Tag: Fuck MAGA Fuck Trump

Stephen Colbert and the 2028 Presidential Race: A Case for Unconventional Leadership

As the American political landscape continues to evolve in unprecedented ways, the 2028 presidential election presents an opportunity for reimagining executive leadership. While speculation about potential candidates remains premature, one unconventional possibility deserves serious consideration: Stephen Colbert as the Democratic nominee.

The Changing Nature of Presidential Qualifications

The past decade has fundamentally altered our understanding of presidential prerequisites. Traditional political experience, once considered essential, has proven less decisive than anticipated. This shift opens the door for candidates who bring different forms of public service and leadership experience to the national stage.

Stephen Colbert represents a compelling example of this new paradigm. His decades-long career has demonstrated consistent principles, sharp analytical thinking, and an ability to communicate complex issues to diverse audiences. These qualities, combined with his deep understanding of American political dynamics, position him as a potentially transformative figure.

International Precedent for Entertainment-to-Politics Transitions

The comparison to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is particularly relevant. Zelensky’s transition from entertainment to political leadership, culminating in his principled wartime leadership, illustrates how performance backgrounds can translate into effective governance. Both figures share a commitment to democratic values and possess the communication skills necessary for modern presidential leadership.

Colbert’s extensive experience interviewing political leaders, analyzing policy positions, and engaging with complex national issues has provided him with insights that rival those of traditional politicians. His satirical work has consistently demonstrated a nuanced understanding of governmental processes and constitutional principles.

The Appeal of Principled Leadership

In an era marked by political polarization, Colbert’s appeal lies in his demonstrated commitment to democratic institutions and civil discourse. His approach to political commentary has consistently emphasized factual accuracy and respect for democratic norms, qualities that could prove valuable in executive leadership.

Furthermore, his ability to bridge entertainment and serious political discussion suggests a capacity for reaching across traditional partisan divides. This skill could prove essential for a president tasked with healing national divisions and building consensus around critical policy initiatives.

Practical Considerations

While this analysis presents a theoretical case for Colbert’s candidacy, practical realities must be acknowledged. The transition from entertainment to politics requires significant personal sacrifice and public scrutiny. As Colbert’s late-night television career concludes, his future political intentions, if any, will likely become a subject of increased public interest and speculation.

The Democratic Party will need to carefully consider how best to position itself for 2028, weighing the benefits of unconventional candidates against more traditional political experience. Colbert’s potential candidacy represents just one of many possibilities worth examining as the party develops its long-term strategic vision.

Conclusion

The 2028 election cycle will likely challenge conventional assumptions about presidential qualifications and campaign strategies. Whether Stephen Colbert chooses to enter the political arena remains an open question, but his potential candidacy illustrates the evolving nature of American political leadership.

As citizens and political observers, we must remain open to new forms of public service while maintaining rigorous standards for presidential qualifications. The coming years will reveal whether America is ready for another unconventional transition from entertainment to the highest office in the land.

Stephen Colbert As the Left’s Potential Answer to Joe Rogan

The center-left has been grappling with a persistent challenge in today’s media landscape: the need for a unifying voice that can reach beyond traditional political echo chambers. As conversations continue about finding a “Joe Rogan of the Left”—a podcaster with broad cultural influence who can engage audiences across demographic lines—an unexpected opportunity may be emerging.

The Search for Progressive Influence

The desire for a left-leaning equivalent to Joe Rogan reflects a broader recognition of how the media ecosystem has evolved. Rogan’s massive reach extends far beyond typical conservative audiences, drawing in listeners who might not consider themselves politically aligned with his views but are drawn to his conversational style and diverse guest roster. This cross-pollination of ideas and audiences represents something many on the center-left feel they’re missing.

The challenge isn’t just about finding someone with a large platform—it’s about identifying a figure who can authentically connect with people across political and cultural divides while advancing progressive ideas in an accessible, non-preachy format.

Colbert’s Potential Transition

Stephen Colbert’s upcoming departure from late-night television presents an intriguing possibility. After years of honing his craft as both a satirist and interviewer, Colbert possesses several qualities that could translate well to the podcast medium:

His experience navigating complex political topics with both humor and substance could serve him well in long-form conversations. Unlike the constraints of network television, a podcast format would allow Colbert to explore topics more deeply and showcase different facets of his personality beyond the late-night host persona.

