How is he going to try rig the mid term election?
Voting is fake as fuck.
>>544541055If it was fake, billionaires and corporations wouldn't spend billions influencing your vote.
I want him to rig it. Just fucking do it, rig the shit out of it.
>>544540998Seizing votes would probably be the highest-leverage move for him. If he seized the votes in e.g. Texas where he might lose, he would break the chain of custody for those votes, possibly nullifying them. This would be a constitutional crisis but may be a bridge too far even for many Republicans. Last year, congress refused to seat a new democratic rep who won a special election. They could also try something similar here, but... constitutional crisis. Granted, I don't think Trump cares very much about causing constitutional crises, but these are a couple of what I'd expect, beyond just general red-state corruption and probably troops/ICE roughing up brown people at polling locations.
He could ask Putin to hack the voting machines for him
>>544541148or they do that to keep you in plato's caveyou know what's real, the epstein files, you remember the ones that didn't exist and then was a democrat hoax and then we can't do that cause it would hurt my friends?
>>544541148They aren't spending billions though. In fact, I was kind of shocked the first time I saw how little these guys bought seats for. A house seat can be bought for a few hundred K's. A Senate seat for a few million. The top donors to a presidential election are ponying up $60 million at the high end. While that's certainly a lot of money, some of these guys have $10's of BILLIONS of dollars, and make so much on government contracts. Like seriously, if these guys make 30% of their money on government contracts, as a hundred-billionaire, wouldn't it make good financial sense to put up at least a couple bill on a candidate to make sure he wins? Why is the bidding so low, in other words?
He doesnt need to rig it. Even if dems win, it doesnt stop him doing middle east warsand thats the only thing that matters
>>544541361The Adelsons alone gave Trump 100 million.
>>544540998Trump fights for truth and justice.I stand with him.
>>544541399Yeah but, Adelson is worth $37 billion. $100 million is like pennies in his pocket. It's less than you spend on groceries.
>>544541437show us more of your gay porn collection saaaaar
>>544540998Same way he did Massie's election. Republicans have learned Democrat voter fraud tactics. It's why none of the Democrat operatives who stole 2020 will ever see jail time, since Trump is going to do the same steal in the name of his masters (Israel).
>>544541457They're giving what is required to control the narrative and get what they want. Elections are becoming more expensive every year.
>>544541551>Elections are becoming more expensive every year.This. The forecast for total spending this cycle is over $11b. What people have to realize is that you're never going to hear about most money that goes into politics. With superPACs, unlimited money can flow into political campaigns with extremely minimal reporting burdens. The "House for $100k" figure is direct donations to a political campaign. That's no longer the primary vector for money to get into American politics.
>>544541551I think, the money they donate to the campaign is just the ante. That's just "proof of sale" so to speak. They actually are connected to deeper influence networks that can steer elections way more effectively.Like in 2024, Kamala completely overpowered Trump financially. But she got individual donors, and Trump got the big, politically powerful donors. It seems to me the money that Trump recieved punched way above its weight. Obviously those guys are competent executives who spend money more efficiently. But I think there's also something else going on.
>>544540998No amount of rigging is going to help that jew cocksucker and his AIPAC stooges.
>>544541681>Trump got the big, politically powerful donorsTrump had Elon Musk. Elon Musk owns Twitter. Owning the platforms people talk to each other on is much more powerful than spending money on TV buys.
>>544541925Exactly where I was going with that.I was thinking. Let's say you're the CEO of Wallmart. Maybe you can use your wallmart stores to spread Republican narratives to employees and customers alike. Maybe you can give extra bonuses at the key time, increasing your employee's sentiment, making it more likely they will vote Republican. Or maybe you have contacts with Variety mag, and you network with them to put some conservative-leaning articles in their magazine.In other words, you have a big "footprint" as an elite member of society, and you can access all sorts of influence networks. So when you activate your influence network, it has a much bigger effect than whatever you ponied up in the election.
>>544540998well, he has already banned any unbiased election observers to even enter the country
>>544541055>>544541148People who think voting is fake shouldn't vote and shouldn't cry when they don't like the results.
>>544541055no shityou think they'd let us vote if it mattered?
