Do you believe for a second that Trump will leave the White House?

Honey, no.

Trolly have you ever asserted anything you see as true which didn't carry the deep state seal of approval? I mean, your whole thing is over. The whole thing of snickering at people merely because they recognize people in government have other than purely altruistic motives is over. You don't understand why Fuentes is popular or why Trump had to go debauch himself by associating himself with him. This has to baffle you because you don't seem to see that anyone who is looking can see what is going on. They see the AIPAC money flood into places so to guard against any government representatives questioning our allegiance to Israel and it's genocidal projects. They see CNN reporters sniffing shells in order tell us whether those shells carried lethal gases. The curtain is down dude, why are you the last to know?

I was endlessly attacked over my characterizations of Israel as ethnic cleansers, right in this forum, a decade ago. I was banned multiple times. My views have been totally vindicated. Your perspective is over. You lost. What you've been saying is totally exposed as a series of falsehoods, just one after the other. No one is buying it anymore. Sorry Trolly. You need to accept this and accept a new good fight because things can only go 2 ways now, at least that is what the conventional wisdom says and I agree.

All this is pretty silly. Of course Israel gets most of what it wants from the US government, because most of the US population likes Israel and doesn't like Muslim countries in the middle east, doesn't like Hamas, and therefore doesn't care much about the people of Gaza.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle take money from Israel-related PACs, just like they all take money from lots of other special interest groups. It sucks that PACs exist at all, but I don't see how they give Israel more power than any of the other lobbying groups.

A plurality of Americans like what Israel is doing. Most of the rest don't care one way or the other (you can put me in that camp). Some others don't like what is going on there, but it's not one of their top concerns when deciding who gets their vote.

Luckily, you're part of the very small minority who cares about this issue so much that you don't even care if the US becomes a dictatorship.

I'm not sure.

My first instinct is that Trump will do what he did in 2020 which is try to get himself elected after he has lost. Last time it was fake Electors who never got there.

This time though I really doubt the Supreme Court will allow him to be a candidate due to the constitutional amendment about two terms max.

So Trump may try a Putin like thing which is to act like we are at war and that we can't hold an election. He has already started sending troops into cities which is completely unconstitutional unless we are being invaded, which we are clearly not. But the Supreme court has made a number of pro Trump decisions without showing who has voted for it and without holding any hearings.

I just think that this one won't go Trump's way. But on the other hand he may try. He does like being the center of attention.

The other thing is that if the democrats take over the house there likely would be another impeachment given all of the illegal things Trump has been doing. It would be interesting to see if there are enough Republican senators this time to just say no more to this. Especially because of the loss of Medicaid for like close to 20 million people where rural areas will get hit the hardest.

But like with Biden, if Trump can't make sense any more when he speaks the Republicans may not let him stay on if he starts acting like he is going to try. That way JD Vance would become president and stand a much better chance of being elected.

If he doesn’t get a third term and Vance loses, he’s getting indicted and likely facing multiple convictions. Hard to imagine someone wouldn’t have a contingency plan for that, but it’s even harder to imagine what it could be. Maybe he’s thinking that if they come to take him off to jail and considering his age, he’ll just turn Mar-a-Lago into a Branch Davidian compound.

I have no doubt that the rich will keep getting richer and income inequality will continue to widen. That dos not mean a mainstream candidate will run on UBI in the general election. The money and power of the Democrat party are not going to get behind someone running on UBI. In a general election, the opposition ads would make current characterizations of politicians like AOC and Bernie as socialists look tame by comparison to the kind of ads that would be run against a candidate supporting UBI.

No future, current or former POTUS is ever going to go to jail.

lol no

I would expect the same token resistance from the Republicans as with universal healthcare. The rich aren't paying for a UBI anymore than they're paying for universal healthcare. Households in the $100K-500K range will foot the bill. In the zero-sum game of wealth, that demo is accumulating a lot of it.

So what would you suggest that the candidates run on that get people interested enough to vote for them?

I know you know this but the real concerning terrorist organization that is Zionism is probably talked about more at Stormfront as a threat to the entire world than anywhere else.

