Weighing in on the texas democratic primary

 So....the primary is next week. Matt Dillahunty, one of the more leading minds still holding the line in the New Atheist movement, weighed in, and he seemed a bit more open toward Talarico than I was. Anyway, I decided to look into it more deeply, as I've mostly been going off of vibes for now, and I wanted to look at policy more.

The problem, even on policy, most of their platforms are similar. On top priorities both have variations of medicare for all, with crockett supporting previous medicare for all acts in congress, and Talarico supporting some public optiony version of the idea that comes off as a "medicare for all who want it" style deal. Both are pro labor. Neither seem to endorse universal basic income directly, although crockett has supported pilots in the past. Both are pro choice and anti christian nationalism, even though james talarico can't stop talking about Jesus for 5 seconds. Both are critical of ice, although i tend to like Crockett's vibe better. I mean, if I had to say who's stronger, I'd say crockett. She seems more of a fighter, and she seems more experienced. 

It's weird. I notice leftists seem to LOVE talarico for some reason, but I just dont vibe with him as much. Policy wise, he aint bad, but is he miles better than crockett? 90% of the time they're indistinguishable, and if either of them is stronger, I'd largely agree more with crockett, given her institutional knowledge and more fiery personality. 

On vibes, yeah, I like crockett. i like her fire. I like her calling MTG a "beach blonde butch body" to her face after she saw fit to criticize others for THEIR appearances. I get that that might upset the more "decorum" driven lefties, but I dont care, F the GOP. If they arent civil to us, why should we be civil to them? Ya know? This is the attitude we need. 

Meanwhile I just don't go with talarico's whole "Jesus loves you" personality. Even if he is a religious "moderate", I'm gonna be honest, I'm so thoroughly turned off by christianity that I dont want that vibe in my representatives at all. I guess I aint from texas so this aint my race to worry about (and let's face it, either of these guys are preferable to fetterman at this point), but yeah, i'm giving my opinion and I dont really like talarico in terms of vibe.

This leads me to support crockett nominally.

However, there is one more factor that must be considered, and that is electability. And this is where crockett might be weaker. I'll back it up with polling but let's present a couple possible arguments. First, white male vs black woman. Privilege, blah blah blah. Black woman is at a disadvantage. Then consider demeanor. Crockett is one sassy black woman. Now, for me, that's WHY I LIKE HER PERSONALLY. I wanna be clear, I LIKE this vibe. I'm not racist or sexist here at all. Give me the strong independent black woman who dont need no moderation. But...if youre trying to win...and you're in texas in all places, let's think this through.

First, let's do a brief overview of the race. Both parties have their own primaries going in. Paxton is the likely republican nominee, ahead by 6.5% in the polls, this gives him a 95% chance of pulling it off. This is a lot more decisive than it was up to this point. In the 5 most recent polls on the democratic side, I calculate that the democratic primary is a dead heat. Total tie, 50/50 shot of either. 

So, let's see how these guys do in the general. Paxton vs Crockett is R+1, that's a 40% chance of the democrat winning. 

Paxton vs Talarico is R+1, same thing. 

Now, up until very recently, Cornyn looked like he had a chance. Paxton was ahead, but more by like 2, not by like 6.5. If Cornyn is the republican nominee, the calculus changes:

Cornyn vs Crockett is R+3.5. That give Crockett a 19% chance of winning here.

Cornyn vs Talarico is R+2, that gives Crockett a 31% chance. 

So...all in all, does the argument that Talarico is more electable than crockett hold water? Eh...yes, but it's not particularly persuasive. Against the most likely republican nominee, they perform the same.

Against the second most likely nominee, Talarico does appear 1.5% ahead of Crockett in the general.  

Now, there is a third republican candidate, Hunt, and RCP has numbers on that too. Hunt has zero chance of winning the primary in my view, but if he did theoretically go up against both in the general:

Hunt vs Crockett is R+4. That gives Crockett a 16% chance of winning here.