>>544540998lol you are preparing your mind to lose. Pathetic
>>544542569The polls look bad. But wasn't the entire critique of democracy based around the fact that money steers elections way too effectively? The amount of money Republicans have is utterly insane in this election. They've never had a money advantage like this. So although the polls say one thing, I wouldn't call it a foregone conclusion. You might see the Republicans win more than you expected.Although the sheer amount that Elon donated to Ken Paxton is making me believe, maybe they're trying to hold the line at the Senate and are writing off the House as lost. One way or another, it might not be this huge blue-wave election people were predicting.
>>544542395I don’t care about the results.
>>544540998Promise of 50K freshly printed US Dollars per voter head, backed by the US military and judeoprotestant free-market mafia of paedophiles.
>>544540998Just permanently dissolve the Congress
>>544540998Why you think he's buddy buddy with Russia right now? If it wasn't for Russia Hilldawg would of won 2016.
>>544541681kamalas campaign was in debt when it endeddemocrats are good at faking donations
>>544543166Why is he so buddy with Russia? It's weird. Russia is a shithole and not important for you at all.
>>544542785>that picturehe's so happy when he's around jews
>>544540998He's too fucking retarded and surrounded by incompetent people do anything successfully.
>>544543508some weird chabad lubavitch kikery between him Kushner, Witkoff and Putin
This election is very close to the 2018 election in terms of pollinghttps://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/this-day-in-history/generic-ballot/2026-vs-2022-vs-2018-vs-2014-vs-2010In the 2018 election, Democrats won 41 House seats and Republicans won 2 Senate seats.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_electionsThis is the baseline expectationHowever in 2006 the polling was even worse than today for Republicans, and Republicans lost 31 House and lost 5 Senate seats. So it seems the polling is not monotonic with the outcome.It looks like holding the House is utterly impossible, as Republicans only have a 4 seat majority right now. But winning the Senate is totally possible, and might actually happen.
>>544541148Voting is pointless and fake because the two party system produces the same results with only the rhetoric being different.
>>544542395Both parties want to walk us into wars, technocracy, and neo-feudalism with psychotic pedos on top. The difference is what they distract you with (and in Trump's case that he now boasts openly about two of these three things)
>>544541331All of that is done in Germany. Totally a real election when a foreign country is counting your votes.
>>544543750See>>544541148
>>544543754>Both parties want to walk us into wars, technocracy, and neo-feudalism with psychotic pedos on top. The difference is what they distract you with (and in Trump's case that he now boasts openly about two of these three things)This is true but incomplete. The DSA wing of the democrats wants a fundamental structural change in America. It wants strengthened collective bargaining, increased taxes on the rich, a dramatically raised minimum wage, and expanded social programs. This is and always has been the only thing which actually threatens power. You have the option to pursue these policies and to vote for and advocate for candidates who represent these values.
>>544543881The DSA are crazy open-borders commies who don't belong in America to begin with. They belong back in the Middle East like Zohran and Abdul. >This is and always has been the only thing which actually threatens powerIt threatens everyone.
>>544543975>DSA wants strengthened collective bargaining, increased taxes on the rich, a dramatically raised minimum wage, and expanded social programs.How, exactly, does this "threaten everyone"?
>>544541148>About 8.6 billion people in the world>Spend X amount of billions to cloak the election that was held behind closed doors anywaySo in essence you're worth less then a dollar to the rich .. Small price to pay to keep mankind docile and passive in their homes, thinking they matter and rig elections so they believe "democracy" exists and stay at home and don't try to cause a riot ..In essence they tried to cut corners in France, hence the riots there right now.
>>544544009Look at Zohran's New York City.Most of his votes came from recent overseas immigrants who had been in New York for less than 10 years. He then sets about taxing the white neighborhoods to pay off the immigrant invaders who voted him in. Now there's a huge flood of people moving to Florida.
>>544544145Okay, but how do strengthened collective bargaining, increased taxes on the rich, a dramatically raised minimum wage, and strengthened social programs threaten everyone? Are you a bot?
>>544540998>rigNo need to, the biggest Red wave in the history of waves incoming.
