>>1535667
Fellow Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Chris DeLuzio (D-Pa.) has also said he’s “gotten a lot of encouragement” to primary Fetterman in 2028.

Though he’s sided with the GOP on key votes such as government funding, Fetterman suggested that if his party officially becomes “the anti-Israel party,” he’d have to depart.

“I’d be a terrible Republican who still votes overwhelmingly with Democrats,” he has also said, referring to a voting record that shows at least 80% of the time he joins with his own caucus.

“I’m a lifelong Democrat who votes overwhelmingly with my party — and should the Senate flip in November, I will still be the 51st vote that I ran on,” Fetterman clarified later in a statement.

The cross-party endorsement isn’t without precedent. Former independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who caucused with Democrats, did the same for his longtime friend Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at the 2008 GOP convention.

Four years before that, Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) also backed then-presidential nominee George W. Bush at the Republican National Convention.

In Wednesday’s video appearance, Fetterman called himself a “common sense Democrat” and expressed willingness to work across the aisle with McCormick — and President Trump — to deliver for steel workers and other Pennsylvanians.

“I’m always going to reject the extremes and socialism and that anti-American way of life,” he also said.

More Republicans have a favorable view of Fetterman than McCormick, an August survey conducted by The New York Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer and Siena University found.

At least 73% of registered Republican voters expressed a positive opinion about Fetterman, while 63% did about McCormick.

Meanwhile, most registered Democratic voters (63%) have an unfavorable opinion of Fetterman, and 22% have a favorable view.

>>1535667
>Fetterman called himself a “common sense Democrat”
Fatterman finding out there's no such thing really quick. Aren't ya?

>AI slop
>NYpost
Fake news propaganda site.

>>1535671
Yeah, the DINO who started veering right after brain damage from a stroke is a good judge of common sense, that's the kind of 'common sense' I'd expect from a righty, you guys should go have sweaty gay sex about it.

>>1535671
>Ducking your own constituents so you can go on Fox News and say “what about Hasan”
Im sure the people who voted for him to represent them are very happy when they see him standing next to leaders of foreign governments

NYpost is a shitty tabloid run by zionist jews. Fetterman is indeed a Republican albeit. He changed his tune AFTER he had a stroke.

Again, Fetterman became conservative AFTER he had a STROKE.

>>1535667
Fetterman's not surviving the next primary, that much is fucking certain.

>>1535706
Fine by us. PA is a swing state. Idk why y'all getting mad that a guy from a 50-50 state has 50-50 policies.

>>1535691
He's not "conservative". Hes a blue-dog dem.

>>1535708
Anon if him embracing republican policies has made him horrifically unpopular, you think an actual republican candidate is going to be much better?

He's not going for reelection.

>>1535711
And yet he seems to align with the Republicans at every possible moment.

>>1535717
>Horrifically unpopular
Amongst the fringe left, sure. However, I remind you again that PA is a swing state.

>>1535718
>And yet he seems to align with the Republicans at every possible moment
Sure, when he's not pushing for a Federal minimum wage of $17 an hour, and pro-union legislation, and an assault-weapons ban and Medicaid expansions.

But yeah, he wants to have a border and doesn't really care about Hamas so he's basically a Republican.

Jackass.

>>1535757
it doesn't really get more clear cut that he's a republican when you start shilling for him

>>1535758
Okay retard.

>>1535685
Right wing=not being a bitch and funding the government because people need food stamps, I suppose.
lol.

>>1535772
Exactly, being right wing means being a tone-deaf faggot with no idea what's going on around you. Everything is fine, the shepherd has your best interest in mind, you are a good little sheep.

>>1535757
Having a handful of dem beliefs and then voting with Republicans anyway still makes you a Republican.

>>1535774
lol liggerals are hilarious.
>The shepherd has you best interests in mind
>Give all you money to the government
Speaking of tonedeaf.

>>1535757
>pro-union legislation
>https://apnews.com/article/john-fetterman-trump-democrats-senate-pennsylvania-8129e206ed9479ad8534eac3fd128abe
Yeah and then he acts confused when the Unions he supports get pissed that he's been supporting things that fuck them over.