Whether Nick is a grifter or not, a portion of his 200k or/we, real time watching fans, are complaining specifically about Zionist interests in ME wars, Hollywood, banks, culture media and about 50 other things.

According to that post, there is far more overlapping between you and Nick (or at least his supporters) than I think you realize. Because a Nazi will join hands with any lefty, or minority way before they ever make a mend with a Zionist. And as we eventually learn, some will be both minorities and lefites.

But the most interesting part of how this is misunderstood, is that most people will never think that that is possible. It's confusing times.

I mean, you're not escaping the commie label.

Squeezing a liberal or moderate for being a communist is a perfect political tactic in the current US political climate. You'll make the conservatives angry with the candidate for being a communist, and you'll make the socialists angry with the candidate for not being a communist. If the candidate defends himself, this will make liberals and moderates angry at the candidate for not staying on message. If the candidate doesn't defend himself, he gets picked apart for having no message.

Of course, the candidate could agree to being a communist, in which case, congratulations: The 0.005% of the US population that are registered communists will now tear themselves apart at the seams explaining why this particular candidate is the worst person in the universe.

“Is President Obama a Socialist?” — Fox News

“‘Glenn Beck’: Barack Obama, Socialist?” — Fox News

“McCain Pressed Over Whether Obama Is a Socialist” — Fox News

“Perry ‘Absolutely’ Believes Obama Is a Socialist” — Fox News

“Fox News Editor Pushed Emphasis On Obama ‘Socialism’ Ahead Of 2008 Election”

Obama was hammered nonstop with the “socialist” label, yet he still carried the general and delivered his big policy push with healthcare. That’s the model I’m talking about: a center-mod who checks the usual boxes and makes one big idea - like UBI - the clear centerpiece. So it's not speculative; it’s been proven to work with the American electorate and it just might be the only model that works for the Dems. It’s the alternatives that haven’t been proven. Those are basically versions of the Trump playbook, which doesn’t really work with the dems’ constituency base.

Not sure about it being the only model that works.

I mean, Biden won as recently as 2020. And Hillary won the popular vote in 2016.

(Of course, your model might prove correct if you accept the narrative that the Dems stole the 2020 election.)

I don't think it matters how the right decides to pick on the left. That's on their side, for their people.

Obama was hammered non stop but I think he won because he brought the perception of a new direction that people rallied behind - that trumps any right wing attack, imo. But we were also in a recession, and recessions are huge for dems and they pr0obably need another one to win - Obama got lucky there. Mamdani's success wasn't because of the lack of attacks but because people see him in the similar manner as they saw Obama, or anyone else that would encourage people to get into the game. Kamala was the opposite of that. And I think too many of the issues Kamala’s base focused on were ones that don’t actually rank very high in terms of what a large amount people actually care about in real life

Mamdani won a democratic primary in a deep blue city in an election with extremely low turnout, probably due to some combination of voter fatigue and the fact it was 100 deg that day. I am not sure we want to be reading too much into his primary election victory.

It doesn't generally happen in NYC, but this actually happens a lot in big blue cities where someone with fringe politics gets the base excited and gets elected in the primary and becomes mayor by default; and generally nothing really changes when they get into office.

In Los Angles the current mayor started out as a literal Marxist (she used to do goodwill tours to Cuba) but as a politician she is just a standard state party Democrat and doesn't really make any waves at all.

Think about what you wrote there, about of course ______ gets most of what it wants from the US government, and substitute any other country. Do you not see how absurd the situation is? You are starting off your argument against my saying Israel controls our politics by conceding the absurdity of their influence over us. And they've programmed you to believe it is somehow natural or organic instead of how it really is now, parasitic. Parasites often, first thing, take control of the mind of the host.

How much did we spend bombing Yemen recently? Why? I could tell you how much, but I think you would appreciate the figure more if you look it up. You might have to dig just a little though. The Zionists who control our media don't want that figure at the top of your mind.

And in case you haven't noticed, the population in the U.S. has turned against Israel.

How much money did the Adelson widow give Trump? I know. It is pretty well known. But I think you should look it up yourself so you remember it as coming from a legit source.

This is just flat wrong, factually. Gallup poll from July shows just 32% of Americans approve of "the military action Israel has taken in Gaza". 60% disapprove.

