US midterm elections

[theymos]

The US midterm elections are on Tuesday, deciding control of the House and Senate, as well as state legislatures and governors.

US citizens are incredibly angry about the Iran war and the resulting economic effects. They're also not so keen on Trump's authoritarianism generally, the severity/broadness of the immigration crackdown, and the attacks on US allies. So Republicans are going to get absolutely smoked.

I predict that Democrats will win the House by perhaps a 35-seat margin, and will win the Senate 51-49. Of the highly-contested Senate races, I think that Democrats will win Alaska, Minnesota, Michigan, Texas, and Ohio (to my great annoyance, since Brown was one of the worst, most anti-crypto senators); Republicans will win Maine, Kansas, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Iowa. The final results for certain states such as Alaska, Michigan, and Maine might not be known until several days/weeks after the election.

Democrats winning Congress here is probably better than the alternative, since Republicans should be punished for not pushing back more strongly against Trump's insanity, especially the Iran war. Though I think that being constantly up against Democrats will make Trump even more authoritarian, aggressive, and unhinged for the remaining 2 years. Congress won't actually restrain him in any effective way. So 2027-2028 will be much like 2025-2026, but with even more craziness and even less constructive action.

Even though Democrats will do a lot of crypto-related investigations using their Congressional investigatory powers, 2027-2028 will probably be a positive environment for Bitcoin, since government/geopolitical instability makes Bitcoin look more attractive, and Trump will largely continue with his pro-crypto policies. Democrats won't actually be able to pass any significant anti-crypto laws. But Democrats are going to be out for blood when they take power in 2029, and they strongly associate Trump with crypto, so they might be even more hostile to crypto than Biden was -- since markets are forward-looking, this could start to affect Bitcoin prices starting in 2028.

[Ambatman]

- since markets are forward-looking, this could start to affect Bitcoin prices starting in 2028.

Well that will be 2028 AmBatman problem.
In summary the future isn't looking so bright
More scrutiny on privacy and more push for AML
Sigh well expected with all the dramas we passed through especially last year.

and Ohio (to my great annoyance, since Brown was one of the worst, most anti-crypto senators);

Well you are not the only one.
Fairshake have spent millions to make sure Brown doesn't win.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/10/21/congress/crypto-pac-ups-ohio-spending-to-55-million-in-push-to-crush-sherrod-brown-01131399

[Quickseller]

Over the past several election cycles, polls have overestimated support for Democrats by several points. If that continues this election cycle, and support for Democrats is overestimated by 3 points, Republicans could win both the House and Senate. Issues with polling probably deserves its own topic, but there have been several outright fraudulent polls this cycle, and polls fairly consistently overestimated support for the crazy extremists during the primaries.

The war with Iran was very poorly orchestrated and was not sold to the American people ahead of time, which made it less popular than it should be. Iran has been attacking Americans and American interests for 47 years, so the fact we are finally starting to attack them in 2026 is a failure of Western political leaders for over a generation. It is very disappointing to see many on the left and the media to effectively be on the side of our enemy.

I don't think Abduel will win in Michigan. The fact that he is not considered a fringe candidate and has more than token support in his party is concerning. It should be disqualifying to hold office for any Democrat unwilling to condemn him.

The shenanigans in Alaska are also concerning (and likely illegal). This is the second time in four cycles for the same Senate seat that a Democrat Senate candidate has a decent chance of winning, despite having little support by the population, especially considering how reliably Red Alaska is.

I think the fraud in places like MN, CA and NY will help Republicans, even outside of these states. Hilton will likely receive 5%+ more votes from voters in CA, but will end up losing after the late mail-in ballots are received.

A Democratic Congress has no power to set any real crypto policy, but their investigations and related innuendo will discourage investment in the sector, and will be more harmful than bad policy. Most crypto leaders have little/no PR experience and I think one of them will end up making a totally reasonable business practice look exceptionally bad in a public hearing in front of Congress, and hurt public sentiment in the process.