>>1535775
Common sense Democrat is what he calls it.

>>1535778
>Common sense
>Supports Iran war
lol

>>1535780
Yes, that's common sense to people who understand that Iran is in the finding out phase of it's fucking around.

>>1535781
>Guys it's common sense that they were totally close to a nuke this time
>Ignore how we've used the "Two weeks away!" line to justify every bombing for the last 40 years

>>1535782
Its just a distraction from Trump being responsible for accelerating Iran's nuclear program
Even shills admit that Trump let them get a nuke at least 4 years earlier than Obama's plan would, and Obama didn't need to tank the global economy, waste billions of US dollars, or get soldiers killed.

>>1535782
Damn, I pissed of the Russians, huh?

>>1535777
>Teachers union
I meant actual unions.

>>1535780
Yes.

>>1535782
The strike on Fordow crippled part of the Iranian nuclear program. It didn't end it. Iran still had 440kg of enriched uranium that needed to be dealt with.

>>1535786
>Merely pretending to be retarded

>>1535787
>The strike on Fordow crippled part of the Iranian nuclear program. It didn't end it.
So then they lied when they said it set them back decades. And continue to lie about the effectiveness of last years bombings.

>>1535787
>>Teachers union
>I meant actual unions.

>I'm pro union
>You know except for those unions, those don't count

>>1535791
>So then they lied when they said it set them back decades
Trump randomly said that right after the strikes. The CIA and DoD said 1-2 years after more analysis.

>>1535792
>>I'm pro union
>>You know except for those unions, those don't count
I'm not Sen. Fetterman, dipshit.

>>1535801
A union of public employees isn't really a union.

>>1535799
>Trump randomly said that right after the strikes. The CIA and DoD said 1-2 years after more analysis.
Funny because Hegseth agreed and then said any of the reports saying they weren't were fake news
>https://abcnews.com/Politics/hegseth-calls-trump-directed-iran-strikes-resounding-success/story?id=123229887
And then repeated that their nuclear sites were "obliterated" like... two months ago?
>https://www.rev.com/transcripts/supplemental-funding-request-hearing

>>1535805
>Funny because Hegseth agreed
Right after the strikes, yes. Check the article date: June 26.
>then repeated that their nuclear sites were "obliterated" like... two months ago
Yes. There has been a massive bombing campaign since June 2025.

Are you retarded?

>>1535809
>Right after the strikes, yes. Check the article date: June 26.
So then he lied and when people tried to point out that he lied he called them fake news and threats to national security.

>Yes. There has been a massive bombing campaign since June 2025.
No, he was talking about Midnight Hammer specifically. Hegseth legitimately tried to argue that somehow Iran's nuclear sites were completely obliterated but also we need to keep doing so because they can still develop nukes. You don't see the problem there?

>>1535805
>And then repeated that their nuclear sites were "obliterated" like... two months ago?
I don't think ESL shill's AI model is sophisticated enough to answer the question your posing

>>1535811
>So then he lied and when people tried to point out that he lied he called them fake news and threats to national security
No. CIA and DoD assessment came later.

>was talking about Midnight Hammer specifically.
Post the testimony you're referring to.

>>1535816
>No. CIA and DoD assessment came later.
It was publicly released later and matched the leaked assessment. The same one he declared them liars for

>Post the testimony you're referring to.
There's a few.
>Part of the reason President Trump had to have the courage to do what he did after Midnight Hammer is that they didn't give up their ambitions even though their nuclear sites had been obliterated.
>That's why Midnight Hammer was undertaken to obliterate their nuclear sites. That's why we're watching their nuclear sites.
>The nuclear sites under Midnight Hammer were obliterated, but Iranians foolishly continued to attempt to pursue nuclear capabilities
Sounds a whole lot like he's paradoxically saying Midnight Hammer was a complete success while also trying to justify actions that would be unnecessary if it actually was.