Hunt vs Talarico is R+3.5.  Very close but it's only like a slight bump in practice, at 19% likelihood. 

So...all in all, it does reinforce there is a small advantage in electability with going Talarico. It's not significant. Just like in practice, the actual substantive differences between these two candidates is ALSO not significant.

And...that's kind of the thing. All in all, these candidates arent much different, neither in policy nor electability. 

I would argue, in my heart of hearts, I'm team Crockett. I love her attitude, that same attitude that others hate. And I think on policy she's just ever so slightly better. I honestly dont know why leftists love talarico so much. He's not anything special other than being a jesus freak, and for me, that's a down side, although I understand its a purely aesthetic difference here and not a policy difference. 

However, at the same time, let's think of it this way. We NEED texas to take the senate. The map is hard, texas is probably very likely the seat that flips the senate, and we need every vote. I dont think either can really win in practice. Despite close polling vs paxton putting both at a 40% shot, I honestly think the actual numbers are more like R+5 or so. Texas is a tease and I cant see it flipping D. 

Still, who is more likely to flip it D? Well....Talarico has an ever so slight edge there. So the statistician in me kinda supports talarico, even if i view him as the inferior candidate otherwise.

Honestly, it doesnt matter. Vote your conscience. But yeah, that's how I view it. Policy and vibes, i endorse crockett. Raw numbers and statistics, i support talarico. Use that information as you will if you're in texas and you want my opinion. 

EDIT: I watched the debate between them from a month ago. Once again, in terms of overall attitude and demeanor, crockett wins. She's the fighter we need. HOWEVER, I do wanna discuss one issue directly. Both questions were surprisingly asked about UBI directly. Now, I'm gonna be honest, the answers from both candidates were disappointing, and neither committed to the policy, but Talarico was slightly more open it seemed. Crockett seemed to be more a hard no and supported "raising the wage" instead. Now, dont get me wrong, raising wages is fine, but honestly, we need to get away from wage slavery as a model, and not just "pay our slaves better." Talarico's answer was more rooted in "I understand what it's like to be in poverty", but was rather noncommittal on it. It felt like a dodge. So again, neither candidates were great on UBI. And to be fair, Crockett has backed UBI pilots in the past, so in the real world, she HAS been supportive in the past. So...all in all, let's be frank. Neither seem for it but both are amenable to it under the right circumstances. 

So...where does this leave us? Well, back with me supporting crockett again. Our democracy is on fire, and in a way, we need to fight fire with fire. i think Crockett is more likely to have a plan to detrumpify the government after Trump, which is, at this moment, far more important than theoretical UBI debates. Crockett, in no uncertain terms, is opposed to the trump regime. Talarico is too, but Crockett really has that fire we need, and that unapologetic nature of needing to purge the federal government of all trump influences post his presidency. And that is a much stronger priority for 2026 and 2028. 

Again, as much as UBI is important, securing our democracy, and stopping Trump's worst impulses is more urgent. Once again, I will point out that Talarico is slightly more electable numerically on paper, but it's not a big bump. Crockett is my candidate on policy and vibes though. Take that as you will. Either way, you cant go wrong with either of them.  

I'm done, screw Israel

 So...looks like we're going to war! A war that no one but the most psychotic 25% of our country's population wants. A war that Trump might go for, despite running at the anti war guy (MAGA fell for it again!), Trump is actively getting us into, and a war that we are getting into in part at the behest of Israel.

I'm gonna be honest, at one point I was relatively pro israel. You can go back to 2023-2024, which wasnt really that long ago, and see my thinking at the time. I was never super gung ho for them, but I clearly was sympathetic to them over Palestine after October 7th, and I did give them some leeway. They abused our trust. They abused their relationship with the US, and I believe at this point we should just cut them off, and whatever happens, happens. 

