Reaper Z

Although, actually, keep in mind that the Democrats are completely fine with the war in Iran - their largest issue with it is "why wasn't congress briefed about it??". For all we know, the establishment might've pushed the U.S. into a similar war lol.

Probably not, but I think that the U.S. would be at war with Iran in 2030, instead. By all accounts, Kamala at best would've been a temporary stop-gap in the societal/economic decline of the U.S., she wouldn't be able to prevent another Trump-like populist from coming into power.

Also this isn't even to mention just how unelectable she is. The cotton-picking comment is one thing, but her only campaign strategy was/is "I'M BLACK!" - it would've been a repeat of Allred's electoral failure.

Meanwhile Talarico's biggest controversy is calling Allred "mediocre" lol.

And Jasmine Crockett got a free trip to Israel, FULLY funded by AIPAC. And also voted in favour of every single Israel arms package, no matter what those weapons would be used for.

David Sacks spent the entirety of Biden's presidency fearmongering about World War III. But he has not commented on Trump's war with Iran.

Reminder: David Sacks supported the Iraq War.

His ''anti war'' grift is/was nothing more than a con just like the rest of these partisan hacks.

It really depends on what you mean by "overly religious people". Religion gets a bad rep these days but there are still some good people that are faithful.

For example, Martin Luther King Jr. was a church leader, and I sure as hell would've trusted him in office.

You should tell that guy anout him, not me. I already fully believe that Talarico will do a stand-up job as Senator.

Look, dude, I don't care what your scant recollection of words you THINK he might've said. Either you QUOTE him, or your words mean nothing but essentielly speculation and fear-mongering.

I'l believe it when I see it.

"Vote blue no matter blue! Unless it's a progressive, then consider not voting"

More like Ziosraum or something.

Ok so what is "did that" - what did Talarico did that supposedly was "SANEWASHING CHRISTIANITY"?

All he did was say "love thy neighbour and don't be a christian nationalist". That's pretty normal.

Seperstion of church and state means, essentially, that you shouldn't let religioud dogma dictate how you govern, NOT that "you cannot be influenced by religion at ALL", because that would be tantamount to policing thoughts.

Research what you preach, dude.

A society that forces politicians to be atheists against their will, just so that they can get into politics is no better than a spciety that forces people to be Islamic fundamentalists, just so that they could get into politics.

"The seperstion of church and state" yes, I have - you can have a religious person. Be a politician. That's literally the norm in almost every liberal democracy, barring France.

"Seperstion of chirch and state" does not mean "YOU SHAN'T BE RELIGIOUS", dude.

"But still a pastor"

So what? Are you a Reddit atheist that's allergic to anything regarding religion? Grow some balls, dude. This has been the norm for hundreds of years, I don't see why it's supposedly "bad" now.

He's not a literal bible-scholar. @chadbourn.bsky.social probably just misread an article that exaggerated when writing the tweet - Talarico is just a religious former pastor/teacher now running for office. He has a bachelor of arts but he never "studied the bible" like an academic or something.

God forbid a regular dude thinks God exists?

Like, dude, it's Texas. "Saneaashing christianity" (or whatever the fuck that insane Reddit atheist comment is supposed to mean) is how you win an election.

Thank GOD. Crockett is a slimy, arrogant politician, and Talarico is just a normal dude. The fact that she tried presenting herself as the underdog (despite being a HOUSE MEMBER, and Talarico being just a teacher), is all you need to know about her character and the campaign she tried running.

I disagree - Talarico is just a Christian, he's not a christo-fascist like what Republican "Christians" are.

This point only applies to Republicans, really.

Oh great, we're getting ready to push the Kurds under the bus, for the n-th time. It's like an American tradition, at this point.

I would find it incredibly funny if Iran suddenly faced a constitutional crisis like this. The regime does not have strong enough foundations to survive through one, so it would be amusing to see how Larijani and Pezeshkian or something bicker over who gets to appoint the Guardian council lol.

So what exactly happens if all "experts" die, alongside the Guardian council?

The Tories did the exact same thing, mind you. They tried imposing voting restrictions via. ID requirements, and arbitrarily decided that non-pensioner Oyster cards were invalid for elections (but pensioner Oyster cards were perfectly valid). It's a familiar tactic.

In the last 4 years we have fired close to 60,000 Iranian brand drones into Ukraine. During that time Fidias smiled & said, "so sad but not my problem, cut a deal".

Half a dozen hit Cyprus & he wets himself without seeing that the events are connected.

Uh huh, so he's essentially declaring another economic war with the E.U.? Because since Spain is in the comment market, cutting off trade with Spain either means cutting off trade with the E.U. entirely, or literally just cutting off trade with Spain, while leaving a E.U. sized trade loophole lol.

Well yes, but doesn't this serve my point? The only "loss" McDonald had was in 1925, and it was an election where he GAINED vote share, so comparing him to Starmer losing half of their votershare by now, is just... wrong, I believe.

I disagree - Ramsey was the PM in 1923, and while he was the PM in 1929, the person that stood as Labour leader in the 1931 election was Arthur Henderson, not McDonald.

The only electoral loss Labour had under McDonald had was the election where the party gained vote share, believe it or not.

Meh I somewhat disagree. Whether or not they "walked so that Polanski could run" is up to debate, but to me it just seems like failed leadership before, or at the very least, incredibly poor campaigning on the part of the Greens.

Like, can you imagine Labour GAINING vote-share by 2029? Or even better - being re-elected in 2035, somehow? I certainly can't, thus I think it's incomparable - McDonald didn't doom the party to oblivion, but Starmer might have.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I disagree with this comparison - Ramsay McDonald actually GAINED votes by the next election. And while he may have lost seats, I think comparing that to Labour's unpopularity is just incredibly unhelpful.