If Democrats win either the House or Senate, we will see a lot of government shutdowns over the budget. While it probably would be better if the majority of government bureaucrats were out of a job, the shutdowns are incredibly wasteful, as government employees get backpay after the shutdown is over, and typically end up working overtime to make up for their time off.


I think Republicans will keep, or even potentially expand their majority in the Senate, and Democrats will make gains in the House, but will have at best a very narrow majority of under 5 seats.

[Dreadboost]

But Democrats are going to be out for blood when they take power in 2029, and they strongly associate Trump with crypto, so they might be even more hostile to crypto than Biden was -- since markets are forward-looking, this could start to affect Bitcoin prices starting in 2028.

Which Democrats in the Senate can come out to say he hasn't benefited from crypto all these years? None of them can come out to say that.
Outside, they are anti-crypto, but inside they are the real crypto whales and individuals funding crypto projects worldwide.
Truth is, not all existing crypto-related laws will be removed if the Democrats take power in 2029. Some that have been a life-changing experience for them will be left untampered.

[Churchillvv]

But Democrats are going to be out for blood when they take power in 2029, and they strongly associate Trump with crypto, so they might be even more hostile to crypto than Biden was -- since markets are forward-looking, this could start to affect Bitcoin prices starting in 2028.

Which Democrats in the Senate can come out to say he hasn't benefited from crypto all these years? None of them can come out to say that.
Outside, they are anti-crypto, but inside they are the real crypto whales and individuals funding crypto projects worldwide.
Truth is, not all existing crypto-related laws will be removed if the Democrats take power in 2029. Some that have been a life-changing experience for them will be left untampered.

Of course they probably have benefited in different ways not in a way that we can prove but we know, however the truth is that trump have several accusations against him on scam with coins in his name which were not disputed by him or his team and however that alone could be a solid reason why democrats will be fully against crypto then but that is still not going to eliminate the effect crypto has created which will give them a reason to be light with the treats on crypto.

[SuperBitMan]

But Democrats are going to be out for blood when they take power in 2029, and they strongly associate Trump with crypto, so they might be even more hostile to crypto than Biden was -- since markets are forward-looking, this could start to affect Bitcoin prices starting in 2028.

Which Democrats in the Senate can come out to say he hasn't benefited from crypto all these years? None of them can come out to say that.
Outside, they are anti-crypto, but inside they are the real crypto whales and individuals funding crypto projects worldwide.
Truth is, not all existing crypto-related laws will be removed if the Democrats take power in 2029. Some that have been a life-changing experience for them will be left untampered.

Of course they probably have benefited in different ways not in a way that we can prove but we know, however the truth is that trump have several accusations against him on scam with coins in his name which were not disputed by him or his team and however that alone could be a solid reason why democrats will be fully against crypto then but that is still not going to eliminate the effect crypto has created which will give them a reason to be light with the treats on crypto.

If not as if the Democrats are all against cryptocurrency, as for me what I think they will do is to make cryptocurrency regulation very strong as against fraud, money laundering, manipulation of the market etc. and yeah the concerns about Trump crypto business, I don’t think they are actually accusing him of crypto scam or scam with coin as you call it, I just believe they are against and concerned about his crypto business because they believe that government officials should not be able to use their political positions for personal financial gain and we all know Trump had ones introduced and advertised $TRUMP meme coin and the Democrats were against it.

With this believe that Democrats might be even more hostile to crypto than Biden was will actually make the crypto community scared of voting them to power, don’t you all think so?

[Smack That Ace]

Truth is, not all existing crypto-related laws will be removed if the Democrats take power in 2029. Some that have been a life-changing experience for them will be left untampered.

If the Dems win back the White House in the next term and remain firmly anti crypto, all they could really do is roll back Trump's executive orders. Such as the SBR or shift the regulatory and enforcement priorities of federal agencies like the SEC and CFTC, making things tougher for the crypto industry.

But they could not simply undo laws passed by Congress, such as the GENIUS Act or CLARITY Act, should the latter pass in the coming months before Trump leaves office.

