LateToCult 41,861 Posted June 29 Author Share Posted June 29 8 hours ago, Roughhouse Dandy said: Made me cackle. End him This attitude is tired. Y'all said that about Trump 2.0 then it happened. Y'all said that about concentration camps then it happened. Y'all said that about project 2025 then it start happening. Yall said that about project Esther then it started happening. The more reigned in Trump 1.0 had to be talked out of invoking martial law to prevent the transfer of power, he's been "joking" about it for years, he keeps floating the idea of a 3rd term, he noted out loud the idea that if the country is at war he could cancel the election in conversation with Zelensky and then started started wars he continues to stoke, conservative officials have said they were looking into it, Ogles formally proposed an amendment to the 22nd amendment, and the subterranean military complex being built under the ballroom Trump has been so aggressive about is awfully fishy seeing as there are several dormant offices in DC that would already work perfectly for the purposes they're claiming it is for. I don't think it'll ultimately come to fruition anymore because of this administration's incompetence, but we have to stop acting like every drastic possibility from them is just a fearmongering fantasy when it's been proven time and time again that this administration is 100% willing to go there if they want to. If the administration was more capable then I’d think something as major as stopping an election would be feasible. They’re not though. I see more harm in promoting the idea that there won’t be an election because it just sounds sensationalized and dramatic. It distracts from real issues like SCOTUS’s ruling on the 14th amendment happening this week. I get that there are moments when complacency and lack of foresight has been an issue for people in this country but jumping to “there won’t be an election” is the equivalent to the right saying “socialism is coming to destroy this country.” 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladle Ghoulash 53,147 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 8 hours ago, Roughhouse Dandy said: Made me cackle. End him This attitude is tired. Y'all said that about Trump 2.0 then it happened. Y'all said that about concentration camps then it happened. Y'all said that about project 2025 then it start happening. Yall said that about project Esther then it started happening. The more reigned in Trump 1.0 had to be talked out of invoking martial law to prevent the transfer of power, he's been "joking" about it for years, he keeps floating the idea of a 3rd term, he noted out loud the idea that if the country is at war he could cancel the election in conversation with Zelensky and then started started wars he continues to stoke, conservative officials have said they were looking into it, Ogles formally proposed an amendment to the 22nd amendment, and the subterranean military complex being built under the ballroom Trump has been so aggressive about is awfully fishy seeing as there are several dormant offices in DC that would already work perfectly for the purposes they're claiming it is for. I don't think it'll ultimately come to fruition anymore because of this administration's incompetence, but we have to stop acting like every drastic possibility from them is just a fearmongering fantasy when it's been proven time and time again that this administration is 100% willing to go there if they want to. No shade, but much of Trump 2.0 has been a referendum on doomerism. No one ever said they wouldn’t *attempt* xyz, the question has always been: will it succeed? And the answer, even for a lot of what you’re saying, is no. That doesn’t mean that there was no harm or damage along the way, but it does mean that the idea that intention = inevitability is the more tired idea, imo. I get where you’re coming from, but I think the point of coming out against doomerism inevitability reads of Trump’s intentions, at least on my part, is to empower people to remember that there are avenues for resistance (both institutional and civil), not to say there’s nothing to worry about. We have forgotten our public MANNERS 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwilliam 88 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 Whoever the democratic nominee in 2028 is will have to be appealing to independent and moderate voters. Jon Ossoff has defied odds by winning his senate seat in Georgia (a largely conservative state) and is well positioned to win re-election in that state as well. He has broad support among demographics that are crucial for a presidential win and don't underestimate how powerful a strong image is to the public. He has that young Kennedy/Obama look to him. He's also largely unknown and because of that republicans haven't been able to paint him into a box yet. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roughhouse Dandy 13,614 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) On 6/29/2026 at 2:59 PM, LateToCult said: I see more harm in promoting the idea that there won’t be an election because it just sounds sensationalized and dramatic. It distracts from real issues like SCOTUS’s ruling on the 14th amendment happening this week. It sounding sensationalized and dramatic doesn't mean it is. The fact that the most powerful people in the country are willing to consider it as an option *is* a real issue. And its necessary to acknowledge it along with the myriad of other issues like the SCOTUS ruling. On 6/29/2026 at 3:08 PM, Ladle Ghoulash said: No shade, but much of Trump 2.0 has been a referendum on doomerism. No one ever said they wouldn’t *attempt* xyz, the question has always been: will it succeed? And the answer, even for a lot of what you’re saying, is no. We disagree. A lot of what I said is and has succeeded like I already mentioned. The question is not just "will it succeed?". The question is "what are their intentions?". They've proven themselves to have bad intentions. If a person means to blow up a town square, but the blast only takes out an apartment building because they constructed a faulty explosive... its still something worth some concern. Edited July 1 by Roughhouse Dandy This is my Hannah Montana™️ lipgloss. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladle Ghoulash 53,147 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Roughhouse Dandy said: It sounding sensationalized and dramatic doesn't mean it is. The fact that the most powerful people in the country are willing to consider it as an option *is* a real issue. And its necessary to acknowledge it along with the myriad of other issues like the SCOTUS ruling. We disagree. A lot of what I said is and has succeeded like I already mentioned. The question is not just "will it succeed?". The question is "what are their intentions?". They've proven themselves to have bad intentions. If a person's means to blow up a town square, but the blast only takes out an apartment building because they contructed a faulty explosive... it’s still something worth some concern. Kind of feels like you didn’t read past the section you quoted, given that I echo your exact sentiment at the end of my comment, but: many of the pillars of Project 2025 have been struck down in court, Alligator Alcatraz has been shut down, due to public backlash, ICE has significantly wound down aggressive deportation operations, Project Esther is clearly failing, given massive bipartisan distaste for Israel… but just because i don’t feel we fundamentally disagree, here’s what I said re: intentionality and doomerism in my original comment: 32 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said: that the idea that intention = inevitability is the more tired idea, imo. I get where you’re coming from, but I think the point of coming out against doomerism inevitability reads of Trump’s intentions, at least on my part, is to empower people to remember that there are avenues for resistance (both institutional and civil), not to say there’s nothing to worry about. Edited June 29 by Ladle Ghoulash We have forgotten our public MANNERS 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartySick 172,545 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 24 minutes ago, Samwilliam said: Whoever the democratic nominee in 2028 is will have to be appealing to independent and moderate voters. Jon Ossoff has defied odds by winning his senate seat in Georgia (a largely conservative state) and is well positioned to win re-election in that state as well. He has broad support among demographics that are crucial for a presidential win and don't underestimate how powerful a strong image is to the public. He has that young Kennedy/Obama look to him. He's also largely unknown and because of that republicans haven't been able to paint him into a box yet. He'll definitely be a force to reckon with, I just worry 2028 isn't his year to run. Especially if Jackson beats Bottoms in the gubernatorial race (it's a tossup despite Ossoff running 10+ points ahead), preventing Ossoff's seat from being filled with a Democratic appointee. The Democratic candidate in 2028 will have the upper hand regardless, the senate is precarious for the foreseeable future. We can't afford to lose even one seat when our "shooting for the stars" looks like a 52/48 majority with disloyal or feckless losers that could cost us votes on important things Whimsical bitch 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LateToCult 41,861 Posted June 29 Author Share Posted June 29 NOTUS dropped some heat for this thread. This is me paraphrasing: Gavin Newsom is courting influencers (nothing new there). Kamala Harris is undecided but has kept tabs on the people considering a run and so far doesn’t see anyone who she thinks will run away with the whole thing. Is increasingly seeing a 2028 run as a possibility. Support among black voters would make her a formidable candidate early on. Has suggested that anyone who wants to win the primary will have to “go through her.” What she meant is up for interpretation. The DNC is a mess (my words not theirs). A few potential candidates are talking about ignoring their debate process and finding other methods to debate away from their platform. The DNC is considering bringing in “influencers” for a “creator-led” debate. Iowa is threatening to ignore the DNC and hold their caucus early. 