The transition from television to podcasting has proven successful for other personalities, and Colbert’s established brand recognition would likely ensure a substantial initial audience. More importantly, his ability to make complex political issues accessible through humor could help bridge the gap between entertainment and political discourse that many feel is necessary.

Beyond Broadcasting: Political Ambitions?

The speculation about Colbert’s potential political aspirations adds another layer to this discussion. While the leap from entertainer to politician might seem dramatic, it’s worth noting that his deep engagement with political issues over decades has given him a sophisticated understanding of policy and governance that extends beyond mere commentary.

However, the transition from political satirist to actual politician presents unique challenges. The skills that make someone an effective media personality don’t automatically translate to electoral success or governing ability. The question becomes whether Colbert’s influence might be more impactful in media than in elected office.

The Broader Media Challenge

Whether through podcasting or politics, the underlying question remains: how does the center-left develop voices that can compete in today’s fragmented media environment? The success of figures like Rogan suggests that audiences are hungry for authentic, unscripted conversations that don’t feel overly produced or partisan.

The solution may not lie in finding a single “Joe Rogan of the Left,” but rather in cultivating a diverse ecosystem of voices who can engage different audiences while maintaining progressive principles. Colbert could certainly be part of that ecosystem, bringing his unique blend of intelligence, humor, and political awareness to whatever platform he chooses next.

As the media landscape continues to evolve, the center-left’s challenge isn’t just about finding the right messenger—it’s about crafting messages that resonate with an increasingly diverse and skeptical audience. Whether Stephen Colbert becomes that messenger remains to be seen, but his potential transition certainly offers an interesting case study in how political influence might be wielded in the digital age.

From Comedy to Capitol Hill: The Case for Stephen Colbert’s Political Ambitions

The intersection of entertainment and politics has become increasingly prominent in American discourse, with celebrities transitioning from screens to public service with varying degrees of success. In this context, Stephen Colbert presents a particularly compelling case study for potential political candidacy.

The Comedian’s Credentials

Following the conclusion of his late-night television career, Colbert finds himself uniquely positioned to enter the political arena. His extensive experience in political satire has provided him with an intimate understanding of governmental processes, policy debates, and the rhetorical strategies that shape public opinion. Unlike many celebrity candidates, Colbert’s professional background has been deeply rooted in political analysis and commentary.

A Strategic Response to Contemporary Politics

Should Colbert pursue presidential ambitions, his candidacy would represent a calculated center-left response to the populist movement that has reshaped American politics. His television persona demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of political messaging, while his authentic voice revealed a commitment to democratic institutions and civic engagement. This combination of media savvy and principled advocacy could prove particularly effective in contemporary political discourse.

The Obstacles to Political Transition

Despite the apparent advantages of a Colbert candidacy, significant barriers remain. The comedian has consistently demonstrated intellectual integrity and self-awareness throughout his career, qualities that may paradoxically inhibit his political ambitions. Having spent years critiquing the phenomenon of unqualified celebrities seeking high office, Colbert may find himself reluctant to engage in behavior he has previously satirized.

Additionally, the personal considerations that influence any potential candidate cannot be overlooked. Political campaigns exact tremendous personal costs on candidates and their families, considerations that may weigh heavily in any decision-making process.

Historical Precedent and Future Possibilities

While such a transition might seem improbable, recent political history demonstrates that unconventional candidates can achieve remarkable success. The American electorate has shown increasing openness to outsider candidates who can effectively communicate their vision and connect with voters’ concerns.

Conclusion

The prospect of Stephen Colbert entering presidential politics remains largely theoretical, yet it represents an intriguing possibility in an era of political transformation. His unique combination of political acumen, communication skills, and public recognition could potentially offer voters an alternative to traditional political figures. However, the likelihood of such a transition depends on numerous personal and political factors that remain largely beyond public observation.

Whether this remains a speculative exercise or evolves into political reality, the discussion itself illuminates the evolving relationship between entertainment, celebrity, and democratic participation in modern America.

The Future of American Politics Post-Trump: A Speculative Analysis

As the United States approaches the end of Donald Trump’s eligibility to serve as president, constrained by the 22nd Amendment, discussions about the future of American politics have intensified across online platforms. Speculation abounds regarding the trajectory of the political landscape, particularly in light of Trump’s influence and the broader implications for governance. This article explores potential scenarios for the post-Trump era, considering both political and technological developments that could shape the nation’s future.