Of course they probably have benefited in different ways not in a way that we can prove but we know, however the truth is that trump have several accusations against him on scam with coins in his name which were not disputed by him or his team and however that alone could be a solid reason why democrats will be fully against crypto then but that is still not going to eliminate the effect crypto has created which will give them a reason to be light with the treats on crypto.

I reckon crypto has somehow found itself caught up in America's political tug of war . If the Dems are still hostile to it , it may be because the industry is increasingly becoming a political tool and an advantage for the Republicans, rather than because they genuinely oppose crypto itself.

[Bitcoin-Forever]

US citizens are incredibly angry about the Iran war and the resulting economic effects. They're also not so keen on Trump's authoritarianism generally, the severity/broadness of the immigration crackdown, and the attacks on US allies. So Republicans are going to get absolutely smoked.

I am so surprised as well seeing that majority of the US citizens don't even support the incidents of the war; this is taking their time, resources, as well as their precious and able gallant soldiers, including civilians, in two regions, so who is Trump actually trying to please in this?

Secondly, where is the law that suggests any war that escalated beyond 60 days must be voted on by the House to either be ended or continued,ded as long as victory is not ascertained? I still don't see why they should be a thing of concern over Iran's circumstances to the United States. As of now, everyone should have pathways, and Peace should be allowed to reign.

[theymos]

Over the past several election cycles, polls have overestimated support for Democrats by several points.

Pollsters are constantly trying to fix that, and at some point they're going to get close to the truth, or even correct too far in the other direction. I'd be more surprised if Republicans win the House than I would be if Democrats win 54+ seats in the Senate.

Luckily, we'll shortly get a good idea on how correct the polls were.

I don't think Abduel will win in Michigan.

The polls and prediction markets have consistently been favoring him. Apparently he's attracting a lot of Trump voters due to his straightforward, anti-establishment, masculine style.

I agree that he's very bad on most issues. Him and Sherrod Brown are the ones I most hope to lose, though I think that they'll both win.

Iran has been attacking Americans and American interests for 47 years, so the fact we are finally starting to attack them in 2026 is a failure of Western political leaders for over a generation. It is very disappointing to see many on the left and the media to effectively be on the side of our enemy.

It's not the US's responsibility or right to be the policeman of the world. Iran is an evil regime, but that doesn't make it right for the US to kill thousands of their innocent citizens. The US should just get out of that region, completely. One of the things that attracted me to Bitcoin in the first place was the hope that replacing the US dollar as the global reserve currency would reduce the US's ability to so easily deal out this sort of casual death and destruction worldwide.

There was never any realistic chance that this operation could've succeeded in a big way, since it was done by a bunch of idiots who were mainly thinking of politics and personal vanity rather than actual strategy. If somehow the Iranian regime had been replaced by a much better one through this operation, then I wouldn't have endorsed the action, but I also wouldn't have complained about it too much, since at least it would've been a utilitarian net win. But that sort of win would've required a lot of luck plus perfect execution, including months or years of advance planning; and the execution here has been unbelievably terrible from the start. They apparently didn't even fully realize that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz...

[Lucius]

~snip~
Democrats winning Congress here is probably better than the alternative, since Republicans should be punished for not pushing back more strongly against Trump's insanity, especially the Iran war. Though I think that being constantly up against Democrats will make Trump even more authoritarian, aggressive, and unhinged for the remaining 2 years. Congress won't actually restrain him in any effective way. So 2027-2028 will be much like 2025-2026, but with even more craziness and even less constructive action.

If Congress and the Senate cannot control one man, then the US looks more like the dictatorship that exists in Russia, and the powers of the US president should be significantly reduced in order to avoid exactly this kind of thing that has been happening for the past two years. To us in the EU, your system seems terribly unfair and unjust, because you have options A and B, and one of those two options gives you a man who can obviously do whatever he wants, bypassing Congress and the Senate.

