A Darkness At Noon: You Get What You Vote For

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

This is it, folks. This fall will mark the end of our democracy. MAGA will “win” the midterms and they will learn that they no longer have any connection to the people and they can do whatever the fuck they want going forward.

We should have seen this coming — I know I did — when Trump and MAGA won in 2024. But there’s no going back now. we’re fucked.

What will happen, probably, is we will have a sold 20 more years of MAGA rule until we finally get so upset that we organize and successfully change political rulers. And, just like in Hungary, I think the only way it happens is if we nominate someone who is a former MAGA person.

But that’s years — maybe decades — from now. We’re fucking doomed. America will grow poorer, more inward looking and more autocratic along the way.

I Just Don’t See Us Having Free-And-Fair Elections This Fall

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

Welp, this is it, folks. For various obvious reasons, we’re not going to have free-and-fair elections this fall. What I expect will happen is the whole thing will be a clusterfuck and that will be enough for MAGA to win the midterms.

What happens after that will be interesting and potentially catastrophic.

MAGA will scream at the top of their lungs that the elections — because they “won” were free-and-fair — while non-MAGA sane people will scream that we are no longer a democracy and we need to “Stop The Steal.”

All of this is happening in the context of the Singularity rushing towards us. So, it could be that the Singularity will happen just as MAGA finally consolidating it’s complete control over the country.

I’m trying to focus on my novel, but it’s difficult. If I could, I would not look at social media at all and be a Man in a High Castle. But that’s proving to be a lot more difficult than I imagined.

This Was Inevitable

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

The idea that the plutocrats that own everything would grow tired of their properties being center-Left and would start to influence their content was inevitable. We kind of deluded ourselves into thinking that this curious situation (center-Right owners with center-Left content) could last forever.

So, lulz.

I suppose we just have to accept that we’re going to be an autocratic white Christian ethno-state for a few decades until a new progressive era happens. Maybe because of AI?

Something Curious Is Afoot Between The USA And Russia

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

I just don’t know what to make of this. The head of the CIA went to Moscow today to talk to Putin about something…then left within a few hours. It doesn’t make any sense.

I just can’t imagine that Russia would attack NATO. It only has an economy equal to Italy’s. Yes, it has nukes, but it’s not like they would ever use them.

I suppose another possibility is Putin is thinking about using tactical nukes in Ukraine and the Americans were warning him not to think about it.

Let’s Hope American ‘Little Green Men’ Don’t Pop Up in Calgary

I will admit something right up front: I don’t know enough about Alberta politics to pretend that I have some profound insight into the province’s separatist movement. Until recently, I had barely been paying attention to it. But I have started paying attention now, and the more I read, the more uncomfortable I become.

Not because I think Alberta is about to leave Canada. It isn’t. Not because I think the United States is secretly preparing to invade Alberta. There is no evidence of that, either.

What bothers me is something considerably more hypothetical—and considerably more frightening.

What happens if a genuine separatist movement takes hold in Alberta at precisely the moment the president of the United States is openly talking about absorbing Canada?

That is the scenario that keeps nagging at me.

Alberta has long had a complicated relationship with the rest of Canada. The province is enormously wealthy, heavily dependent on oil and gas, politically conservative, and separated from Ottawa by a considerable cultural and political gulf. Many Albertans have spent decades complaining that their province sends more money east than it gets back, while federal governments impose policies they believe restrict Alberta’s energy industry.

None of that is new.

What is new is the international environment surrounding those grievances.

Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested that Canada should become the 51st American state. He has talked about the Canadian-American border as though it were an artificial inconvenience. He has used maps showing Canada as part of the United States. And as recently as August 23, 2026, with the latest U.S.-Canadian trade confrontation escalating, Trump was again talking publicly about Canada joining the United States.

Ordinarily, I would dismiss this as Trump being Trump.

But there is now an actual separatist movement in Alberta.