Furthermore, the smart kids consensus is that the Democratic Party's stance on Gaza, that innocent people should be killed in every horrific way imaginable for merely being the wrong ethnicity in the place they were born, cost the party the election. You hear that from the experts (and it's obvious anyway), but then the Democrats don't regroup and reconsider their position because they aren't responsive to their constituencies but to their AIPAC handlers.

That's right. To quote an 80s movie very much out of context, "I don't care if I burn in Hell. I don't care if you burn in Hell". I'll never support racist fascist genocidal mass murder or any party that ever did so for even one second. If the vote came down to Democrats or Hitler's reanimated zombie corpse, fascist as ever, and I somehow had the deciding vote to save us from zombie Hitler, I would vote for Jill Stein. That's how I know I'm human. I don't know what you think you are or why.

Kinda funny in an ultra edgelordy 4chan nihilist sort of way

Stormfront members, I assume, breathe oxygen. Is oxygen therefore bad?

That's Zionism is a threat to the world is undeniable. Israel and its actions threaten our physical safety and our way of life. Israel is a nuclear power and they are clearly and absolutely amoral. Do you really think that, if a time came when they thought they are going to lose, that they aren't going to consider nuking us? If they did that, what do you think would happen? It would be the easiest thing in the world to blame on whoever they wanted because all the cameras and any definitive evidence of the providence of the weapon would likely be destroyed. They will tell their congressional minions who to blame it on and, boom, we are in a very hot war.

Zionists are shutting down free speech across the West. There are grandmas in the U.K. being arrested for wearing pro Palestinian t-shirts. They are making laws making it illegal to boycott Israeli companies which have passed in a majority of our states. They are destroying free speech itself so that they can keep mass slaughtering civilians because those civilians are a different ethnicity. How you can not see the plain truth of this baffles me. They are buying CBS and TikTok so they can shut down knowledge of what they are doing. Israel has assassinated over 200 journalists in Gaza.

You must have some sense that there is a struggle going on to control the thoughts of the public, right? Elites are building a police forces up, and ICE thugs as well, in case that fails and it comes down to clubbing people in the head. But there is still an intense effort to curate and restrict what information people have access to. So then ask yourself, if Zionists were trying to control our thoughts how would they do that? If what you imagine matches what they are doing then maybe you would have gained some insight for yourself.

I could see some Lefties who are young and dumb being poached by Fuentes. And that is what the Zionists want. The real threat to Zionists isn't Nick Fuentes. The real threat to Zionists are the anti-Zionist Left. Those are the people causing them problems. Israel doesn't care about some loser in his moms basement posting based memes. Greta Thunberg is who keeps them up late into the night.

So ask yourself, why would a Zionist newspaper like the NYT platform Nick Fuentes, an open anti-Semite, recently? I could tell you but it would be cool if any of you could figure it out. On the surface it makes no sense, right? The NYT is ran totally by Zionists. The coverage of the genocide in Gaza has been blatantly biased in Israel's favor. Why are they blowing up Fuentes? Only my model explains it. The dominant models expressed in this forum cannot explain it.

If the stance of Democrats on Israel actually did cause them to lose the last election, it's because people like you are irrational. Everyone knew that the Republicans would support Israel even more strongly, which has shown to be true. Your "principles" have caused more Gazans to be killed, not fewer. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Acting irrationally makes you less human, not more.

I think the US should stop supporting Israel, but not because of their recent actions in Gaza. I would be fine with them killing each other to the point of extinction. But what happens in this country is 100 times more important to me than anything that happens there.

I've heard this take from others before, or at least the opinion that Israel would eventually treat the US the way they treat the Palestinians if they had the chance. But I personally don't agree with that.

Are you generally concerned that Israel could fire nukes at the US in your lifetime destroying us if things go off beat?

This would matter if Deuces McKracken cared one iota about civilians in Gaza, which I doubt. The point he wanted to get across is "the Jews want to to nuke us and when they do their secret government US cabal will blame someone else and start World War III". The rest of his post is window-dressing.

I suspect you don't have to be a genius to figure out the supposed members in this alleged Illuminati, most of them likely share a common trait.

You meant Trump’s House?

Honey, just no.