>>1535818
>Sounds a whole lot like he's paradoxically saying Midnight Hammer was a complete success while also trying to justify actions that would be unnecessary if it actually was.
Anon
>but Iranians foolishly continued to attempt to pursue nuclear capabilities

>>1535818
>It was publicly released later and matched the leaked assessment
You're conflating damage to the mountain to damage to their nuclear program writ large.

>>1535819
How can they do that if we obliterated them anon? One of the senators even called him out on saying this while Iran was clearly still able to make missiles
>No, we're not. So listen to this, you also say that you made the missile program, "Destroyed and made combat ineffective Iran's entire ballistic missile production capacity. Every company that builds every component of those missiles has been functionally defeated and destroyed. And that the missile program existing stockpiles were depleted and decimated almost completely ineffective." So why are there missiles left to hit Jordan and result in the loss of life of our brave men and women?
And his response was effectively "well, uh, they have secret ones".
>As we stated from the beginning, the Iranian defense industrial base is effectively gone, but they do have underground facilities, because they're the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and they've spent 47 years trying to hide their missiles under mountains-
Which sounds a whole lot like we didn't obliterate their missile or nuclear facilities.

>>1535818
>>1535819
I don't get the argument. If Midnight Hammer failed, as you say, and the DoD and CIA confirmed Iran was still pursuing weaponization, what's the problem with the current strikes?

>>1535822
>How can they do that if we obliterated them anon
Because their entire nuclear energy industry is not under one mountain.
>senators even called him out on saying this while Iran was clearly still able to make missiles
Yes. They (and you) are conflating the Iranian ability to MAKE missiles with hidden Iranian missile stockpiles.

And, again, what's the argument. If Midnight Hammer failed, and if Iran can still make missiles, what's the problem with the current strikes?

>>1535823
Because at the same time, this admin is also claiming it succeeded. Are they lying?

>>1535826
>Are they lying
So this is about you and your vandetta against the admin and not about Iran and nukes?

>>1535826
>Are they lying?
ESL shill confirmed they're lying

>>1535825
>Because their entire nuclear energy industry is not under one mountain.
So then why does he claim, REPEATEDLY, that their entire nuclear capacity was "obliterated". He doesn't claim "we destroyed their major lab", he claims the entire capacity. Why is that?

>Yes. They (and you) are conflating the Iranian ability to MAKE missiles with hidden Iranian missile stockpiles.
Then why does even he bring up underground facilities and likewise claims they destroyed their stockpiles as well despite obvious evidence to the contrary? In this same hearing, he also tries to claim they were successful in that regard, which even the senators at the hearing take issue with and call him out on. When he's called out on it, he sputtered and accused them of disrespecting the troops instead of answering
>Three weeks later, you declared victory. That was now nearly four months ago. Three weeks after you'd already said Iran's military was "destroyed" and "combat ineffective." You said, "Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory." You said Iran's military had been rendered "combat ineffective for years to come." And you stated we had "achieved every single objective." Were those accurate statements?
>It certainly was on behalf of the men and women in uniform, a historic military victory over Iran. There are other-
>Had Iran military been rendered "combat ineffective for years to come"? That was statement that you made four months ago.
He then tried to say that their entire military was destroyed, yet then admitted they did actually still have capabilities before trying to claim the real point was to stop them from acquiring a nuclear weapon, despite the fact he earlier in the same hearing had said they successfully destroyed all of their labs.
>It's been set back not just years, but likely decades considering we can't [inaudible 03:14:58] the level it did before and not even close. It doesn't mean it doesn't have capabilities.

>>1535828
Did they lie about Midnight Hammer's effectiveness, yes or no?

And if they did lie about that and continue to lie about that, why should we believe their claims now?

>>1535831
>he claims the entire capacity. Why is that?
Because we did destroy their ability to enrich to weapons grade.

>Then why does even he bring up underground facilities and likewise claims they destroyed their stockpiles as well despite obvious evidence to the contrary
Because the facilities are undergound and we have done significant damage. Doesn't mean "all" or "every".

>he also tries to claim they were successful in that regard
We have been. You can track Iranian missile launches. They are down by like 98%.

>He then tried to say that their entire military was destroyed
You're putting words in his mouth.


