A lot will depend on how bad things get under Trump. If we indeed have a longish recession and things get bad enough for a lot of people, someone who is more progressive but also charismatic may be able to win the primaries and the election.

I think Pritzker is a good choice, but there's still so much that will happen before any votes are cast. Pritzker is wise, IMO, jumping out as an early voice against Trump. I don't think a Dem can win without being seen as opposed to Trump in vocal and obvious ways.

Yes, they tried to rig it against Obama too. Candidates shouldn't have to overcome some party elites putting their thumb on the scale. Putting popular candidates at a disadvantage in primaries is how you end up losing general elections and alienating your own supporters. The one thing Democrats excel at.

Dems have won three of the last five, five of the last nine. They won the popular vote in seven of the last nine elections. You won't win every time in our system, but they've done better than the opposition.

I liked Bernie, but he couldn't win a primary because he had very little support amongst black voters. That isn't a conspiracy.

Pritzker has his own staff outside of the current establishment. He also doesn't need to rely much on donors. Two big no-nos if you're running in a Democratic primary. I just don't see them making it easy for him to win despite how good he has been as a politician.

Remember that the Dems desperately wanted RFK Jr's brother to win the Illinois primary until he fell flat on his face during the campaign and pissed off all the labor groups.

It's not about Bernie or even just Presidential races. They threaten anyone who primaries a moderate incumbent but ignore when moderates primary even slightly progressive candidates. They had more Republicans speaking at the DNC than progressives.

They have a 24% approval rating doing things your way. Control of none of the branches of government. And despite those wins you cited, have done almost nothing with that power compared to Republicans. I'd say they've let Trump win two terms through sheer incompetency, but I think they've made it clear that they don't really have a problem with Trump as long as the money keeps flowing.

Pritzker is sufficiently Zionist to get the support of the insiders. If anything, they'll probably be happy that he's to the right of Harris on that issue.

The Chief Justice felt the need to send this out for no particular reason.../s

"NEW STATEMENT FROM CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Dems have no brand and nobody knows what they get if they vote team D and Citizens United has corrupted all levels of elections. But that's a general election problem. At the primary level, there is no conspiracy. Anybody can win if they persuade the most voters.

Putin made Trump wait an hour past the scheduled time for their call because he was meeting with Russian oligarchs and then mocked Trump when asked of he was supposed to be on a call with Trump.

Trump continues to lick Putin's boots while Putin takes every opportunity to flex on how weak of president Trump is.

Democratic Zionists are going to have a real tough time with turnout in elections. Polls showing support for Israel is at like 21% now amongst their voters. It was poison for Biden and Harris. The party needs to ween off their AIPAC money if they ever want to be competitive.


The issue is putting the thumb on the scale. If you threaten to blacklist primary challengers from ever working in the party (including vendors), you're making it incredibly hard to take out bad members of the party. Like it's possible, but there should be no reason to make it so hard.

Can someone explain the Republican desire to make Canada the 51st state? They'd garner around the same electoral votes as California which would go to the Democrats. Not to mention the huge amount of House seats they would require that again, would benefit Democrats (especially after some gerrymandering). You'd likely also be handing the Democrats 2 Senate seats.

Like it's shitty to do to what was an ally but it would also be political suicide for Republicans.

That’s pretty good. I wonder if the Justices had a chat about this and agreed to the wording? Or 1-4 agreed to not disagree or at least stay neutral, quiet?

I thought they don't want Canada to have a vote? This is really helping us pin down a year when America was "great" - gotta be the 1800s

It's often the people you suspect the most.

[url="https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/03/18/state-senator-eichorn-arrested-suspicion-of-soliciting-a-minor"[/url]

Maybe I have Trump Derangement Syndrome, but at least I'm not trying to model my life after a pedophile.

What a pussy. Just say he was 'framed', 'hacked', 'set up by powerful dark forces' and stick it out. it's what trump would do.

1820's, when Andrew Jackson kicked off the trail of Tears and told the Supreme Court to go ahead and enforce their rulings.

Ghost Econ,


Should I be concerned or touched that my name is there at least twice in all that you posted?

Whatever he did my name is population on it so it appears it is linked to your forum handle.

He uses the term "51st state" because it sounds good, but there is no way we would ever be brought in as a state for all the reasons you listed and more.


IF economic annexation were to happen it would be as a territory like Puerto Rico or some other form of vassal state where the natural resources can be plundered but the people don't have full rights.