That movement has gathered enough support to put the question of independence onto Alberta’s political agenda. The province is scheduled to vote on October 19 on whether its government should move toward a binding referendum on separation. That distinction matters: Albertans are not being asked in October whether they want to become an independent country. They are being asked whether they want to take another step toward holding a vote that could eventually ask that question.

And the important thing is that separatism remains a minority position.

A recent Ipsos poll found that only 18 percent of Albertans said they would vote for separation if a binding referendum were held, while 72 percent said they would vote to remain in Canada. Support for separation has actually fallen from 28 percent earlier in the year. Other polling has put separatist sentiment considerably higher, but no serious polling I have seen suggests that a majority of Albertans currently want to leave Canada.

So why am I worried?

Because history has taught us that geopolitical disasters don’t necessarily begin with majorities.

They can begin with minorities, political crises, foreign influence, propaganda, economic grievances and governments making a series of decisions that seem individually manageable until, suddenly, they aren’t.

Think about Crimea.

Russia did not simply announce one morning that it was invading Ukraine and send the Russian Army across the border with tanks flying. The situation was prepared politically. Russia had cultivated relationships, exploited existing grievances, used propaganda and information warfare, and then eventually deployed troops without insignia—the infamous “little green men”—to seize strategic positions.

The world was confronted with a new reality before it had fully decided what that reality was.

I am emphatically not saying that Alberta is Crimea.

Canada is not Ukraine. The United States is not Russia. Alberta is not occupied territory. There is no evidence that American soldiers are secretly preparing to cross the border.

And I certainly don’t believe that most Albertans who support independence are secretly plotting to join the United States.

But there is something about the comparison that deserves attention.

Alberta is an overwhelmingly North American, English-speaking, conservative province immediately adjacent to the United States. Its economy is deeply intertwined with America’s. Its political culture has significant overlap with the American conservative movement. Some Alberta separatists have explicitly embraced MAGA-style rhetoric. And some separatist activists have sought relationships with American political figures.

That last part is not hypothetical.

Earlier this year, Alberta separatist figures were reported to have met with people connected to the Trump administration. The U.S. government has subsequently denied that it is meeting with or strategizing with Alberta separatists, and there is no evidence that Washington has adopted a policy of supporting Alberta independence. Those denials should be taken seriously. But the fact that the contacts happened at all is noteworthy given the larger political environment.

Then there is the voter-data controversy.

A separatist-linked organization obtained access to a database containing information on roughly 2.9 million Alberta voters, triggering investigations and concerns about electoral integrity and foreign interference. The episode has become particularly uncomfortable because of connections between American political technology and people involved in the Alberta separatist campaign.

Again, I don’t think that proves that the Trump administration is running an operation to break Canada apart.

It doesn’t.

But it demonstrates something important: Alberta’s political struggle is occurring inside the same information environment that has already transformed American politics. Political databases, targeted messaging, social media manipulation, foreign influence and ideological networks can cross borders much more easily than armies can.

And that is where my “little green men” thought comes from.

Imagine a completely hypothetical future in which Alberta separatism becomes considerably more popular. Imagine that the relationship between Ottawa and Edmonton deteriorates badly. Imagine a referendum produces a narrow vote for independence. Imagine the Canadian government refuses to recognize the result because of constitutional and Indigenous-rights questions. Imagine protests begin. Imagine some Albertans declare that Ottawa no longer has legitimate authority over them.

Now imagine that President Trump looks at that situation and says something like:

“We support the right of the people of Alberta to determine their own future.”

That statement, by itself, would already be extraordinarily provocative.

Then imagine American political organizations begin openly supporting the Alberta independence movement.

Then American money begins flowing into sympathetic organizations.

Then American media personalities begin telling Albertans that Ottawa is illegitimate and that Washington will protect them.

Then, perhaps, “private security contractors” begin appearing.

Then American officials announce that they are concerned about the safety of American citizens in Alberta.

Then some mysterious armed men begin appearing around critical infrastructure.

No American invasion has occurred.

At least, not officially.