~snip~
It's not the US's responsibility or right to be the policeman of the world. Iran is an evil regime, but that doesn't make it right for the US to kill thousands of their innocent citizens. The US should just get out of that region, completely. One of the things that attracted me to Bitcoin in the first place was the hope that replacing the US dollar as the global reserve currency would reduce the US's ability to so easily deal out this sort of casual death and destruction worldwide.

There was never any realistic chance that this operation could've succeeded in a big way, since it was done by a bunch of idiots who were mainly thinking of politics and personal vanity rather than actual strategy. If somehow the Iranian regime had been replaced by a much better one through this operation, then I wouldn't have endorsed the action, but I also wouldn't have complained about it too much, since at least it would've been a utilitarian net win. But that sort of win would've required a lot of luck plus perfect execution, including months or years of advance planning; and the execution here has been unbelievably terrible from the start. They apparently didn't even fully realize that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz...

The US has been behaving like the world's police for too long, Iran is just the latest operation that will most likely not succeed because the famous war minister dismissed all capable generals and senior officers who could have done the job far better than these servants who are now on duty. Didn't the complete failure of the operation in Afghanistan teach anyone in the US absolutely nothing?

Personally, I was hoping that the president might be impeached, but again I wonder what kind of chaos that would cause across the US, considering that a good portion of the people who support the current president are clearly inclined towards violence and all the craziness he promotes.

[Charles-Tim]

If Congress and the Senate cannot control one man, then the US looks more like the dictatorship that exists in Russia, and the powers of the US president should be significantly reduced in order to avoid exactly this kind of thing that has been happening for the past two years.

There are faults in what is called democracy. There is no true democracy in almost all countries. The power the president is having can be too much and also have high influence through the president's party holding most of the house of rep and senatorial seats. Why are the house of rep and senators be from the president's and opposition party at all. I think they should have separate parties that are not Republicans and Democrats. What is called democracy is not true democracy in many countries because of this kind of  party of a thing.

[Xackie]

US citizens are incredibly angry about the Iran war and the resulting economic effects. They're also not so keen on Trump's authoritarianism generally, the severity/broadness of the immigration crackdown, and the attacks on US allies. So Republicans are going to get absolutely smoked.

I am so surprised as well seeing that majority of the US citizens don't even support the incidents of the war; this is taking their time, resources, as well as their precious and able gallant soldiers, including civilians, in two regions, so who is Trump actually trying to please in this?

Secondly, where is the law that suggests any war that escalated beyond 60 days must be voted on by the House to either be ended or continued,ded as long as victory is not ascertained? I still don't see why they should be a thing of concern over Iran's circumstances to the United States. As of now, everyone should have pathways, and Peace should be allowed to reign.

Who else but Isreal and some part of the GCC countries who actually support Trump to make a regime change in Iran all becomes of they are few hours,days, weeks , months away from the building a nuclear weapon (That's Israel view). While the GCC own is just to reduce Iran influence in the Middle East and their proxies which why they agreed for USA to bomb IRAN too. I don't know about the law but the US Congress has more republican seat, so they might be in support of Trump's decisions. I don't even know this conflict will end soon since both country are rejecting each other's negotiation requirements. Don't if Democrats would force trump to end the war if they win the midterm.

[Fiatless]

If Congress and the Senate cannot control one man, then the US looks more like the dictatorship that exists in Russia, and the powers of the US president should be significantly reduced in order to avoid exactly this kind of thing that has been happening for the past two years. To us in the EU, your system seems terribly unfair and unjust, because you have options A and B, and one of those two options gives you a man who can obviously do whatever he wants, bypassing Congress and the Senate.

The US presidents have so much power that they could use executive orders, national emergency declarations, and broad statutory authorities to bypass statutory laws. When Congress, which is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate, makes laws to control his excesses, Trump can use outdated laws to continue his authoritarian actions. He is using the 1973 War Powers Resolution to continue his war in Iran. Trump has also benefited from the Republican majority in Congress. Most of these Republican lawmakers support him even when they know he is autocratic.

