimed a "flawless victory".
During conflict, which side is winning or losing is usually counted in number of body bags sent home. These tend to influence voters tremendously. Anything to tell a good story on that front.
In a conflict, the side that is winning is the side that still has the will to fight.
Roy Cohn, one of young Trump's "educators" (also tied to McCarthy's Red Scare)
He taught Trump to always take credit for the good things and blame someone else for the failures. When there is no one to blame, hide it and/or deny it loudly
In today's information environment, why would you ever admit to anything that hurts you? There seems to be no penalty for dishonesty.
I will admit that after today's CNN report and subsequent CNN ban, I wondered why he is so annoyed. And now it makes more sense.
Might be also that AI slob screw up, that allmost lead to armed confrontation with china: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/18/politics/us-military-ai-f...
It’s 2006. The President has embroiled us in an unpopular war in the Middle East and has lied about it.
It’s 2026. The President has embroiled us in an unpopular war in the Middle East and has lied about it.
Notably, the US is on precisely the opposite side of the conflict in 2026 compared to 2006.
To put it differently: its stated allies are direct lineal political and military descendants of the parties who were ostensibly its enemies in 2006, including Al-Qaeda / Jabhat Al-Nusra.
This is par for the course for US foreign policy in the region.
There's even (disputed) allegations that Bush Sr funneled money and weapons to bin Laden in opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If true, the big 2006 enemy was a 1986 ally.
Disputed by who?
“Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken”[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
I also recommend the book “The Great War for Civilisation” by Robert Fisk
That’s… hilariously not exactly new either. It can be said that our enemies and allies in 2006 were the almost exact opposite of the conflict in the 1980’s when we were funding the afghan mujahideen to fight the soviets.
So theoretically in another 20-30 years we can take a guess at who we’ll be fighting.
If someone dies near a war, but not due to the war, is it really fair to count them as a war fatality?
It's routinely written and recounted that for most wars in history more people died from disease than combat. But we still count them all as war deaths.
If they are killed by houthi drones and not iranian drones, I would think so.
If someone on a military base with no attacks going on, got a heart attack by watching the news, probably not a war fatality.
But we don't know, so any concrete speculation is probably not very helpful.
To get more specific this often means 'suicide' which absolutely is a casualty of war given the strain of war conditions, especially given the logistics concerns and duration of tours that they are forcing right now.
"With Covid, not of Covid," but for military casualties. One does see something new every day.
It depends who is president.
Zero service members died in our just announced de facto annexation of Greenland.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/18/us/politics/trump-greenla...
They probably just re-extended the existing treaty so he could call it a win.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denm...
"Among the agreed provisions is one stating the deal would not expire even if Greenland became an independent country in the future.
The official added that under the deal, the US has unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark. It includes "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," the official said.
It also bans non-Nato countries from building bases in Greenland, and "bans adversaries from making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States".
The official added that under the current status quo, adversaries have been allowed to invest in Greenland's "sensitive sectors without investment screening".
The official specifically referenced Russia and China, saying it blocks them from deploying troops or making investments in "sensitive sectors".
Without the official text being released, it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o
US murdered 123 children in school, this has to be the top story of all world news for a year