That is essentially what makes the Crimea analogy so unsettling.

The most dangerous geopolitical situations can exist in the gray zone between peace and war.

And if you think that scenario sounds completely insane, I would remind you that the idea of the United States openly talking about annexing Canada sounded insane a few years ago too.

Yet here we are.

There is another reason Alberta deserves attention: geography.

If Alberta somehow became independent and then moved toward the United States, America would suddenly possess an enormous new strategic relationship with a territory sitting directly on the Canadian interior. Alberta contains some of Canada’s most important energy resources and has major transportation and pipeline connections. It is also enormous—larger than Texas in land area.

That would radically alter the strategic balance of North America.

But there is an enormous problem with the idea that Alberta could simply become American.

Most Albertans do not appear to want that.

In fact, independence and annexation by the United States are two very different propositions. A person can believe Alberta should become its own country while having absolutely no interest in becoming an American.

That distinction is crucial.

The Alberta separatist movement is fundamentally about Alberta. Its supporters generally want greater control over their resources, taxation and political future. Some may favor joining the United States, but that is not the same thing as saying the movement as a whole is an American annexation movement.

And ironically, Trump’s behavior may make Alberta separation less attractive.

That is already happening elsewhere in Canada.

Quebec has its own long-running separatist movement, but the leader of the Parti Québécois recently said that if his party wins power, it would not hold an independence referendum until after Trump’s presidency ends in January 2029. His argument is essentially that Quebec’s future should not be decided under the shadow of an unpredictable American president who is openly talking about annexing Canada.

That may ultimately happen in Alberta too.

The more Washington talks about swallowing Canada, the more Canadian separatism risks being transformed from an argument about autonomy into an argument about national survival.

Trump may believe that threatening to make Canada the 51st state demonstrates American strength.

It may actually be producing the opposite effect.

It may be reminding Canadians why they are Canadian.

And there is a particularly important Canadian constitutional problem lurking underneath all of this.

Even if a majority of Albertans eventually voted for independence, Alberta could not simply declare itself a new country on Tuesday and start printing passports on Wednesday. Canadian constitutional law, federal authority, Indigenous treaty rights, negotiations over borders and assets, debt, pensions, citizenship, military installations, energy infrastructure and countless other issues would have to be resolved.

A provincial referendum would be the beginning of an enormous political and constitutional process, not the end of one.

A 1998 Canadian Supreme Court decision concerning Quebec established that a clear vote for secession would not automatically create independence but would create a constitutional obligation to negotiate. Canada’s Clarity Act subsequently established federal requirements concerning the clarity of a referendum question and the size of the majority required before negotiations could proceed.

And Alberta has an additional complication that Quebec did not have in quite the same way: Indigenous treaties.

A provincial court ruling earlier this year found that Alberta’s referendum process failed to adequately account for Indigenous treaty rights, creating another major legal obstacle to separation. The provincial government has appealed.

In other words, even a successful separatist campaign would be extraordinarily complicated.

Which is precisely why I don’t expect Alberta to become independent anytime soon.

But I do think Americans should pay attention to what is happening there.

Because there is a fundamental principle involved that goes beyond Alberta.

Canada is a sovereign country.

Its borders are not ours to redraw.

If Canadians decide democratically that Alberta should become independent, that is a matter for Canadians and Albertans to resolve through Canadian constitutional processes. If they decide Alberta should remain part of Canada, that should be the end of the matter.

The United States should not manipulate that process.

It should certainly not fund political movements designed to fracture an allied country.

And under absolutely no circumstances should American military forces be used to manufacture a political outcome.

That last possibility may sound ridiculous.

I hope it is ridiculous.

I hope that Donald Trump is not that bonkers.

But I also think there is value in saying out loud where the line is before somebody gets close enough to cross it.

The United States has spent generations telling the world that borders cannot simply be changed by force. We have spent generations criticizing Russia for using military power and political manipulation to redraw the map of Europe.

We should be extremely careful about becoming the thing we have spent so much time condemning.