So, basically, your argument is you don't like Sec. Def's choice of verbage. Okay. Wow.

Fetterman is the only Democrat worthy of the name. The rest are liggerals and communists.

>>1535834
>Did they lie about Midnight Hammer's effectiveness
No. But they were wrong about it.

>why should we believe their claims now?
Because we have done more than 13,000 strikes, hit more than 1,400 weapons manufacturing facilities, 2,000 CnC nodes, and 400+ missile siloes/stockpiles.

The logical conclusion is that they thought Midnight Fury would do the job. Realized they were wrong and are doing it properly now.

>>1535841
>Because we did destroy their ability to enrich to weapons grade.
Then how and why were they in danger of acquiring a nuclear weapon?

>Because the facilities are undergound and we have done significant damage. Doesn't mean "all" or "every".
>You're putting words in his mouth.
Actually his words were
>They didn't have a Navy any longer. It was completely sunk. Their missiles were buried underneath a lot of their underground facilities and their defense industrial base has been almost completely destroyed. So as far as a military assessment of Iran's capabilities, it didn't mean by any stretch of the imagination absolute zero, but their considerably at the lowest level they've been a very long time.
Which admittedly isn't all, but he's also arguing "almost completely destroyed" which doesn't fit with their continued ability to attack which they are still doing to this day.

>>1535846
>Then how and why were they in danger of acquiring a nuclear weapon?
There are other ways of making them. Obviously.

>almost completely destroyed
Correct statement by Hegseth.

>>1535844
>No. But they were wrong about it.
So then why does he continue to say it was a complete success? Per the hearing two months ago
>That's why Midnight Hammer was undertaken to obliterate their nuclear sites.
>The nuclear sites under Midnight Hammer were obliterated

>Because we have done more than 13,000 strikes, hit more than 1,400 weapons manufacturing facilities, 2,000 CnC nodes, and 400+ missile siloes/stockpiles.
And yet despite repeated assurances of victory and claims of complete domination, the strait remains closed. Interesting.

>>1535848
>There are other ways of making them. Obviously.
So then Midnight Hammer failed to obliterate their nuclear program.

>Correct statement by Hegseth.
And yet here we are two months later from THAT statement and the strait is still effectively closed due to regular attacks.

>>1535850
>So then Midnight Hammer failed to obliterate their nuclear program.
Yes, and?

>strait is still effectively closed due to regular attacks.
Ships transit every day and the "attacks" are from drones not their navy (sunk), airforce (blown up) or missiles (massively degraded).

>>1535856
>Yes, and?
Meaning they lied about its success.

>Ships transit every day and the "attacks" are from drones not their navy (sunk), airforce (blown up) or missiles (massively degraded).
10% of pre-war. Also, they literally fired new missiles at us yesterday.
>https://nypost.com/2026/09/09/world-news/iran-fires-electro-optical-missile-for-the-first-time-on-us-warships/

>>1535849
>So then why does he continue to say it was a complete success
Because the strike against the mountain was a success.
>the strait remains closed. Interesting.
The US has total air supremacy and naval dominance. The strait is "closed" because insurance companies won't insure ships who pass through because Iran can and does use cheap drones to attack them.

>>1535850
>Midnight Hammer failed to obliterate their nuclear program.
Yes.
> and the strait is still effectively closed due to regular attacks
Yes. Iran also no longer has a conventional military, or significant rocket stockpiles, or air defense.

>>1535881
>The strait is "closed" because insurance companies won't insure ships who pass through because Iran can and does use cheap drones to attack them.
Very long way to say it's closed.

>>1535884
>Okay sure you killed Irans senior leaders
>And their nuke program
>And obliterated their military industrial complex
>And their navy
>And their airforce
>And have destroyed any means they had to defend themselves
>And have them under a blockade that has caused food shortages and a fiscal apocalypse
>But the risk profile is too high for Lloyd's of London to offer policies to commercial shipping so lmao total Iranian victory!
It's becoming increasingly apparent that you're operating in bad faith.

>>1535892
Oh wow so oil must be getting through the strait right just as much as it did before the war, right?