The US has been behaving like the world's police for too long, Iran is just the latest operation that will most likely not succeed because the famous war minister dismissed all capable generals and senior officers who could have done the job far better than these servants who are now on duty. Didn't the complete failure of the operation in Afghanistan teach anyone in the US absolutely nothing?

Personally, I was hoping that the president might be impeached, but again I wonder what kind of chaos that would cause across the US, considering that a good portion of the people who support the current president are clearly inclined towards violence and all the craziness he promotes.

Impeaching Trump might be possible if the Democratic Party wins the majority in both the House and the Senate. Trump has been impeached twice by the House of Representatives during his first term. But his acquittal by the Senate allowed him to remain in office.

[Franctoshi]

But Democrats are going to be out for blood when they take power in 2029, and they strongly associate Trump with crypto, so they might be even more hostile to crypto than Biden was -- since markets are forward-looking, this could start to affect Bitcoin prices starting in 2028.

Which Democrats in the Senate can come out to say he hasn't benefited from crypto all these years? None of them can come out to say that.
Outside, they are anti-crypto, but inside they are the real crypto whales and individuals funding crypto projects worldwide.
Truth is, not all existing crypto-related laws will be removed if the Democrats take power in 2029. Some that have been a life-changing experience for them will be left untampered.

I'm wondering and curious to know, because from the look of things, are the US elections now to be won base on the party that is crypto friendly or the party that's anti-crypto? Because I saw in the last election, cryptos were making the headlines, which helped Trump in winning the election then, we're taking about how some policies regarding crypto come 2029.

[pooya87]

It is fascinating to watch how the US regime which is the most oppressive regime and by all definitions has been the largest terrorist organization on the planet has been capable of remaining in power for so long using this fake two party system that consists of two exact copies of the same evil.

The fundamental idea behind it is very simple too: false hope.

When one side of the isle has the majority and destroys everything, the other side comes in pretending to be the saviors or the "good guys" and then they take the majority and destroy everything while the roles of the two sides are swapped. Rinse and Repeat while the regime remains in power because the people's dissatisfaction and anger is always channeled toward one side while seeing the solution in the other side; and never at the regime itself. Fascinating isn't it?

Meanwhile the famous 1% aka oligarchs who these days are more commonly known as the Epstein Class get richer by only keeping that false hope alive.

This is a far worse oppressive system compared to a traditional dictatorship because in a traditional one the people have no false hope or delusions of freedom. When the people realize they need change, they make a real change by removing that dictatorship (rooting it out).
But in this form of oppression, the oppressors give them false hope that if they replace the "face" of the regime, things will change. This is why for example in the past 4 terms we saw them go from Obama to Trump to Obama's VP (Biden) and back to Trump (and now to Obama's side of the isle again) but without anything changing for the better whatsoever.

Nothing fundamental changes because the regime doesn't change. The regime, the deep state, oligarchs, the Zionist masters, the Epstein Class, ... whatever you want to call it. The name doesn't matter. It remains intact and faceless which is why nothing changes. Something that is very clear from the fact that all major policies of the regime have been the same over the past decades regardless of who the face of the regime is!
Take the 3 major issues that devastated the US economy:

• Tariff war: these policies started while Obama was the face of the regime and only continued getting more intense over the years. The only reason why it got worse recently is because China started retaliating harder.
  
• Proxy war with Russia: That goes even further back to Soviet era where the regime wanted to weaken Russians and split this massive country into smaller insignificant ones that would then be at each others throats wasting their resources fighting each other.
  
• Terrorist attacks against Iranians: That goes back to at least 47 years and the general aggression of the regime toward Iran dates back to decades before that (like the coup in 1953). Or for example the terrorist bases the US regime used to launch its February 2026 terrorist attacks against civilians in Iran (49 major bases that Iranians obliterated in retaliation) were built at least 30 years ago for this exact purpose and have cost trillions of dollars of American taxpayers money. The plan to attack Iran was not even new, the first time they planned it was in 2000's when they even exercised such attacks but realized Iran would crush them and since they weren't as desperate as they are today they never went ahead with the same plans they executed this year out of desperation and got the same result (Iran crushed them in a much worse way than they had simulated in Operation Millennium Challenge 2002!)