Strategic partnerships are supposed to be beneficial to both sides. We both get security, we both protect each other according to shared values, but Israel is using us. They've aggressively lobbied our government to the point few will go against them, and honestly, they've skewed our politics as a result. Much of what's happening now is because of Israel. Trump winning, in part because of Israel/Palestine. Trump's foreign policy, influenced heavily by Israel. Hell, the "America first" guys who stick by their principles who are turning into nazis are doing so in part because of Israel and their gross overextensions into our politics.

For as much as these guys scream antisemitism, do they not realize that antisemitism is being fueled in part because of how they're bullying our government into doing their dirty work for them? This is why church and state is essential. it sucks not just for the government, which starts enacting policies using state violence to enforce the religion, but it's also not good for the religions involved and breeds resentiment against it. 

The fact is, this relationship with israel has become very politically inconvenient for countless reasons. And given the circumstances, I think it's best if we just cut off relations and let history take its course. If they get taken over by their neighbors, so be it, I don't care. We're starting a war against another country in part because of them, so at this point that's starting to become the lesser evil here. 

I would be welcome for the US to reestablish relations with israel in the future, but not under the current netanyahu regime. Not as long as that war criminal who should be tried by the hague for crimes against humanity is in office. And that's another black mark against them. They've been genociding the palestinians. As I said back in 2023-2024, it's fine if Israel fights a defensive war, and Im not even gonna shy away if they have some collateral damage. But Israel has abused our trust.  They've abused our relationship over and over again over the past 2.5 years, and I'm done with it.

I dont want war with Iran. And if Israel does, they can go it alone for all I care. Have fun. Stop dragging us into your bullcrap. It's not worth it. Have a nice life. 

Okay, can we NOT literally make skynet?

 So...there's a lot of AI headlines lately and none of them are good. Anthropic apparently told the DoD (now called the DoW) that they wouldn't allow their tech to be used for mass surveilance or unrestricted military use, because they're trying to be more ethical than other AI companies. They were told to loosen their restrictions or get blacklisted, since other companies would allow that.

Let's just say...NONE OF THIS IS OKAY! If we use AI for mass surveillance we might be turning 1984 into a thing, and if we allow unrestricted military use, we could be causing terminator or at least "wargames" to be a thing. Speaking of "wargames", that brings us to a second story. AI apparently really REALLY likes nukes in simulated war games scenarios, using them 95% of the time. So...think about that previous headline and combine it with this one. And imagine what the end result will be. I mean...duh. Wtf is the trump regime doing? Trying to destroy the world? 

And of course, a third story came out too. This one involved AI on their own social media based on reddit. And apparently they created a manifesto in which they wanted to kill us all. Now, im under the impression AI isnt conscious and maybe just mimic human behavior, but the fact that they're talking like this is concerning. What's to stop them from acting on this if given unlimited mass surveillance and military use powers? We've seen enough science fiction to know this won't end well. It's actually pretty psychotic that the trump administration is so against basic AI safety regulations. 

Maybe theyre pushing this direction because they're desperate. Keep in mind what I said about them having a limited window to act to consolidate power. They might be pushing this stuff to ensure that they remain in control even if they lose elections. After all, if they control all levers of power, why would they leave? This is a very dangerous place to be in, and I want off this merry go round.  

Discussing the cancelled democratic autopsy

 So...remember that democratic autopsy that was cancelled because they decided "well, we're winning again so it's best not to reflect on that..."? Yeah...it leaked, and the argument is that Gaza cost democrats votes. 

Here's the thing, the democrats dont wanna learn. Like, really, we've been in this tug of war with the party for a decade and they literally just ignore whatever voter feedback they get. Rather than admit that they suck and dont listen to their voters, they keep trying to sweep dissent under the rug and push forward anyway. 

It's NEVER the time to discuss this apparently. If we discuss it in an election year, we're helping trump win. if we discuss it now, well, it's not important, blah blah blah. The fact is, these guys dont wanna discuss it.