There is a temptation, when imagining something as bizarre as American “little green men” appearing in Alberta, to laugh it off.

I don’t want to laugh it off.

Not because I think it is about to happen.

I don’t.

I think the far more likely outcome is that Albertans will vote, most will ultimately choose to remain Canadian, Ottawa and Edmonton will continue their endless political argument, and this strange chapter in Canadian history will eventually become something historians write about.

That is what I hope happens.

But history is full of moments when people looked at a dangerous possibility and said, “That would never happen here.”

So I am watching Alberta. And I am watching Washington. Because the last thing North America needs is a Crimea.

Especially a Crimea with oil fields, nuclear weapons next door, and the United States on the other side of the border.

Correlation Is Not Causation, You Joe Rogan Dingbats!

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

My one encounter with USAID did not go well. I misquoted or somesuch something someone said in my student newspaper article on them and…it pretty much ruined my career at the paper.

But despite that, I still have a twinge of fondness for the now-gutted organization. And so the idea that rap music is no longer popular…because USAID is no longer there to fund it….just makes my jaw drop.

I get why Joe Rogan is popular. But that man really needs to bone up on the central thing I learned in college: correlation is not causation.

Just because there seems to be some correlation between the demise of USAID and rap music’s popularity…doesn’t mean the two are connected!

Anyway, absolutely no one listens to me. Sigh.

American Economic ‘Apocalypse Now’: Default

Now that the national debt has reached an eye-popping $40 trillion, my fear is not simply that America has accumulated an enormous amount of debt. My greater fear is that, when the moment comes when something finally has to be done about it, the political system will be so polarized that Washington will be incapable of doing what is necessary.

And that is where things could get genuinely frightening.

The United States has now crossed a fiscal threshold that would have seemed almost incomprehensible to previous generations. The Treasury reported that gross federal debt surpassed $40 trillion in August 2026, with roughly $32.3 trillion held by the public and another $7.8 trillion in intragovernmental holdings. The gross debt has doubled since 2017. Meanwhile, annual interest payments on the debt have risen above $1 trillion and have become one of the largest items in the federal budget.

Yet $40 trillion, by itself, does not mean that the United States is about to go bankrupt. America is not a household that has somehow accumulated a $40 trillion credit-card bill. The federal government has enormous taxing power, controls the world’s most important reserve currency, and issues the securities that have traditionally been regarded as the foundation of the global financial system.

The more immediate danger is political.

A sovereign debt crisis can happen because a government is genuinely unable to pay its debts. But the United States has a peculiar additional vulnerability: Congress periodically has to authorize the government to borrow the money necessary to meet obligations that Congress has already incurred.

That means America can theoretically default on its debt not because it lacks the economic capacity to pay, but because its political institutions refuse to authorize the borrowing necessary to pay it.

That is an extraordinary situation.

And it becomes considerably more dangerous in an era in which the two American political coalitions increasingly regard one another not merely as political opponents but as existential threats to the country.

The Debt Ceiling Is the Loaded Gun

This is the part of the American fiscal system that has always struck me as particularly bizarre.

Suppose Congress passes legislation spending $100 billion. The government then spends the money. Later, Congress reaches the statutory limit on how much the Treasury is allowed to borrow. At that point, Congress can effectively say: We authorized the spending, but we aren’t going to authorize the borrowing necessary to pay for it.

That is not a normal fiscal-policy disagreement. It is a hostage situation built into the machinery of government.

Historically, Washington has repeatedly approached the edge of this cliff and then backed away. Financial markets have generally assumed that, at the last moment, political leaders will recognize that actually defaulting on U.S. Treasury obligations would be catastrophically stupid.

But there is an obvious problem with relying on that assumption forever.

Eventually, somebody might actually be willing to find out what happens.