[Quickseller]

Over the past several election cycles, polls have overestimated support for Democrats by several points.

Pollsters are constantly trying to fix that, and at some point they're going to get close to the truth, or even correct too far in the other direction. I'd be more surprised if Republicans win the House than I would be if Democrats win 54+ seats in the Senate.

Luckily, we'll shortly get a good idea on how correct the polls were.

It is hard to say if the polling issue is institutional (those publishing them want to project support to help boost one side), or structural (the procedures are flawed, and those publishing polls can't figure out how to correct them). I think in a lot of cases, polling firms don't have a real market incentive to get their numbers right. Pollsters that work for campaigns, PAC's etc., have a real incentive to get their numbers right because campaigns want to know where to direct resources, but ironically, those numbers will typically not get reported.

I don't think Abduel will win in Michigan.

The polls and prediction markets have consistently been favoring him. Apparently he's attracting a lot of Trump voters due to his straightforward, anti-establishment, masculine style.

I agree that he's very bad on most issues. Him and Sherrod Brown are the ones I most hope to lose, though I think that they'll both win.

I think the prediction markets were overpriced for Democrats, but it does appear they were mostly directionally correct.

Abduel is probably the most dangerous candidate the US has ever seen. A lot of his views would have been disqualifying for a safe house seat not long ago. Bro is literally a terrorist.

Iran has been attacking Americans and American interests for 47 years, so the fact we are finally starting to attack them in 2026 is a failure of Western political leaders for over a generation. It is very disappointing to see many on the left and the media to effectively be on the side of our enemy.

It's not the US's responsibility or right to be the policeman of the world. Iran is an evil regime, but that doesn't make it right for the US to kill thousands of their innocent citizens. The US should just get out of that region, completely. One of the things that attracted me to Bitcoin in the first place was the hope that replacing the US dollar as the global reserve currency would reduce the US's ability to so easily deal out this sort of casual death and destruction worldwide.

I'm not sure where you have heard the US is killing 'thousands' of civilians in Iran, but that isn't something I have heard. Also, the IRGC killed 40k+ civilians earlier this year, including some in hospital beds, so I am not sure civilians dying from collateral damage while harming the IRGC is all that worse. Iran is also targeting civilian centers when it attacks its neighbors.

More importantly, Iran has been killing Americans for decades. Attacking the government/military of a country that has been killing your own civilians intentionally is not being the world's police. The war in Iran is certainly more justified than Iraq, and is at least as justified as the war in Afghanistan.

The biggest problem with the war in Iran is that Trump did not do anything to sell it to his country. He was elected in part because of his record of ending wars, so unilaterally going to war is not good politically. Arguably, Israel forced Trump's hand in terms of timing because they wanted to kill their leader.

There was never any realistic chance that this operation could've succeeded in a big way, since it was done by a bunch of idiots who were mainly thinking of politics and personal vanity rather than actual strategy. If somehow the Iranian regime had been replaced by a much better one through this operation, then I wouldn't have endorsed the action, but I also wouldn't have complained about it too much, since at least it would've been a utilitarian net win. But that sort of win would've required a lot of luck plus perfect execution, including months or years of advance planning; and the execution here has been unbelievably terrible from the start. They apparently didn't even fully realize that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz...

There needs to be an invasion. That is really the only way the regime can be replaced. The security forces are the only ones with any kind of weapons, so what the civilian population wants doesn't really matter in terms of forcing a regeme change, and the regime has shown they are willing to kill their own citizens en masse if they try to protest.

We got a serious shellacking tonight.