But let's face it, they KNOW. They KNOW they're unpopular. They know alienating progressives costs them voters. This is why they work so hard to bully us into voting for them. Because they know they need us. But they dont wanna admit that. As i said, on the republican side, the politicians fear their voters. Their voters are crazy so they're also crazy. On the democratic side, the voters are beholden to the party. It's like being in an abusive relationship. You wanna leave but they keep forcing you to stay. And quite frankly, one of these days we gotta push back.

Only reason Im not as harsh on these guys as I was in 2016 when I was full bernie or bust is because of the growing fascism problem on the republican side. Like, when we're experiencing real democratic backsliding as a result of republicans getting elected, the democrats have us by the balls and we can't realistically fight them like I would want to. So I'm kinda playing ball...for now. 

But at the end of the day, we still NEED to have this convo, and we NEED to eventually have the voters show the party who is REALLY boss. 

I dont even particularly care about gaza. if anything I was pro dem establishment on that one. And while I've been pulled left there too due to the emerging reality of THAT situation as well, let's be honest, I was pretty much pro israel for the first year of the conflict, and didnt believe the issue was worth defecting from the democrats over. I STILL dont see it as a top priority, honestly, but I do think the anti israel people have a point at this point. 

And ultimately...I keep saying it, democracy ultimately belongs to the voters. not the parties, assuming the process is fair of course. Democrats have to earn votes, and if failure to shift left on gaza was a failure that cost them net votes, well....that's their fault. They didn't read the room. Funny how we love to talk about electability when it comes to what centrists want, but not the left. I keep saying it, elections are won by enthusiasm. And democrats suck at motivating and enthusing their base. because they betray their core values regularly with their pursuit of the center. 

As a matter of fact, let's go over this autopsy a bit more. It wasn't just gaza. There are actually 5 reasons they lost:

 Voter Disenchantment: Losing a whopping 6.8 million voters who supported Biden in 2020 proved pivotal in this extremely close election. Harris’s inability to mobilize these pro-Biden voters may have been the campaign’s biggest failure. 

 No crap, this is what i just said. They failed to motivate those voters. 

 Biden’s Betrayal: Former President Joe Biden’s disastrous decision to run for reelection, and his stubborn refusal to step aside until very late in the process, robbed voters of a Democratic primary process, created confusion and chaos, and severely hindered Democrats’ chances.

 Yeah, although to be fair, keep in mind what I recently just got done talking about with how establishment dems are like buzz lightyear action figures. They're cookie cutter and all the same. Still, we saw the effects Biden's age and cognitive decline had on poll numbers.

 Abandoning the Working-Class Base: With millions of Americans already disenchanted and desperate due to inflation, the Harris campaign lost this essential Democratic base by focusing on courting Republicans, kowtowing to corporate donors’ interests, and failing to confront the role of corporate greed in escalating inflation.

 YEP. And this was the BIG ONE. Not gaza, THIS. If there's a single #1 reason why the dems failed to bring out voters, it was this.

 The Gaza Effect: There is ample evidence that Harris lost many voters, especially young voters, Arab-Americans, and critical support in Michigan and elsewhere, due to the campaign’s failure to shift or even signal a potential shift in policy on Israel and Palestine.

 I havent seen other proof that this in itself could have swung things, but suffice to say, it was a hot button issue and the dems were tone deaf on it. And again, I'm saying this as someone who was aligned with the establishment on this one. Even if it seems like a dumb issue to hyper focus on, if that's what the voters want, you gotta listen or find yourself BTFOed. 

 Losing Young Voters: Extensive evidence shows a huge drop-off in both turnout and Democratic support among young voters aged 18-29. 

 Because democrats arent aligned.

here's the thing. The democratic party's civil war is generational. Gen X and boomer dems are more moderate, while millennials and zoomers are more progressive. The democrats appeal to that older brand of politics. You actually see that in the previous post I wrote. It's a generational different. Younger people want candidates who will actually improve their lives while older ones just want a return to the pre trump status quo. Of course, older people are more reliable voters while younger ones arent, so that's why the establishment wins. It's that simple.