The Federal Reserve has previously warned that even a temporary federal default could produce sharply higher Treasury yields, higher private borrowing costs and substantial financial-market disruption. A prolonged confrontation could impair markets that depend on Treasury securities as collateral and could create liquidity problems in money-market funds and other financial institutions. The Fed has also emphasized that a U.S. default would be fundamentally unprecedented because Treasury securities occupy a unique position in the global financial system.

That last point is worth dwelling on.

The United States is not simply another country with a lot of government debt. Treasury securities are woven into the plumbing of global finance. They are held by banks, pension funds, insurance companies, foreign governments, corporations, investment funds and ordinary Americans. They are used as collateral. They serve as a benchmark for pricing other forms of debt.

The dollar itself is the principal reserve currency of the world.

So if the United States voluntarily demonstrated that its government could be prevented from paying its debts because Congress had reached a political impasse, the damage would extend far beyond Washington.

The $40 Trillion Problem Is Bigger Than the Debt Ceiling

There is another reason I think the $40 trillion milestone deserves attention.

The real problem is not the number itself. It is the trajectory.

America has been running large structural deficits even when the economy is growing. Aging demographics are increasing spending on Social Security and Medicare. Defense spending is enormous. And now the government is paying more than $1 trillion a year simply in interest on money it has already borrowed.

This creates a nasty feedback loop.

The more debt the government accumulates, the more interest it has to pay. The more interest it pays, the larger the deficit becomes. The larger the deficit becomes, the more it has to borrow. And the more Treasury securities it has to issue, the more important interest rates become.

This is particularly uncomfortable because investors are already demanding higher yields on U.S. government debt. Reuters reported this week that foreign demand for Treasuries has been weakening while borrowing costs have risen toward levels not seen in many years.

That does not mean a debt crisis is inevitable.

But it does mean the margin for political stupidity is becoming smaller.

A government carrying relatively little debt can survive a few years of foolish fiscal policy. A government carrying $40 trillion in debt and paying more than a trillion dollars a year in interest has considerably less room for error.

And America’s political system is currently demonstrating rather a lot of enthusiasm for error.

What Would an Actual Default Look Like?

The word “default” makes people imagine something like Greece during the eurozone crisis or Argentina repeatedly failing to meet its obligations.

An American default would be different.

It could begin as a technical failure to make a scheduled payment on Treasury securities. Or it could involve the government being forced to delay payments to contractors, federal employees, beneficiaries or other creditors because it no longer has sufficient legal authority to borrow.

The exact sequence is difficult to predict because the United States has never experienced anything comparable.

That uncertainty is itself dangerous.

Financial markets do not particularly enjoy experiments.

Imagine that investors suddenly began wondering whether a Treasury security maturing next week would actually be paid on time. Even if everyone eventually concluded that the United States would make good on the obligation, the mere possibility of delay would introduce a risk premium into an asset that has traditionally been treated as essentially risk-free.

That could raise interest rates throughout the economy.

Mortgages could become more expensive. Corporate borrowing could become more expensive. State and local governments could face higher financing costs. Stock markets could fall. Banks and investment funds could suddenly find that assets they regarded as exceptionally safe were behaving in unexpected ways.

And because Treasury securities are embedded in the international financial system, the shock would not stop at America’s borders.

The Federal Reserve has explicitly noted that disruption to Treasury markets can transmit stress through dollar funding markets, asset markets, financial institutions and international trade and commodity markets.

In other words, a U.S. default would not merely be an American government having trouble paying its bills.

It could become a global financial event.

And Then There Is the Political Fallout

This is where my concern becomes less economic and more historical.

A financial crisis is bad enough.

A financial crisis occurring in a country already experiencing extreme political polarization is something else entirely.

Imagine a scenario in which Washington actually defaults.

The stock market falls. Interest rates spike. Retirement accounts lose value. Businesses begin laying people off. Banks become nervous. The dollar comes under pressure. Government payments are delayed. Politicians immediately begin blaming one another.

The MAGA movement says the establishment caused it.

Democrats say Republicans deliberately sabotaged the economy.

Republicans say Democrats spent the country into insolvency.