...right?

>>1535881
>The US has total air supremacy and naval dominance.
And the strait's still closed and they're still hitting our shit.
You keep banging on about this point as if it means a fucking thing. As if the biggest army in the history of mankind beating Iran is some kind of accomplishment. Absolutely nobody didn't think the US couldn't beat Iran militarily you dense motherfucker.
>The strait is "closed" because insurance companies won't insure ships who pass through because Iran can and does use cheap drones to attack them.
Yes. That means it's closed. That is what the strait being closed means. Well done.

>>1535892
strait status?

>>1535892
>If you ignore that everything I said is a demonstrable lie...
I can't believe your bosses review your work and are satisfied, how embarrassing is it to be a freelance shill?

>>1535893
>But the risk profile is too high for Lloyd's of London to offer policies to commercial shipping so lmao total Iranian victory!
I can only conclude that you're a terminally BROWN member of the "global South"

>>1535894
>That means it's closed.
USN is operating freely in it. Also, of the strait is MORE closed from Iran than it is the US, who closed it?

>>1535898
Anon oil still isn't getting through the strait. We get literally a 10th of what it used to be on a good day.

>>1535900
>who closed it?
The US closed it, so its Trump's fault
Unless you want to claim its Israel's fault because they forced Trump into their war to avoid releasing tapes of Trump fucking kids

>>1535902
>But the risk profile is too high for Lloyd's of London to offer policies to commercial shipping so lmao total Iranian victory!

>>1535900
>USN is operating freely in it.
Ok but are the same amount of tankers passing through as before?

Hint: This is a yes or no question.

>>1535904
Meds.

>>1535906
you realize if that's the case, ships don't pass through and we still lose access to 20% of the world's oil supply?

>>1535908
Don't tell us you're taking them esl shill, just take them

>>1535907
>Iran closes the strait!
>Okay, okay the USN is operating freely in the strait.
>And the Iranian navy isnt
>And the only ships that pass through it are the ones the USN allows to pass
Straits closed (for Iran)

>>1535909
Iran losses 100% of its oil income. And food.

>>1535911
then why are we only getting a 10th of the oil we did before?

>>1535911
so you can't answer the question

>>1535913
>>1535914
>the risk profile is too high for Lloyd's of London to offer policies to commercial shipping so lmao total Iranian victory

>>1535912
Anon you realize Iran gets food from places other than the strait right?

Also, cool. Still doesn't change how we've been cut off from 20% of the world's oil supply and the US' reserves are rapidly heading towards their limits.

>>1535916
shill anon, nobody is falling for your false equivalence. tell us what the diesel prices are today, and explain why

>>1535917
>Still doesn't change how we've been cut off from 20% of the world's oil supply and the US' reserves are rapidly heading towards their limits.
US is a net exporter of oil, dumbass.

>>1535919
Then why are our reserves at the lowest levels since 1982 and still dropping, while gas prices spike to high heaven?

>>1535919
>US is a net exporter of oil, dumbass.
The US is a net exporter of REFINED oil, dumbass. It is a net importer of raw crude.

>>1535921
>Then why are our reserves at the lowest levels since 1982
Because Biden release a whole bunch in 2022 and Trump released a whole bunch at the start of the war.
>Dropping
Nope.

We export oil. You fucking retard.

>>1535924
>we
nobody thinks you're american

>>1535924
>Nope.
Odd because we only hit the 1982 levels now. Which, you know, implies that it keeps getting lower.

>We export oil. You fucking retard.
We export processed oil. We import raw crude.

>>1535923
>It is a net importer of raw crude.
Yes. From Canada. 8% comes from the ME.

>>1535926
>Which, you know, implies that it keeps getting lower.
No. That's not how the strategic reserve works. We're not dipping into it day by day.

>>1535927
Well good thing we didn't piss them off or are in the middle of a trade war with them then, huh-

oh wait.

>>1535928
anon, you have a fake job. you don't have the right to explain how anything works

>>1535928
Ok then why did we hit the lowest levels since 1982 last week and not when Trump sold at the start of the war?

you do understand when it is announced that a thing has hit a new low, that means that thing has been decreasing right?