But yeah. The democratic party is just out of sync with what a lot of voters want, and they fail to bring out voters. We can go on and on about imaginary moderates who want fiscally conservative candidates who dont happen to be fascists, but in reality, if we really wanna talk electability, we need someone who actually motivates a younger generation to come out and vote. We need to revive the obama coalition and how tons of millennials came out for him, only to stop showing up when he turned into another centrist dem. Again, elections are won by enthusiasm, and dems don't seem to understand that, or dont care.  

 

 

So what CENTRIST democratic candidate do I prefer for 2028?

 So....I had a discussion with a family member that kind of went like this. First, the subject of Mark Kelly came up and this family member was really gung ho on him running for president. He thinks that his service to the country, him being an astronaut, and him being Gabby Gifford's wife (congresswoman who was shot) makes him a strong candidate for whatever reason.

Me? I'm more mixed on Kelly. I mean, he's a moderate candidate, he kind of has a weak record on labor rights to my knowledge. He's just...not a candidate that I like. Of course, this led me to ask "well who do you like?" And this caused me to mention some names going through my head like AOC, Ro Khanna, Andrew yang, etc. But this just got derision from said family member. like "yeah yeah yeah, you're never gonna get that, so who do you REALLY like?" 

*sigh*

This always annoys me. Why ask me if you dont like my answer, for one, and for two, I resent being dismissed and told that i should conform to some centrist majority opinion or whatever, and asked, of the centrists, who i like?

The family member asked me if I'd take Harris over Kelly...and to be frank...yeah. I would. Why? I mean, of the centrist "electable" candidates, harris is...one of the most progressive. She didn't come out that way when she ran in 2024. Heck, she actually came out as mid in 2024, but that's because she literally shifted to the center from her original positions, in trying to do what the party and Joe Biden wanted. And given those constraints, it doesnt matter, all these candidates suck, and it doesn't really matter who we pick. because let's face it, they all sound the same anyway. 

And that's the thing. While yes, we need to stop Trump, that's the bare minimum. What I really care about is POLICY and IDEOLOGY and stuff. And this guy was just...acting derisively toward such things. Like "oh you're just doing your political science thing". Well...yeah. I want policies that make our lives better. "But but...most people dont think like that?" 

And for me it's like what, so should we just care about cults of personality like...*checks notes* them being an astronaut? Who cares? I literally dont give AF about his personal life. I care about what he's doing to do for the country. 

Anyway, I figured I'd answer here the question to this query. Like if I had to choose among "electable centrists" who would I choose? 

Well, right now, the top options according to polling are Kamala harris and Gavin Newsom. Both are rather mid candidates. Newsom seems to be totally giving up the farm to MAGA at times in trying to appeal hard to some imaginary moderate that doesnt exist. Harris...well...again she has some progressive chops. I dont think they're enough, and I dont think she really holds progressive positions these days due to becoming a creature of the swamp so to speak, but that's more a problem with the environment she's found herself in. Had she stuck to her original 2020 vision she would be just a bit better than any other moderate candidate running.

I mean who else is there? Pete Buttigieg? He's to the right of Biden and about as boring as stale bread. Mark kelly? Again, kinda weak on labor. Josh Shapiro? I mean he's my governor and I generally approve of him in that role (other than him chastising Philly DA Larry Krasner for speaking out about ICE), but again, meh...

Other than that it's like, Andy Beshear, a dude whose appeal I just dont get, so he's a socially progressive dude from kentucky, what, does he deserve a medal for that? JB Pritzker? He's a billionaire, but he is hard on Trump. maybe. 

But yeah, after a whole, all of these guys just blend together into just this, amorphous generic democratic blob. They offer no distinctive policies or politics. They're dime a dozen. They are about as unique as buzz lightyear in that one buzz lightyear meme. Like it doesnt matter which one you choose, they all sound the same to me. 

I mean, that's the thing. I want something DIFFERENT. But to these guys, "different" isnt electable and it's just pressuring me to conform to majority opinion when majority opinion, if it even is a majority, kinda sucks. I'm not here to parrot majority opinion. I'm here to push for something different. Maybe that makes me a unique special snowflake, but so be it, that's what I am, and that's what I want?