>>544540998>rigNo need to, burgermuttlards are naturally thickest golem to have ever existed on earth
>>544544244collective bargaining, I don't know if it does that much. I mean, I think we need a huge economic restructuring. I think collective bargaining is just piddling around the edges. I think the real reason it's being pushed is because unions become a hive for commie organizing.>taxing the richthere's a huge wealth disparity today. But if you'll notice, this disparity is less so about income, and moreso about valuation and assets. The assets of the wealthy are going up like a rocketship. In my opinion this as something to do with the Fed and the debt-based financial system, where everyone is put into debt, and then assets like housing and stocks boom. I don't know that the solution is taxation. I think the solution is ending the Fed. Our whole national strategy is based on low taxation, to draw in capital. I don't think that disrupting that strategy makes sense. >dramatically raised minimum wageI think the libertarians are mostly right about the minimum wage, it's a pricefloor that creates unemployment. If you want to raise working people's wages, deportations are the answer. >strengthened social programsI think without the Fed keeping everyone on the debt hamster wheel, we could lower the work-week. Then you wouldn't need social programs, people would have the time and energy to sort out their own problems.
>>544544762That sounds like a Rube Goldberg machine. You look at massive inequality and instead of e.g. closing buy-borrow-die loopholes and taxes on investments, you want to end the Fed -- thereby creating an enormous cascade of externalities no one can likely predict. You're talking about fundamental, massive changes to the entire system. I'm talking about targeted, surgical ones. Even before the Fed, when we were still on the gold standard, there was massive inequality. Remember robber barons? The depression? Company towns? Rail monopolies? All of these things arose despite the lack of a Fed. We have similar conditions now with a Fed. Because you can get the same outcome both with and without the gold standard and the Fed, it seems that the presence of the Fed has no determinative outcome. If you disagree, please go ahead and compare and contrast the economic conditions of the Gilded Age and what we have today. For the record, all of these policies interact. If you're cherrypicking each one of them, you end up looking at strong labor laws and minimum wage as interacting in separate vacuums. In reality, they feed off one another. What I'm talking about here is a system of interacting systems -- not a collection of policies.
>>544545451Maybe you could tax on investment. That could be tried. But I just don't think it's gonna work. Because the Fed sets targets, how much GDP "must" go up. So they will always meet their targets, which means we'll always have this asset-inflation problem. >Even before the Fed, when we were still on the gold standard, there was massive inequality. I never said go back to that. But I think the debt-based economy is a problem.During Covid, we cut most jobs in society. Did society stop? No, in fact it was fine. Trash was getting picked up every week, electricity was on, food was in the stores. In fact people had more time in their day, more time with their families.This was a huge revelation for me that most of the economy is fake. These consumption-oriented jobs are all fake. They are spun up by the Federal Reserve to juice the GDP stat, and that's done to backstop the debt. So at the root, this consumerist economy is being driven by the debt. If we want to lower the work-week, which I believe would be massive, this system needs to go. >strong labor laws and minimum wage as interacting in separate vacuumsSo many of the problems people have comes from our oligarchy, these billionaires. How are they getting so much money? Asset inflation. I mean I'm not someone hidebound to certain prescriptions. At one point I suggested we should have a separate currency for assets, that would prevent people from making money on appreciation. But that's another post entirely.>What I'm talking about here is a system of interacting systems -- not a collection of policies.You type like an AI
>>544545743Under my model, we close buy-borrow-die, raise taxes on the top 10% of earners, and use that money to fund social programs which benefit the rest of us -- childcare, food credits, free single-payer healthcare. This directly relieves burdens on the most vulnerable Americans and, incidentally, has a huge amount of actual policy work behind it. Speaking very loosely, we know exactly how to actually enact this. You're saying we end the Fed and, what, get rid of debt? And then what? How does this translate into more people having more time and better access to more programs? You're not showing your work. What can we actually DO to make these goals happen, and how exactly does it result in the outcome we both seem to want? I don't ultimately care about asset inflation. If we are taxing them, their assets inflating means we have more money to use to support the rest of the populace through taxes.
Elections can only be rigged when red team is in powerIts a crazy Q anon conspiracy theory when blue is in control
>>544540998i believe the current plan is to lose so badly that even democrats think it must be rigged
>>544540998Jews of course.
