4 ms·

I dunno. The Americans stuck their hand in a blender for four years and then four years later needed to try it again. Alas, Stumpy McNubs remains long on limbs

I dunno. The Americans stuck their hand in a blender for four years and then four years later needed to try it again. Alas, Stumpy McNubs remains long on limbs but short on memory.

actionfromafar 9mo ago
Don't look into laser with remaining eye! (Unless it's really shiny, and red?)
- Waterluvian 9mo ago
  Science demands rigour and repeatability.
toomuchtodo 9mo ago
I have similar concerns, but the evidence so far is encouraging. https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1puwkpj/democrats_overperform_by_double_digits_in_south/nvrz8lo/ https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1puwkpj/democrats... https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1qu6vyu/trump_calls_into_dan_bonginos_first_show_and/o381fkj/ https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1qu6vyu/trump_cal... https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5716988-democrats-score-upset-texas/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5716988-democrats-scor... https://www.npr.org/2026/02/01/nx-s1-5695678/democrat-taylor-rehmet-wins-texas-state-senate-seat https://www.npr.org/2026/02/01/nx-s1-5695678/democrat-taylor...
- AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
  "The President's party loses seats in the midterms" is a long-term trend and it seems pretty likely to hold this time. The real question is, once the Democrats are back in control of at least one house of Congress, are they going to be sane or are they going to spend two years making such fools of themselves that we end up with another Republican President in 2028?
  - bruce511 9mo ago
    Alas you'll need to define "sane" first. That might be harder than expected. Equally unfortunate is the need for 60 senate votes to actually have a meaningful say over what the president does. And in truth no part has had "control" of congress to this level for a while. When one (or indeed both) sides are politically incapable of being bipartisan (witness the outcomes for those voting against party lines, on both sides) control of one house is meaningless and a majority in the senate (short of 60 votes) mostly meaningless. Expecting any change in behavior after November, regardless of the results, is wishful thinking.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    - AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
      It takes 40 votes to prevent the other party from putting something in a bill that you're willing to do a government shutdown to prevent. That's probably a good thing. Consider what would be happening right now, when the Republicans have >50 but not >60, if that meant they could actually do whatever they want. And the difference between 49 and 51 is still pretty damn important because "majority" has a lot of procedural consequences that are not irrelevant.
      - tialaramex 9mo ago
        As you've seen, over, and over, and over again, this is their own internal rule they've changed it before and they can just change it again with a simple majority, the so-called "nuclear option". None of this has any actual weight, it's all theatre. Which doesn't mean it lacks consequences, but they could at any time just sweep it aside and they choose not to. Ironically, one thing the Senate does constitutionally need a super-majority for and can't just change the rule is Impeaching the President. Which means that so long as Republicans have enough votes and apparently still believe loyalty to one corrupt rotting bag of shit is their purpose in life he can't be impeached.
        9mo ago
tzs 9mo ago
The first time many of Trump's desires to do illegal things were somewhat restrained by non-political government employees who remembered that their oath is to the Constitution, not the President. Based on what I've read a lot of people who voted for him subsequent times thought that would continue.

I dunno. The Americans stuck their hand in a blender for four years and then four years later needed to try it again. Alas, Stumpy McNubs remains long on limbs but short on memory.

actionfromafar 9mo ago

Don't look into laser with remaining eye! (Unless it's really shiny, and red?)

Waterluvian 9mo ago
Science demands rigour and repeatability.

toomuchtodo 9mo ago

I have similar concerns, but the evidence so far is encouraging. https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1puwkpj/democrats_overperform_by_double_digits_in_south/nvrz8lo/ https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1puwkpj/democrats... https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1qu6vyu/trump_calls_into_dan_bonginos_first_show_and/o381fkj/ https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1qu6vyu/trump_cal... https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5716988-democrats-score-upset-texas/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5716988-democrats-scor... https://www.npr.org/2026/02/01/nx-s1-5695678/democrat-taylor-rehmet-wins-texas-state-senate-seat https://www.npr.org/2026/02/01/nx-s1-5695678/democrat-taylor...

AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
"The President's party loses seats in the midterms" is a long-term trend and it seems pretty likely to hold this time. The real question is, once the Democrats are back in control of at least one house of Congress, are they going to be sane or are they going to spend two years making such fools of themselves that we end up with another Republican President in 2028?
- bruce511 9mo ago
  Alas you'll need to define "sane" first. That might be harder than expected. Equally unfortunate is the need for 60 senate votes to actually have a meaningful say over what the president does. And in truth no part has had "control" of congress to this level for a while. When one (or indeed both) sides are politically incapable of being bipartisan (witness the outcomes for those voting against party lines, on both sides) control of one house is meaningless and a majority in the senate (short of 60 votes) mostly meaningless. Expecting any change in behavior after November, regardless of the results, is wishful thinking.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
    It takes 40 votes to prevent the other party from putting something in a bill that you're willing to do a government shutdown to prevent. That's probably a good thing. Consider what would be happening right now, when the Republicans have >50 but not >60, if that meant they could actually do whatever they want. And the difference between 49 and 51 is still pretty damn important because "majority" has a lot of procedural consequences that are not irrelevant.
    - tialaramex 9mo ago
      As you've seen, over, and over, and over again, this is their own internal rule they've changed it before and they can just change it again with a simple majority, the so-called "nuclear option". None of this has any actual weight, it's all theatre. Which doesn't mean it lacks consequences, but they could at any time just sweep it aside and they choose not to. Ironically, one thing the Senate does constitutionally need a super-majority for and can't just change the rule is Impeaching the President. Which means that so long as Republicans have enough votes and apparently still believe loyalty to one corrupt rotting bag of shit is their purpose in life he can't be impeached.
      - 9mo ago

tzs 9mo ago

The first time many of Trump's desires to do illegal things were somewhat restrained by non-political government employees who remembered that their oath is to the Constitution, not the President. Based on what I've read a lot of people who voted for him subsequent times thought that would continue.