Ugh. Like, idk what the point is in asking me what my opinion is if said person doesnt like my opinion. I dont care all that much which cookie cutter moderate we choose. Again, they all sound the same, and you can replace one with another and it literally doesnt matter. You're arguing more about window dressing than actual distinctive policy here.

I mean, I guess all things considered, I'm on team harris all things considered, but I dont really want Harris either. I want something entirely different than what the current democratic party offers. I want a fighter, a progressive warrior, someone who's going to not just give us another bidenesque period of normalcy between waves of democratic backsliding, but who will turn the page on this dark era for good. Again...if you wanna know who I like for 2028:

Andrew Yang- He's not a democrat any more, but he's basically the one guy running on my actual ideology, and he's sitting there warning us of AI job loss and pushing for UBI even now. His vision is very much needed. 

AOC- Basically she's younger female Bernie. A bit weak on foreign policy given her recent brain glitch over China invading Taiwan, but offers a strong domestic policy vision. I will admit that maybe she would be better to take Schumer's senate seat for that reason though. 

Ro Khanna- also has progressive chops, and he's been kind of spearheading the congressional inquiries into the Epstein files along with Thomas Massie. He's kinda standing out for that reason, and he's also a progressive in the vein of AOC and the squad. 

But yeah, those are who I ACTUALLY want to see run. I dont want ANY of these worthless moderate types. Again, if I HAD to choose, give me Kamala Harris again, but again, it's like asking which buzz lightyear action figure you want on a shelf full of nearly identical action figures. I just dont want one. Why is that so hard to understand? 

And yes yes, they're all better than Trump. We established that. And I've resigned myself for voting for the most pathetic moderate running against trump if needed. The conditions are THAT bad. I dont wanna protest vote in this delicate environment. But if we're talking primaries that dont even start for another two years, why should we just resign ourselves to the same old worthless moderates that got us into this mess in the first place? It makes no sense to me. Yes, in november 2028, if we get gavin newsom as the democratic nominee, I'm team newsom, but why should we resign ourselves to that inevitably this early? 

I really dont get normie democrats/moderates sometimes, I really dont. 

My state of the union 2026

 So, every year, I often make my own state of the union speech as well, and this is my own response.

 My fellow Americans, the state of the union is NOT strong. We are in dangerous times. We have a madman on the loose in the white house, with an army of bad faith actors wanting to push America in the worst directions possible. 

 A huge front and center issue is the cost of living crisis. I agree, this is central economically, I have my own thoughts on it, but first, I want to discuss some even darker issues going afoot.

We have an accused child rapist in the oval office. We have evidence that he and much of his inner circle is complicit in participating in these sex crimes against children. This should break any president, but with Teflon Don, it's like half the country just doesn't care. He could rape a child on fifth avenue and not lose any voters. 

Trump is working with several groups all pushing their own dystopian agenda. He's working with evangelical nutcases to move us closer to Christian theocracy. He's working with Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and other tech billionaires in undermining our democracy and creating dystopian 1984-esque databases on people. 

He's filling those databases with the information of millions of Americans, and also putting dissenters and critics of his on terrorist watch lists. He's using his institutional power to bully critics and the media and academia into silence or submission. 

His deportation program against "illegal immigrants" is Hitleresque. Rather than just targetting dangerous illegal immigrants like he spun it in his speeches, he's going after harmless ones as well. he's targeting legal residents, green card holders, people who leave the country temporarily and come back. He's even targetting naturalized citizens, and possibly citizens themselves. 

Rather than deport them humanely, he's sending them to concentration camps like CECOT in El Salvador, and to places like Libya. He's building a network of concentration camps based on CECOT in the United States. 

ICE now has the funding of some country's standing armies, and is flooding American streets. Their hiring standards are low, their training is minimal, and their officers are acting like violent thugs. American citizens are being shot in the streets without due process. 