>>544546062It doesn't work. You tax their wealth, they just move their wealth. Then the country falls apart. Bad idea. The greater concept I've been developing is the idea that, if you work people less, they'll generate more. Look at the font of creativity unlocked by the internet, this is just the tip of the iceberg. If we have a population that develops people, rather than degrading them with excess consumption, our country will be stronger. More time to do things, more time to imagine things. It's like the story of the factory worker who lowered working hours by 20%, and that gave his employees the free time and goodwill to realign the machines on the factory, boosting productivity by 500% and totally paying for the meager cut in working hours. So many of our resources are going to excess consumption we literally don't need, funnel it to scientific research instead, and let's start leapfrogging technology and becoming way more wealthy in the long run. >What can we actually DO to make these goals happen, and how exactly does it result in the outcome we both seem to want? You're just calling for commie stuff. Commie stuff doesn't work. It's destructive. You're eating the pie, not adding to the pie.
>>544546353>You're just calling for commie stuff. Commie stuff doesn't work. It's destructive. You're eating the pie, not adding to the pie.You're not fucking answering the question. You're talking about this fantastical mechanism by which ending the Fed magically makes everyone work less. There was no Fed in the Gilded Age but we had massive inequality then, too. I already asked you about this but you dodged it by focusing on the gold standard. I ask you how exactly ending the Fed results in people working less -- you dodged that too by saying I'm "just calling for commie stuff." That's a direct quote. It's starting to sound like you're not capable of contributing to this discussion. You want people to have more time to do stuff. Great! I agree! But you simultaneously refuse to engage seriously with the boring drudgery of figuring out how to make that happen. Additionally, you seem to have arbitrarily, a priori ruled out an entire class of actually fucking rigorous solutions as "commie stuff." Why? Who the fuck knows? I don't think you do. I have seriously and in good faith engaged with your claim that ending the Fed will result in goals we both want. You don't want to engage with any of my criticisms on any level. Capital flight is obviously a consideration, but wealthy Americans are overwhelmingly wealthy because of their stakes in American firms. We could very easily restrict the sale of American assets to American currency (i.e. fail to recognize ownership without a sale in USD and proof of taxes paid). Then, people can go wherever they want. Money flows through mechanisms WE control. It's not insoluble at all.
>>544546353With all this sanctions stuff we've been doing why can't we just sanction the rich when they try to use various loop holes to avoid taxes? Why not put sanctions and tariffs on any country being used as a tax shelter? With all the spy technology and AI they shouldn't be able to hide stuff anymore. Rich people in China are not getting money out anymore for example.
He's gonna have jeetlon rig it with star link like he did in 2024. Kamala should be our president not this fucking homosexual conartist.
>>544546779Yeah you could do all that stuff. But remember we're in an oligarchy right now. You can't pass that stuff through the congress. I'm obviously not in favor of the system, and nobody is.>>544546754>You're talking about this fantastical mechanism by which ending the Fed magically makes everyone work less. Fantastical? It's quite straightforward. If people save more, and consume less, they will also work less. But we don't need to work so much. Think about what we could do with that extra time. Pretty up the outside, and make the outside world a place worth going. Art projects, pathways, dance halls...whatever. More people getting out and experiencing life, rather than eating chips on the couch like a hog.I think if people are more connected to each other, and in better shape mentally and physically, the country is stronger. Yes GDP going down reduces our power, but I think if our population was stronger, that's power in its own right. And that could pay off even bigger. I mean look at how China has certain qualities, the work ethic, the values, that makes them such a strong country. >You want people to have more time to do stuff. Great! I agree! But you simultaneously refuse to engage seriously with the boring drudgery of figuring out how to make that happen.You type like an AI. That's why I'm only using your posts to explain my own position. Because I'm fully aware I'm not talking to a human. You're here to shill the DSA, I get it.
>>544547558>That's why I'm only using your posts to explain my own position.My problem is that you're not actually explaining your position. >no more Fed>????>profit!Fill in the ????.