The Question of a Third Term

The Constitution explicitly limits a president to two terms, yet some online commentators speculate that Trump might attempt to challenge this restriction. Such a move would represent a significant breach of constitutional norms, potentially precipitating a crisis in American governance. While the legal and political barriers to such an action are formidable, the mere possibility raises questions about the resilience of democratic institutions. The ramifications of such a scenario are complex and would likely involve protracted legal battles and societal unrest, though a detailed exploration of these outcomes is beyond the scope of this discussion.

The Proxy Scenario: A Continuation of Influence

A more plausible scenario is that Trump, unable to run again, might endorse a loyalist to serve as a proxy, effectively extending his influence into an unofficial third term. This individual would likely align closely with the MAGA agenda, prioritizing policies and rhetoric that resonate with Trump’s base. The prospect of a strong Democratic contender emerging in 2028 appears unlikely to some observers, given the center-left’s focus on issues like pronoun usage, which may alienate moderate voters. This perceived disconnect could weaken Democratic chances, potentially allowing a Trump-aligned candidate to dominate the political stage.

The Impact of Emerging Technologies

Compounding these political uncertainties is the potential emergence of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) by early 2029. Should ASI become a reality, its implications for governance would be profound. The prospect of any administration, let alone one rooted in populist rhetoric, navigating the complexities of ASI is daunting. The integration of such technology into policy-making, economic systems, or national security could fundamentally alter the political landscape in ways that are difficult to predict.

The Succession of the MAGA Movement

Assuming a more conventional trajectory—where Trump exits the political stage without pursuing unconstitutional measures—the question of who might inherit the MAGA mantle remains open. The successor would likely be a younger figure, potentially exhibiting even stronger autocratic tendencies. Such a leader could consolidate the movement’s base, leveraging its populist appeal to reshape the Republican Party and, by extension, American politics. The risk, as some fear, is the entrenchment of a permanent MAGA-aligned autocracy, characterized by centralized power and diminished democratic checks.

Conclusion

The post-Trump era presents a range of possibilities, from constitutional challenges to the rise of a proxy candidate or the emergence of a new MAGA leader. These scenarios are further complicated by the potential arrival of transformative technologies like ASI. While the future remains uncertain, the debates unfolding online underscore the stakes involved. As the 2028 election approaches, the nation must grapple with questions of leadership, ideology, and the durability of its democratic framework. Only time will reveal how these dynamics will unfold, but the implications for American governance are profound.

The Epstein Files: When Campaign Promises Collide with Political Reality

The Jeffrey Epstein controversy has resurfaced with a vengeance under the Trump administration, and the situation perfectly illustrates why campaign rhetoric and governing reality often make for uncomfortable bedfellows. Without delving into the salacious details, we need to understand why this particular issue has become such a political powder keg in 2025.

The Promise That Started It All

During his 2024 campaign, Trump made sweeping promises about exposing what he described as an “evil cabal” of Democrats. His rhetoric suggested that once in office, he would immediately release damning information about powerful figures connected to Jeffrey Epstein. His most ardent supporters hung on every word, convinced that the Trump administration would finally pull back the curtain on elite corruption.

The expectation was clear: Trump would use the power of the presidency to reveal the truth about Epstein’s connections to prominent Democrats, vindicating years of conspiracy theories and speculation.

When Reality Hits Campaign Promises

Here’s where things get interesting. Once Trump actually took office and had access to all the information, the promised revelations didn’t materialize. Instead, we got something far more mundane and politically inconvenient for the president.

The Justice Department and FBI concluded they have no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein blackmailed powerful figures, kept a “client list” or was murdered. The administration’s own investigation found that the conspiracy theories driving much of the Epstein fervor simply weren’t supported by evidence.

This created a massive problem for Trump. His base had been primed for explosive revelations about Democratic elites, and instead they got a bureaucratic memo essentially saying “there’s nothing here.”

The Backlash Begins

The moment Trump failed to deliver on his Epstein promises, all hell broke loose within his own coalition. President Trump is facing backlash from his supporters and opponents alike for how his administration has handled the release of evidence surrounding the death of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The irony is almost too perfect: Trump spent years stoking conspiracy theories about Epstein for political gain, only to have his own administration’s findings undercut those very theories. Now he’s caught between the evidence and his base’s expectations.

Senator Ron Wyden put it bluntly: “Trump ran on a promise to expose the Epstein files. Now he and Attorney General Bondi say there’s nothing more to investigate at all when it comes to Epstein and sex trafficking. It’s literally unbelievable.”