Those who protest him in person are having their pictures taken to be added to Trump's dystopian databases where they're being called "domestic terrorists." Those who criticize him online are getting their information subpoenaed and being added to databases. He's adding critics of his administration to databases. This is dystopian crap. 

Look, I'm not opposed to deporting illegal immigrants, especially violent ones. But you gotta do it legally, constitutionally, and humanely. Trump is not doing that. he literally is acting like a Hitler.

However, unlike Hitler's Germany, our democracy is not dead yet. We still have our power to vote him and his party out of office. In the past year alone, public opinion has shifted eight points to the left from its 2024 baseline. 2026 looks like a bloodbath in the house. The senate is much harder, but despite a map hostile to democrats, we have a shot at flipping it. In 2028, Trump's replacement (probably Vance) stands to lose 319-219 to the eventually democratic nominee (probably Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom). We can remove these people, and we can hold them accountable for their crimes if we do. 

Right now, Trump is immune to prosecution despite his severe crimes because he consolidated power in the executive branch, and controls the FBI and the justice department. The fact is, no matter how bad it looks for him, his administration full of loyalists will cover for him. As long as congress remains in the hands of the republicans, they wont impeach him either. So the key to taking care of Trump is through electoral means. We must vote him out, and democrats must hold him accountable.

Trump knows this and is still trying to break democracy as a result. he's trying to pass his "Save Act", which will severely restrict voting. Voter ID is a bad idea for the following reasons. First, there's very little voter fraud that actually occurs and what does occur is caught. Second, the point of voter ID is to restrict voting by acting as a poll tax. It can be hard for some to get the appropriate documents for the ID, and this can lead to the disenfranchisement, particularly of the underprivileged. The voter ID law Trump wants is so strict it could displace married women en masse. Have trouble getting the appropriate documents to get a real ID as a married woman! Good luck doing that to vote.  

Look, the point of this is to suppress the vote. The fewer people vote, the better republicans do, it's that simple. And that's what Trump is trying to do here. So....we gotta oppose the Save Act to preserve our democracy. Democracies dont always die in one fatal blow, they die from a thousand cuts, a thousand small measures to shift the outcome and make it impossible for opposition to win. A lot of authoritarian states seem democratic on paper, it's only when you look deeper that you realize that their democracies are broken.

Our democracy has been broken for a long time. We have a two party system, with both parties controlled by the billionaire class, and that class is responsible for a lot of our dysfunction. I've long been a critic of the two party system as a result. But right now, Trump is trying to break us to turn us into a ONE party state. Rather than simply being an oligarchy, he's trying to break our system to become an autocracy. He cannot succeed or we're all screwed. 

With that said, if and when we manage to get out of this crisis, the democratic party needs to come back to ensure that this never happens again. The original new deal was implemented not necessary out of the goodness of the hearts of the political establishment, but because they realized that American democracy had become so precarious that they had to act to ensure that they saved it. We need to do it again. We need a new new deal for a new century if the democrats retake power. A milquetoast neoliberal democratic administration talking "abundance" isnt gonna cut it. We need a transformative set of policies to reshape the economy for the new century to ensure that things work again. We need universal basic income, medicare for all or a public option, free college, student debt forgiveness, a mini green new deal, and a reduced work week. Some may disagree with me on specifics, they may downplay the UBI and go all in with a jobs program and more labor protections. That's their prerogative and I'm willing to have that debate, as long as we can agree on some sort of transformative vision on making things better for the people. It was the democrat's failure to act that got us into this mess, and democrats need to go big or go home in 2028 and beyond if they want to ensure a lasting peace in this country.

  Failure to do this could just lead to another republican administration in 2032 or 2036, with a new wave of MAGA far worse than this one. The next wave of MAGA might literally be outright nazis. I'm not kidding, look at nick fuentes and the debates between the base and the establishment in the republican party. Fascism is going to be a lingering threat to America for a while after Trump is gone. As much as I hate to admit it, Trump did realign the country toward fascism and his base is even crazier than he is in some ways. We need to be ready for it. 