Democrats say Republicans refused to pay America’s bills.

Everyone has an audience willing to believe them.

And suddenly a technical fiscal crisis becomes a battle over the legitimacy of the American political system itself.

That is the part that worries me.

America has historically been remarkably resilient because, beneath our enormous political disagreements, there has generally been an assumption that the basic machinery of government will continue to function.

That assumption is more important than it looks.

People can tolerate losing elections. They can tolerate unpopular presidents. They can tolerate recessions. They can even tolerate periods of extraordinary political conflict.

What becomes much more dangerous is when large numbers of people conclude that the institutions themselves are illegitimate and that the opposing political coalition has no legitimate right to govern.

A default could become a catalyst for precisely that kind of crisis.

Could It Actually Lead to Revolution or Civil War?

I want to be careful here, because I don’t think a U.S. debt default would automatically produce a revolution or another American Civil War.

That would be an enormous leap.

America is not currently in a condition where a financial crisis would necessarily translate into organized armed conflict between competing governments or armies. There are many intermediate possibilities: recession, political realignment, mass protests, strikes, electoral upheaval, constitutional crises, institutional reform and a prolonged period of political instability.

But history teaches us something important about political crises: the consequences are rarely limited to the original problem.

A financial crisis can become a political crisis.

A political crisis can become a crisis of legitimacy.

And a crisis of legitimacy can become something much harder to control.

The danger would be especially pronounced if a default occurred simultaneously with another major shock: a recession, an international war, a banking crisis, a major cyberattack, a severe AI-driven labor disruption or some other event that caused ordinary Americans to feel that the basic social contract was collapsing.

That is when seemingly abstract fiscal problems can suddenly become existential political problems.

People generally do not riot because the national debt has reached $40 trillion.

They riot because they cannot pay their rent.

They lose their jobs.

Their savings disappear.

Their government stops functioning.

They believe somebody stole their future.

And then somebody comes along and tells them exactly who is responsible.

The Global Consequences Could Be Even Worse

The international implications are potentially enormous.

For decades, the United States has enjoyed what is sometimes called an “exorbitant privilege”: the world wants dollars and Treasury securities, allowing the United States to borrow at enormous scale.

That arrangement is not simply a financial convenience. It is one of the foundations of American geopolitical power.

If Washington were to demonstrate that Treasury securities could become political hostages, foreign governments and financial institutions would have an additional reason to diversify away from American assets.

That would not mean that China, Europe or some other power could simply replace the dollar overnight. There is no obvious alternative with the same combination of liquidity, scale, political stability and financial infrastructure.

But reserve-currency status is ultimately based on confidence.

And confidence is much easier to destroy than to create.

The Federal Reserve has already modeled scenarios involving higher Treasury yields, global recession and substantial declines in asset prices. Its 2026 stress scenarios demonstrate just how interconnected higher interest rates, inflation, commodity prices and global financial markets have become.

A genuine U.S. default would be something else entirely: an event for which there is very little historical precedent.

The terrifying question is therefore not simply, “What would happen if America defaulted?”

It is:

What happens to the world when the country whose debt has traditionally been considered the safest asset on Earth demonstrates that its own political system can no longer guarantee payment?

Nobody really knows.

And that uncertainty is precisely what makes the prospect so dangerous.

The $40 Trillion Number Should Be a Warning, Not a Prophecy

There is a temptation whenever the national debt reaches another psychologically significant number to declare that America is about to collapse.

I don’t think that’s particularly useful.

The United States is still an extraordinarily wealthy country with enormous productive capacity, a huge economy, deep capital markets, world-leading companies, a powerful military and the world’s dominant reserve currency.

There is no economic law saying that $40 trillion in debt automatically causes national bankruptcy.

The danger is subtler.

The danger is that America’s fiscal problems are becoming increasingly difficult to solve while America’s political system is becoming increasingly incapable of reaching compromises.

Eventually, something has to give.