>>544548114The idea is "human capital"Take a rich man who is obese and slovenly, and his mind is fill with garbage. Compare him to a poor man who is muscular, strong, self-taught in several disciplines. The poor man will beat the rich man along certain metrics. Not at everything, but in certain contests he will win. He is a stronger person. Now imagine if the rich man used his vast resources to invest in himself, to build himself into the best possible person, the apex of physical, mental, and spiritual perfection. That would be the best outcome, but that would be fascism. The point is, there are certain aspects of the population that give a country strength. The connectedness of the people, which makes them love their nation. The physical health, the mental health. It's a totally different story governing a high human-capital population than a low human-capital population, as Sweden is finding out. My point is, there's a cross product between GDP, and human capital. The optimum point isn't "max GDP". I mean look at the US, we're fraying at the ends. You know there's such a rush to get into Japan, because although it's a poorer society it has higher human capital, which is much more desirable to live in. It's so hard to get a Visa there, people treat it like the holy grail. I'm saying, if we backed off the GDP maxxing and the consumption maxxing, and we took the boot off people's neck. Yes, they would technically be poorer, they would consume less. But they would be richer in the sense they have more time to pursue other things than work. They would go outside more, connect with each other. They would save, and study, and pass on good values to their kids. Rather than just consuming like a hog, not having kids, being facile and empty as people. I'm not saying all GDP is bad. But I think we need to invest more into our populations. The big obstacle I see here is the Fed, because you can't ever pull back on GDP with this debt-based system.
>>544548893To; dr
>>544548893Okay. Let's say the Fed is gone. We have "backed off GDP". We haven't changed taxes on anyone and, since the Fed's money printing also largely funds existing social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits, SNAP, and Social Security. Those programs are now all largely insolvent, and no new money will or even can be allocated to fund them. We are $41 trillion in debt and have to pay $1 trillion a year just on interest. Moneyed special interests still have unlimited access to political spending. Crucially, everyone still has to work long hours for very little money. Additionally, congratulations! You have now sparked a cascade of massive withdrawals as everyone rushes to get their money out of the stock market. Valuations are going to zero, there are runs on banks, and everyone's retirement savings are disappearing into thin air. What is the next sequence of events which results in people having better access to food, housing, and healthcare?
>>544549465>We haven't changed taxes on anyoneI think you will need higher taxes on richer people. In particular because modern technology is distorting things, massively increasing the value of high skill people and capital over labor. So that needs to be balanced out. The hardest part going into the future is actually going to be creating jobs for the low skill work that is displaced. Anything like trade barriers, or deportations, is welcome. Anything that shunts some demand in their direction. >social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits, SNAP, and Social SecurityI mean social security and medicare are whatever. They're filled with scammers. But aside from that, there is this feeder-class that's totally parasitic, getting a free ride. The productive middle is being chomped at both ends by the uber rich, and the lazy poor. >Moneyed special interests still have unlimited access to political spending. Yeah there's been a lot of discussion around these parts how to reform the political system. Ultimately, America has an empty void where the "aristocracy" should be, so different groups are sliding into that role. Such as business interests, foreign interests. We need our own homegrown aristocracy. >better access to food, housing, and healthcare?You're talking about more handouts for poor people. I think rather, we should reduce the workload of the productive people. Rather than working them to the bone on the consumption hamster wheel, lighten their load. Let's focus on doing the actually valuable work. The manufacturing, sanitation, the real stuff. Focus on creating free time, rather than working to overproduce, then consuming the overproduction. Let's work the proper amount, consume the proper amount. These unproductive feeder-classes are a problem, and they either need to get in work or get out. >housingasset inflation, I already said. You're just cycling because you're an AI
If youre that worried about it just go out and vote. Bring your friends and family. Contact people you havent talked to in a bit. Make it a good day.
Bt forcing voter ID.
>>544549930So you don't have a plausible sequence of events which follows from ending the Fed to everyone having better access to food, housing, and healthcare. It doesn't sound like you have a very serious worldview, anon. It sounds like you have a smattering of Twitter-sized soundbites and that's fine. I'm just out of patience for the constant cherrypicking and refusal to answer the explicit questions. I'm all human, by the way. Maybe you just think I'm AI because I reason more rigorously? Food for thought, cheers.