I think a big part of our losses was candidate quality. The low-quality candidates for Senate seats appear to have hurt Republicans up and down the ballot. Democrats have fallen in line when it comes to voting along party lines since the Obama era, and I think Trump has tried to get candidates who will do the same on the GOP side. I would give Pelosi credit on the Democrat side for getting Democrats to vote unanimously along party lines.

Democrats were also much better at messaging and propaganda. Inflation was higher under Biden by a large margin, yet somehow Trump is blamed for high prices. Same with oil, as Trump saw lower prices than under both Obama and Biden, but is blamed for high gas prices. Somehow public corruption is a Democrat issue, even though they have overseen massive amounts of fraud (NY, MN, CA) -- there is obviously corruption involved. Although, I do admit that Trump has been involved in some ventures I wish he wasn't.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Democrats winning Congress here is probably better than the alternative, since Republicans should be punished for not pushing back more strongly against Trump's insanity, especially the Iran war.

So, finally, Trump has been punished for acting like an idiot. His move on Venezuela paid off, and he thought the one on Iran would go just as well, but it turned out to be a disaster.

What worries me is that, with this result, and with a likely Democratic return to the White House in 2028, we’ll see the return of a lunatic left-wing policy that will not only affect Bitcoin, as Ambatman points out, but will also bring back CBDCs, mass immigration or force that gender nonsense down our throats, which will also affect how the rest of the world’s governments deal with these issues.

[Curious T]

The war with Iran was very poorly orchestrated and was not sold to the American people ahead of time, which made it less popular than it should be. Iran has been attacking Americans and American interests for 47 years, so the fact we are finally starting to attack them in 2026 is a failure of Western political leaders for over a generation. It is very disappointing to see many on the left and the media to effectively be on the side of our enemy.

If this were true, then the Trump administration wouldn't need to have a pretext as to why they started the war. America had no reason to attack Iran. They had no proof of nuclear weapons and couldn't even show how far, if any, their nuclear program was. You can't look at these events and say the US has the right to start a war against Iran. Now, you're making it seem like Iran started it first, and that is not true. Iran's problem was with Israel and how they handle things in Gaza. You can't talk about a 47 year history without stating what the US did. Trying to paint this to look like the US was only retaliating for the harm they suffered in 47 years is exactly what Trump and his cronies would want.

[Karl_3000]

I think the prediction markets were overpriced for Democrats, but it does appear they were mostly directionally correct.

Another one that really surprised me is that this will be the first time a Muslim would won all because he is a Democrat. Trump has really done something that is not good for the United States. Not only in United States because the protests in Europe is somehow linked the US presence in Iran that is making inflation to hit every country. Democrat Abdul El-Sayed won Michigan's US Senate election.

[Quickseller]

The war with Iran was very poorly orchestrated and was not sold to the American people ahead of time, which made it less popular than it should be. Iran has been attacking Americans and American interests for 47 years, so the fact we are finally starting to attack them in 2026 is a failure of Western political leaders for over a generation. It is very disappointing to see many on the left and the media to effectively be on the side of our enemy.

If this were true, then the Trump administration wouldn't need to have a pretext as to why they started the war. America had no reason to attack Iran. They had no proof of nuclear weapons and couldn't even show how far, if any, their nuclear program was. You can't look at these events and say the US has the right to start a war against Iran. Now, you're making it seem like Iran started it first, and that is not true. Iran's problem was with Israel and how they handle things in Gaza. You can't talk about a 47 year history without stating what the US did. Trying to paint this to look like the US was only retaliating for the harm they suffered in 47 years is exactly what Trump and his cronies would want.

What are you talking about? In 1979 Iran took 50 American hostages. Since, they have repeatedly targeted Americans in terrorist attacks, and have directly attacked Americans via their military. They also fund various proxies that target Americans via proxies. One of Iran's proxies is Hamas, which is a terrorist organization that hides behind civilians.

Ensuring that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons helps keep America and the rest of the world safe. Allowing them to try to build a nuke makes about as much sense as giving Abduel access to classified information (both will use it against us)