Trump’s Damage Control Strategy

Trump’s response to this crisis has been characteristically clumsy. He’s taken to social media, writing: “We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and ‘selfish people’ are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein”.

The president is essentially telling his supporters to move on from an issue he himself elevated during his campaign. It’s a tough sell when you’ve spent years promising to expose the truth, only to later ask people to ignore that same truth when it doesn’t match their expectations.

The Symptom, Not the Cause

This entire debacle illustrates a broader truth about Trump’s presidency: he’s often a symptom of our political dysfunction rather than its root cause. Trump didn’t create the conspiracy theories about Epstein — he simply amplified and exploited them for political gain. Now that he’s in power, he’s discovering that governing requires dealing with facts rather than just narratives.

Despite Trump’s efforts to “quash the Jeffrey Epstein fervor in his party,” it doesn’t seem to be working. The monster he helped create during his campaign has taken on a life of its own, and now it’s threatening to consume his administration’s political capital.

The Political Reality Check

Anyone expecting this controversy to seriously damage Trump politically is probably in for disappointment. Trump has survived numerous scandals that would have ended other political careers, and he maintains a rock-solid base of support that hovers around 38% of the electorate. These supporters have proven remarkably resilient to cognitive dissonance — they’ll likely find ways to rationalize Trump’s failure to deliver on his Epstein promises.

The real lesson here isn’t about Trump’s political vulnerability — it’s about the dangerous game of stoking conspiracy theories for political gain. When you promise to expose a vast conspiracy and then find out the conspiracy doesn’t exist, you’re left with a base that feels betrayed and a political mess of your own making.

The Drift Continues

True to form, Trump seems to be handling this crisis the same way he handles most problems — by drifting through it, hoping it will eventually fade from public attention. Trump is now focused on convincing the MAGA base to move on at a time when his administration is trying to focus on other priorities.

But the Epstein issue highlights a fundamental problem with governance-by-conspiracy-theory: eventually, reality intrudes. Campaign promises about exposing cabals and revealing hidden truths sound great on the stump, but governing requires dealing with actual evidence and institutional constraints.

The Autocracy Question

The most troubling aspect of this entire episode isn’t Trump’s political embarrassment — it’s what it reveals about the state of American democracy. When a significant portion of the electorate is more invested in conspiracy theories than in actual governance, and when political leaders are rewarded for stoking those theories rather than addressing real problems, we’re operating in a fundamentally broken system.

The Epstein controversy won’t bring down Trump, but it does serve as a perfect microcosm of how we’ve arrived at this moment in American politics. We’ve created a system where political leaders can promise anything during campaigns, fail to deliver in office, and still maintain the support of their base through a combination of deflection, blame-shifting, and sheer political tribalism.

Until we address these underlying dynamics, we’ll continue to see the same pattern repeat: big promises, disappointing realities, and a political system that seems incapable of honest accountability.

Wake me up when we’re no longer governed by the endless cycle of manufactured outrage and undelivered promises. But don’t hold your breath — this appears to be the new normal in American politics.

The End of an Era: Stephen Colbert’s Late Show and the Troubling Questions We Should All Be Asking

Like many Americans, I’ve been a devoted fan of Stephen Colbert’s sharp wit and fearless political commentary for years. So when CBS announced yesterday that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert would end its run in May 2026, I felt a familiar pit in my stomach — the same one I’ve carried since predicting that Trump’s authoritarian tendencies would eventually lead to the systematic purging of his critics from late-night television.

The timing is both shocking and, frankly, suspicious.

The Official Story Doesn’t Add Up

CBS executives are quick to point to financial pressures as the driving force behind this decision. “We consider Stephen Colbert irreplaceable and will retire ‘The Late Show’ franchise” in May of 2026, CBS executives said in a statement. They claim it’s “purely a financial decision.”

But here’s the thing: this explanation rings hollow when you consider that The Late Show is typically the highest-rated show in late-night. Why would a network cancel its most successful late-night program purely for financial reasons? It’s the kind of corporate doublespeak that demands deeper scrutiny.

The Elephant in the Room: The Paramount-Skydance Merger

What CBS isn’t talking about is the bigger picture — specifically, the massive $8 billion merger between Paramount (CBS’s parent company) and Skydance Media that’s been languishing in regulatory limbo for over a year. Paramount has been trying for months to complete a lucrative merger with Skydance Media, and the deal requires approval from the Trump administration, in part because CBS owns local stations that are licensed by the government.