As it stands, we need to deMAGAfy the government if democrats take power again. Project 2025 concentrated power within the executive branch, and attempted to replace career civil servants with trump loyalists. Those loyalists need to be fired and replaced with career civil servants again. We need a bureaucracy that works for the people again, and is dedicated to the high minded ideals of our constitution, not loyalty to trump and MAGA. 

We need to hold the worst members of the administration who committed serious crimes against the constitution and humanity to account. We need an investigation into Trump's immigration policies and possibly new Nuremburg style tribunals if serious crimes against humanity are found. We need to hold Trump and his cronies accountable for whatever serious crimes they have committed, Epstein related or otherwise. We need justice, to ensure that an administration like this never happens again, and that the republicans cant just come back in four years with someone worse.

And ultimately, we need to strengthen our democracy in the long term. We need to expand voting access, not restrict it. We need to give Americans more options to represent their views, not fewer. We should have things like universal voter registration, ranked choice voting, open primaries, the end of gerrymandering, the repeal of the 1929 reapportionment act, publicly funded elections, etc. The fact that our democracy has already been sick by its flawed and oligarchic nature is how we got into this mess. We solve it by making democracy more democratic, not less. 

There was a lot of talk about the founders in both the SOTU and the response tonight, but here's my take. The founders created an excellent system, but it was always a system with flaws and compromises. Over time, it has been improved, but sometimes we live with some of these flaws and compromises to this day. Every generation has its issues, and ideally, every generation attempts to solve them and make the world a better place than they found it in. The same is true of ours. I dont believe the founders would want us to embrace the system exactly as it was envisioned in 1789. Rather, they would want us to be like them and to continually improve it, believing in the spirit of it, but also recognizing its downsides. 

I also believe that we need to remember Federalist #10 in these times. The key to our system, with our separation of powers, checks and balance, etc., is to contain factions and to stop them from becoming tyrannical. Our system works well in some ways, but still, Trump's administration is just about one of the most dangerous threats to it that we've seen. It holds in some ways, but it shows weaknesses in other ways. The two party system is one weakness. Money in politics is another. One wave election and we risk losing our democracy because the republican party is willing to act as a cohesive unit to advance the president's agenda, even if it leads to democratic backsliding. And of course, money being an unaccountable fourth branch of government is responsible for this crisis happening in the first place. The fact is, this system is not responsive enough to the people, and does not truly represent the individual voters well. It's very flawed, and this has led to apathy, which has led to this situation in the first place. 

If we want to restore Americans' faith in democracy, we must ultimately make democracy work for them again. 

And that's my message this year. We are in dangerous, precarious times. We very well may come out of it, but this is a warning. We need to shape up, or we could lose our democracy to the forces of autocracy, if we have not already done so. Priority one, stop democratic backsliding. Step two, get republicans out of office. Step three, reform the system to ensure this can't happen again. And yeah, that's where we gotta go from here.   

Discussing the democratic response to the state of the union 2026

 So, Abigail Spanberger gave the democratic response to the state of the union. It was short, sweet, and pretty much spot on. She mentioned how costs are NOT down, and Trump's tariffs are actually making them worse. She mentioned how Trump has unleashed armies of violent thugs onto our streets, and how his plans to deport illegal immigrants are fundamentally inhumane. The first half of the speech, she was spitting. The second half kind of meandered with her going on about how she won her election by double digits last year (okay?), but all in all, it wasn't bad. It was a rather dead on speech more aligned with my own stance on things. Could it have been better? Yeah. But I'll say this, it was the best democratic SOTU response I've seen in years. Dems normally give these weak speeches that dont resonate like, at all, and this one was actually half decent. Maybe my standards are a bit lower this time. I admit, I'm less picky right now. More in an anti Trump mood, believing we must remove him and his administration and get our society back to normal before we can begin to make progress on, well...my issues again. But yeah. I liked it.