Perhaps Washington will eventually undertake a serious combination of spending reductions, tax increases and entitlement reforms. Perhaps economic growth will make the problem more manageable. Perhaps inflation will reduce the real burden of some of the debt. Perhaps technological advances, including artificial intelligence, will dramatically increase productivity and tax revenues.

There are many possible ways out.

What worries me is the possibility that the political system will refuse to choose any of them until the markets choose for us.

And that is the nightmare scenario.

The United States could spend decades arguing about whether the debt is a Republican problem, a Democratic problem, a spending problem, a taxation problem, a welfare problem, a military problem or an interest-rate problem.

But the bond market doesn’t care which political tribe is morally correct.

Eventually, somebody has to pay the bill.

And if Washington reaches the point where Republicans and Democrats would rather allow the United States to default than give the other side a political victory, the resulting crisis could be vastly larger than the original disagreement.

That is why the $40 trillion milestone bothers me.

Not because I think America is about to collapse.

But because $40 trillion is a reminder that the United States is accumulating enormous financial obligations at precisely the moment when its political institutions appear least capable of dealing with them rationally.

A debt crisis would not necessarily cause an American revolution.

It might not even cause a recession.

But if the worst political circumstances converged with the worst possible fiscal circumstances, it could produce something much more dangerous than either side currently imagines.

The great American experiment has survived wars, depressions, assassinations, political scandals and extraordinary social upheavals.

I would prefer not to discover whether it can survive a crisis in which Americans simultaneously lose faith in their money, their government and one another..

2027 Is Going To Be A Dark Year

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

In the Mel Brook’s classic, History of the World Part 1, there is the famous quote, “How does the Senate vote?”
“Fuck the poor!”

I think because of Trump’s fucking “Big Beautiful Bill,” 2027 will be the year it sinks in how fucking back things are specifically and directly because of fucking Trump.

A lot of people are going to lose their Medicaid and as such, a lot of them are just going to…die. And a lot of rural hospitals will be forced to close, endangering the lives of many more people.

And it wasn’t like these drastic cuts in Medicaid were done for any good reason. They were done specifically so Trump could grease the palms of his ultra wealthy friends. That’s it. Nothing else. No higher purpose, nothing.

What’s more, I just don’t think Trump is going to allow free-and-fair elections this fall, even though Republicans are on track to probably keep both houses of Congress. So, it could be there will be a “Stop The Steal” movement on the part of Blues starting in early November and that will roll over into the winter of 2027.

It will be interesting to see what happens. I think this is it, guys. I think as of November, we’ll officially be a “managed democracy” like they have in Russia and elsewhere and MAGA Republicans will control the United States until Something Drastic happens.

These are macro forces, so whatever that “Something Drastic” is would be pretty big!

Stop The Steal 2026: There’s A Greater-Than-Zero Chance Of Civil War or Revolution If Trump Fucks With The Midterms

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

Oh boy. Trump is totally going to fuck with the 2026 midterms in some way and if Blues stop dicking around long enough to notice, the country may collapse. But that’s a big, big “IF.”

It could all be a lulz.

Trump declares martial law, or SCOTUS gives him some of the Executive Order power he craves, or maybe even the SAVE Act passes. But I, regardless, I got a bad feeling about what happens this fall.

If Trump goes as far as we all fear, Blues may get so angry that Something Bad happens. What that might be, I can’t fathom. But it’s definitely a possibility.

‘Stop The Steal’ 2026 (Blues This Time)

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

All signs point to Trump fucking with the 2026 mid-terms. I don’t quite know what to tell you. People continue to be too distracted to hit the streets or whatever to demand this not happen.

So, probably what will happen is Trump will fuck with the 2026 midterms and THEN there will be a lot of protests that will come to no effect. And if they do come to any effect the country will get very close to a civil war.

I know have repeatedly predicted that over the years, and this time is no different — it probably won’t happen. But it is something to think about, something to ponder.

It will be interesting to see how things work out if Trump literally does fuck with the 2026 midterms to the point that it changes the obvious outcome.