In reality we'll never hand ourselves over peacefully anyways, so it will be a violent occupation and we will basically just get treated like Iraq or any other oil-rich country the US has invaded and plundered in the past.

Fixed that link as much as I could. Keeping it as an actual link fucks things up.

Hey, how hard will you have to fight when you've got BROCK LESNAR on your side?!

I'm hoping we can take back porch monkey next.

Trump Ends Segregated Facilities Ban

Yes, I know there are still laws, but when the administration says laws they don't like don't matter...

NIH sent out guidance that says they won't be funding mRNA research anymore.

In unrelated news scientists announced a couple of weeks ago that an mRNA vaccine had cured pancreatic cancer in a number of patients. Oh, well.

Stealing this.

Apparently Trump plans on paving over the rose garden and turning it into something similar to the patio area he has at Mara a Lago.

Rumors are that Trump is going to zero out funding for domestic HIV prevention.

Just read the Bulwark article about MAHA being a fraud. What a surprise! But the idea of "making America healthy again" is just ridiculous. We've never been as healthy as we are now.

Isn't Life Expectancy in the US going down because we eat too much KFC?

Red states are what's mostly dragging things down. There are massive gaps, as much as 6 years, between some blue states and the deep south.

Downtick is related, mostly, to Covid. But we're generally still on the down trend thanks to the current "don't trust science" BS while life expectancy is on the rise again most everywhere else.

But you look at life expectancy overall compared to 50 years ago, or infant mortality rate, smoking, cancer mortality rate, etc. Now, things like Type 2 Diabetes and obesity are rising, and you can see the trends in the deep south/red states on that. But you know what MAHA doesn't like, either? The newer drugs that help!

COVID did a number on our life expectancy rate too.

That's what I was referring to - the downtick in life expectancy is mostly related to Covid, and getting back to a positive trajectory is getting stalled by anti-science.

Yeah, didn't see your post when I started mine.

We also have an extremely high infant mortality rate compared to other Western countries which will drag down life expectancy too (beyond all the other factors). That's unlikely to be fixed with abortion illegal in many states and lack of health care access for so many.

But the point about infant mortality rate is that right now, it's half what it was 40 years ago and a quarter of what it was 60 years ago. So this beef tallow BS about getting back to when we were healthy is grade A horseshit.

How did the beef tallow thing start? Is it an offshoot of the anti-seed oil people? Like it's fine if you're using beef tallow instead of other oils but the problem seems to be calories to me. You eat too many calories, you don't live as long. Whether that's coming from seed oils, beef tallow, or whatever is trendy.

I must have missed the beef tallow thing. Can someone explain?

RFK is touting the health benefits of beef tallow over seed oils. He specifically mentioned steak n shake using beef tallow. Actual studies show seed oils are far healthier though, iirc.

Just more facebook mom group bullshit.

Steak n Shake has become the latest corporation to court the pro-MAGA people by publicly announcing they are switching from fries fried in seed oil to beef tallow - even though fast food fries are pre-fried in seed oil before they are ever shipped to stores. I believe Wendy's is doing the same.

I like to start my day with a big bowl of beef tallow. My cholesterol is 742 but RFK says ive never been healthier

Or just don't eat fast food fries, I don't think tallow or seed oil is going to make much of a difference if you eat at McDonalds or Wendys 5-6 times a week.

Yeah I still don't quite understand the health part of this. I'm guessing it might taste better in beef tallow. I used to go to a place that made their fries in duck fat. But you're still frying potatoes in immense amounts of fat. There's just no way you're making that healthy no matter what fat you fry it in.

{scratches head}

The "beef tallow is healthier" argument mentioned here is something I haven't heard anyone mention, outside of the media coverage.

The joy among real people is that the fries taste better and that some companies are now moving away from the poorly conceived switch to other oils that started about 30 years ago.

RFK is largely a fucking loon afaic, but if companies want to use him as cover for making food taste better again then fine by me.

I can guarantee beef tallow tastes better than most vegetable or seed oils, but fries are still best cooked in peanut oil.

The greatest fries I've ever had were cooked in duck fat. Don't think I've ever had duck either but whatever that does to potatoes is magical.

Duck fat fries are one of the greatest foods I've ever experienced. But yeah, I'm not eating them to lose weight and be healthy.

There's a place near me that has duck fat fries and I can't tell the difference between that and their regular fries.

I have never really liked duck, but I have never tried anything cooked in the fat. Funny enough, I find duck too fatty tasting.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

There are rabbit holes to go down regarding people and their weird beliefs about seed oils.