20+ Dems considering a run for 2028 So many people looking to run means it’s gonna be a bloodbath for staffers. (I think this means we hear more concrete rumors of campaigns as talent gets locked down early). Mark Kelly is actively seeking a senior communications advisor. Pete’s super PAC is looking for a platform director. POTENTIAL STAFFERS ARE HOLDING OUT IN CASE JON OSSOFF RUNS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO WORK FOR HIM. Moore was fundraising on the west coast in May. https://www.notus.org/2028-election/democratic-presidential-primary-2028-clowncar Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco 25,131 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 5 minutes ago, PartySick said: Especially if Jackson beats Bottoms The gays know how to party 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartySick 172,545 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 1 minute ago, Bronco said: That's it! Go to time out! Whimsical bitch 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco 25,131 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 4 minutes ago, LateToCult said: 20+ Dems considering a run for 2028 So many people looking to run means it’s gonna be a bloodbath for staffers This far out without an incumbent always has numbers like this. They'll spend the next year and a bit fighting the shadow primary which naturally whittles down the pack to a much lower number by the Iowa/NH/SC primaries and caucuses. I wouldn’t worry too much at this point. The gays know how to party Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco 25,131 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 1 minute ago, PartySick said: That's it! Go to time out! The gays know how to party 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LateToCult 41,861 Posted June 29 Author Share Posted June 29 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Bronco said: This far out without an incumbent always has numbers like this. They'll spend the next year and a bit fighting the shadow primary which naturally whittles down the pack to a much lower number by the Iowa/NH/SC primaries and caucuses. I wouldn’t worry too much at this point. Oh I ain’t worried about that. I want the mess Also, I think the reason they pointed it out was because this time there seems to be a higher quantity of “serious” contenders as opposed to other years. Edited June 29 by LateToCult 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco 25,131 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 Just now, LateToCult said: Oh I ain’t worried about that. I want the mess Also, I think the reason they pointed it out was because this time there seems to be a higher quantity of serious contenders as opposed to other years. Fair. There's no early front runner tbf 2008 had Clinton, 2016 had Clinton, 2020 had Biden. There's no one atm, so naturally the donor class who largely decided the pre-primary primary haven't figured out where to start spending yet. Like Newsome should be the front runner, but just aint picking up steam. And Harris refuses to **** off until she's lost the first 3 caucuses/primaries again and been made a fool of in the debates lol The gays know how to party Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LateToCult 41,861 Posted June 29 Author Share Posted June 29 3 minutes ago, Bronco said: Fair. There's no early front runner tbf 2008 had Clinton, 2016 had Clinton, 2020 had Biden. There's no one atm, so naturally the donor class who largely decided the pre-primary primary haven't figured out where to start spending yet. Like Newsome should be the front runner, but just aint picking up steam. And Harris refuses to **** off until she's lost the first 3 caucuses/primaries again and been made a fool of in the debates lol The absolute gag of it all when the donor class props up Ossoff or Moore or x candidate but the people push Newsom or Harris because name recognition does a lot of heavy lifting in this country. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roughhouse Dandy 13,614 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said: Kind of feels like you didn’t read past the section you quoted, given that I echo your exact sentiment at the end of my comment, but: many of the pillars of Project 2025 have been struck down in court, Alligator Alcatraz has been shut down, due to public backlash, ICE has significantly wound down aggressive deportation operations, Project Esther is clearly failing, given massive bipartisan distaste for Israel… but just because i don’t feel we fundamentally disagree, here’s what I said re: intentionality and doomerism in my original comment: I read your post entirely before responding and considered what you're saying. Respectfully (and I do mean that), I didn't explicitly acknowledge that part because I didn't find value in doing so beyond what my response already touched on. The efforts we've mentioned (Project 2025, concentration camps, etc) have been interfered with, but not before causing death and misery. Which I shared my thoughts on with the explosive analogy. I recognize that we're pretty much on the same page, but responded like I did because my big point in replying the first time was against dismissing concerns as coming from a few "dramatic whiners and bed wetters", and your response to me with your "referendum on doomerism" comment felt similar to that attitude. The intentions are enough to call out and be concerned with whether they're capable of carrying them out or not; the intentions along with the power they hold does damage worthy of speaking up over without automatically crossing over into unwarranted doomerism. To make a long f***ing story short: I thought your last response to me had hints of a further dismissal. If I was wrong about that, then good. Spoiler Lemme throw in a 💜 for you too bc I value you and most of our back-and-forths Edited June 29 by Roughhouse Dandy This is my Hannah Montana™️ lipgloss. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.