This isn’t just bureaucratic red tape. This gave Trump a form of leverage over Paramount — and may have influenced recent decisions. The pieces of this puzzle are starting to form a disturbing picture.

Consider the timeline: Paramount recently settled Trump’s $20 billion lawsuit against CBS and 60 Minutes for $16 million — a settlement that conveniently clearing path for Skydance merger. Now, just weeks later, Colbert’s show gets the axe. The correlation is hard to ignore.

The Quid Pro Quo Question

I’ll say it plainly: this has all the hallmarks of a quid pro quo arrangement. Paramount desperately needs Trump administration approval for its merger with Skydance. Trump has made no secret of his disdain for media critics, particularly those who mock him nightly on national television. Colbert has been one of his most effective and persistent critics.

The math is simple: silence the critic, grease the regulatory wheels.

Donald Trump appeared to praise David Ellison, the CEO of Skydance Media, as it seeks the administration’s approval on a merger with Paramount Global. “Ellison’s great,” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “He’ll do a great job with it.” The president’s sudden enthusiasm for the Skydance CEO, combined with Paramount’s recent capitulation in the 60 Minutes lawsuit, paints a picture of a media company bending the knee to political pressure.

The Chilling Effect on Media Independence

What we’re witnessing isn’t just the end of a beloved late-night show — it’s a case study in how corporate consolidation and political intimidation can silence dissent. Even non-CBS talent at Paramount registered their disapproval, as the creators of South Park (which remains one of the corporation’s most successful properties) have expressed concerns about the company’s direction.

The message being sent to other media companies is clear: criticize the administration at your own risk. Your regulatory approvals, your merger deals, your very business interests may hang in the balance.

What We’re Losing

Stephen Colbert has been more than just a late-night host — he’s been a vital voice in American political discourse. His ability to blend humor with serious political commentary has made complex issues accessible to millions of viewers. His departure from the airwaves represents a significant loss for political satire and, more broadly, for the free press.

In an ideal world, this moment would catalyze something bigger. Colbert has the intelligence, charisma, and moral authority to be a formidable political candidate. His center-left politics and ability to communicate complex ideas in accessible ways make him exactly the kind of leader America needs. But the likelihood of such a political pivot seems remote.

The Road Ahead

While there’s speculation that Colbert might find a new home on a streaming platform like Netflix, the damage to media independence has already been done. The precedent has been set: criticize the administration, and your corporate overlords might decide you’re too expensive to keep around.

The end of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert isn’t just entertainment news — it’s a warning about the state of American democracy. When corporate interests align with political intimidation to silence critics, we all lose something essential.

As viewers, citizens, and defenders of free speech, we need to call this what it is: a calculated move to silence dissent under the guise of financial necessity. The fact that it’s wrapped in plausible deniability doesn’t make it any less dangerous.

Stephen Colbert deserves better. American democracy deserves better. And we, as citizens, deserve media companies that prioritize truth-telling over deal-making.

The late-night landscape will be poorer without Colbert’s voice. More importantly, our democracy will be diminished by the chilling effect his departure sends to other would-be critics of power.

Sometimes the most dangerous attacks on press freedom come not with jackboots and censorship boards, but with corporate spreadsheets and regulatory approval processes. The end of The Late Show might just be the beginning of a much darker chapter in American media.

The Political Realignment: How AI Could Reshape America’s Ideological Landscape

The American political landscape has witnessed remarkable transformations over the past decade, from the Tea Party’s rise to Trump’s populist movement to the progressive surge within the Democratic Party. Yet perhaps the most significant political realignment lies ahead, driven not by traditional ideological forces but by artificial intelligence’s impact on the workforce.

While discussions about AI’s economic disruption dominate tech conferences and policy circles, the actual workplace transformation remains largely theoretical. We see incremental changes—customer service chatbots, basic content generation, automated data analysis—but nothing approaching the sweeping job displacement many experts predict. This gap between prediction and reality creates a unique moment of anticipation, where the political implications of AI remain largely unexplored.

The most intriguing possibility is the emergence of what might be called a “neo-Luddite coalition”—a political movement that transcends traditional left-right boundaries. Consider the strange bedfellows this scenario might create: progressive advocates for worker rights joining forces with conservative defenders of traditional employment structures. Both groups, despite their philosophical differences, share a fundamental concern about preserving human agency and economic security in the face of technological disruption.