>>1535933
Because we're still doing the release authorized in March by Trump.

>>1535935
Ok but that still means the overall amount in the reserve is lowering then, correct? Even if it was planned, there is physically less oil in the reserves, right?

>>1535938
Who the fuck are you arguing with?

Your initial argument is
>We're running out of oil! The strategic reserve!
And now that you've realized this is the same release authorized in Q1 you're pivoting.

>>1535940
here you go again, confusing being proven wrong over and over again with arguing

>>1535940
Are we refilling the reserve? Let me answer that
>No
Can we afford to do another sell if the need arises? Let me also answer that
>No

We're running out of oil retard. At least in regards to what is available to the general population.

>>1535942
>The strategic reserve! We're running out of oil!
>This was authorized months ago, have the 9th biggest proven oil reserves on the planet, and were energy independent, we literally cannot run out of oil
>Well, uhh, the strategic reserve is low so I win.
You do you bud.

>>1535943
>We're running out of oil retard.
Lmao >>1535944

>>1535944
>were energy independent
No we aren't lol. We still need to import crude even if it is from Canada. Not to mention oil is a worldwide commodity so even if we were completely only reliant on our own oil, the price would still fucking spike because of now upwards of 30% of the world's oil being unavailable. In case you didn't know, higher oil prices means higher gas prices, higher gas prices means higher everything else prices.

Also, there is a limit to how low we can bring the strategic reserve before problems arise with the salt caverns it is kept in, and then another limit that'll cause oil supplies to be restricted in the name of conservation. What happens when we hit the end of the barrels Trump sold and we then still need to withdraw more?

>>1535949
>What happens when we hit the end of the barrels Trump sold and we then still need to withdraw more?
They'll pivot and pretend its democrats fault, probably namedropping Biden because he's the only name MIGA is programmed to recognize

>>1535946
Anon if we hit the point where we cannot withdraw from the reserve out of either fear of not having enough for critical aspects of the country or the salt caverns themselves, we're still effectively out of oil.

Will we hit flat 0 oil in our supply? No.

Will we hit the point where oil will be reserved exclusively for essential infrastructure and the military to prevent us from hitting the level where the salt caves start sealing up? Yes.

Friendly reminder: Grindr goes down every time the 'pubs'r in town, 'cause even fags hate Democrat gaboys.

>>1535675
democrats facing reality challenge difficulty impossible.

>>1535691
but you gushed so much when someone wrote a hitpiece about kirk from the intercept or huffingtonpost.
Democrats are such hypocrites
>>1535718
ahh yes the typical democrat every vote not for Hilary may as well be a vote for trump. and now you wonder why the world wants you exterminated

>retarded ESL shills strawman emporium
The humiliation fetish is real

Politician is a Democrat
Politician has a stroke or other mental impairment
Politician becomes a Republican

Many, many such cases.

>>1535951
i've yet to meet a democrat who wasn't either a mentally ill narcassist narcassist, a scheming fraudster or an extreme fascist who loves self-projecting by pretending they're antifa.

have you considered that maybe the world is shit because you are to blame instead of blaming anything and everyone besides yourself you mentally ill leftist twat

>>1535995
you're not american and you don't go outside, you've never met a democrat period

>>1535997
see what i mean you're such a retard you need to self-project and make up assertions because you can't live in a reality where the vast majority of people hate your guts.

>>1536001
nobody has ever seen what you meant, your posts are meaningless contrarianism laden with typos

>>1535995
I have, but none of them know anything about politics and just go with the general feeling, instilled by the billionaire media, that Democrats are somehow good people.

esl shill is talking to himself again

>>1536010
Stop posting here, retard.

>>1536013
how would i make fun of your existence if i stop posting?

>>1536017
You aren't. If you're trying to, you're simply worthless.

>>1536019
that's why you're begging me to stop, right

>>1536021
Your disruptive shitposts are worthless on this already low quality board.
Just get banned again then.

>>1536022
that's cute projection