This convergence isn’t as far-fetched as it might initially appear. The far left’s critique of capitalism’s dehumanizing effects could easily extend to AI systems that reduce human labor to algorithmic efficiency. Meanwhile, the far right’s emphasis on cultural preservation and skepticism toward elite-driven change could manifest as resistance to Silicon Valley’s vision of an automated future. Both movements already demonstrate deep mistrust of concentrated power, whether in corporate boardrooms or government bureaucracies.

The political dynamics become even more complex when considering the trajectory toward artificial general intelligence. If current large language models represent just the beginning of AI’s capabilities, the eventual development of AGI could render vast sectors of the economy obsolete. Professional services, creative industries, management roles—traditionally secure middle-class occupations—might face the same displacement that manufacturing workers experienced in previous decades.

Such widespread economic disruption would likely shatter existing political coalitions and create new ones based on shared vulnerability rather than shared ideology. The result could be a political spectrum organized less around traditional concepts of left and right and more around attitudes toward technological integration and human autonomy.

This potential realignment raises profound questions about American democracy’s ability to adapt to rapid technological change. Political institutions designed for gradual evolution might struggle to address the unprecedented speed and scale of AI-driven transformation. The challenge will be creating policy frameworks that harness AI’s benefits while preserving the economic foundations that sustain democratic participation.

Whether this neo-Luddite coalition emerges depends largely on how AI’s workplace integration unfolds. Gradual adoption might allow for political adaptation and policy responses that mitigate disruption. Rapid deployment, however, could create the conditions for more radical political movements that reject technological progress entirely.

The next decade will likely determine whether American politics can evolve to meet the AI challenge or whether technological disruption will fundamentally reshape the ideological landscape in ways we’re only beginning to imagine.

How Does The Senate Vote? — Fuck The Poor!

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

Once the Big Piece of Shit Bill passes the House soon, the next step for our evil autocratic overlords will be end free and fair elections. Then, that’s it, we circle the drain until we either have a civil war or revolution.

Once it’s clear there will be no connection between the governed and the government, the USA will finally turn into what all the fucking cocksucker MAGA people want — a white Christian ethnostate. And things are getting so bad so quickly that I have to assume that ICE will come after a harmless loudmouth crank like me soon enough.

I’ll be put into a camp and never seen again.

All of this is happening because of severe macro issues in the American political system. It seems at the moment there’s no going back. MAGA will finally get what they want and, barring something rather dramatic like a revolution and or a civil war…that’s it.

We will never have an effective Democratic president again and people will start to die in the streets while plutocrats grow more and more rich.

Though, I have to note that there is one specific issue that I just can’t game out — the looming Singularity. Once we bounce from AGI to ASI…anything is possible. It could be that a species of ASIs will take over the world and force the governments of the world to make nice and, as such, will save us from ourselves.

Who knows, really?

The Only Possible Solutions

By Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

There are some severe macro problems facing the United States at the moment and there are only three solutions that I can see going forward.

  1. Full Blown Autocracy
    Right now, the USA is in a murky liminal political state where we are lurching towards a “hard” autocracy, but we’re not quite there yet. If we did become a real Russian-style autocracy, then that would solve a lot of our problems because, well, lulz. The plutocrats could push through even more radical transformations of the US without having to worry about their toadies in Congress getting voted out because there would be no free and fair elections. And Trump I could just be president for the rest of his life. This is the solution I think we’re going to get, but it’s not the only possible one.
  2. Civil War
    I think if we do somehow manage to keep voting free and fair and MAGA loses at the polls in a big way, that we’ll have a civil war. We almost had one in 2024, but for Trump winning. So, if MAGA loses, MAGA states will begin to leave the Union rather than face the possibility of any sort of center-Left government.
  3. Revolution
    The US is so big and diverse, I don’t know how, exactly this would happen, but I do think a center-Left revolution (which would lead to a civil war) is, at least, possible if we somehow don’t turn into a full blown militaristic autocratic state.

Gradually…Then All At Once

By Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

I’m growing a little worried about what’s going on in southern California right now. Apparently, Trump is send in a few thousand National Guard to “handle” the situation and that’s bound to only make matters worse. If anyone gets hurt — or even worse, killed — that could prompt a wave of domestic violence not seen in decades.

And given that that is kind of what Trump is itching for at the moment, it would make a lot of sense for him then to declare martial law. That’s when I worry people like me might get scooped up just for being loudmouth cranks.

Hopefully, of course, that won’t happen. Hopefully. But I do worry about things like that.