US midterm elections

[Karl_3000]

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)

Also is the Houthis of Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Including the Hamas and Iran, it is like they surround the Gulf nations.

But this terrorism of a thing is becoming something else because why did United States left Afghanistan if Taliban are terrorists? I knew Taliban as terrorists when I was growing older, but later US were tired and left Afghanistan for the Taliban. Taliban is ruling Afghanistan now. I do not like the country because of their laws against their women but you can see what is called terrorist become the government.

You can see how the Houthis in Yemen is giving Saudi Arabia a headache and Saudi probably now wanted peace and looking for means to make the Houthis stop the escalation in peace talk. You can see how US failed Saudi Arabia because US is exhausted with their unnecessary war in Iran causing the price of oil to increase and causing inflation in all countries.

Did you know what caused Islamic revolution in Iran? 16% of Iran oil profits is going to Iran while 84% is going to the Western nations. You know what the names of the Western nations can be. Many things happened later after many decades, but it changed from 16% to 50% which was because of crises that the West are noticing. Everything that happened in the past, the way the Iranians are seeing that the West are stealing from them led to the Islamic revolution.

If the West were not greedy, there will probably be no Islamic revolution in Iran.

What you talked about above, those people were later released after 444 days.

What is happening in Iran today, the West caused it.

Donald Trump said if Iran has nuclear weapons, they will use different approach of peace and not war. The world is about power you can see that from what is happening. The war in Iran is not fair at all.

These people do not like Western military presence but you are blaming them. Also the war that is happening in Russia today is also caused by the Wests if you know history but that is another day discussion. I am not saying I am in support of Russia or Ukraine.

[pooya87]

What are you talking about? In 1979 Iran took 50 American hostages.

Wrong.
In 1953 the US regime carried out a coup to overthrow the very young democracy in Iran and re-strengthen the US-backed dictatorship. Iranians continued fighting for the freedom and after more than two decades by 1979 when Iranians overthrew that dictatorship and finally established democracy. After that the US regime was once again carrying out terrorist attacks and committing espionage and was working toward another coup similar to 1953 (the highly classified CIA documents taken from the Den of Espionage proves it) so the people stormed the den known as "embassy" and arrested the American terrorists (CIA operatives) involved.

The highly classified documents showing the CIA terrorist operations inside Iran and the rest of the region (pre and post revolution) which were extracted from the Den of Espionage is already published as the indisputable proof: https://usdoc.ir/

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.

The American terrorists have no business being 13000 kilometers away from their colony. And when they invade another country, like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and establish terrorist bases in their soil, it should be expected that people of that country attack the invaders in defense of their homes. Which is what has been happening. But the US regime calls those who defend their homes "terrorists" to justify the invasion and illegal occupation of other country's soil.

Ensuring that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons helps keep America and the rest of the world safe.

The corrupt US regime that is armed to the teeth with all kinds of weapons of mass murder with a history of using them against civilians has no right to tell others what they can or cannot have to defend themselves. If Iran felt the need to build nukes, they would have already built them and there is nothing the weak and pathetic US military or its regime could do about it

The only reason why Iran hasn't build the largest arsenal of nukes in the world yet is because there has not been any existential threat to Iran so far and of course because it is against Islamic beliefs (they are considered Haram).

But of course the weak US regime that was dominated easily in March by Iranian forces is selling Iran's lack of interest in nukes as its own achievement. Like if some morons tried to take over Bitcoin and after failing declare victory by claiming they have successfully forced Bitcoiners to keep the max supply capped at 21 million LOL

[Valknor]

Seems we are getting a little off topic with the Iran Nuclear thing, but I'd like to add that America had a treaty with Iran on that very matter which Trump withdrew us from during his first term.

Speaking for myself, the reason I stayed home instead of holding my nose and voting Republican, was that Trump broke multiple campaign promises. I reluctantly voted for him two years ago because he promised peace. He said we would start no new wars, and would end the ones that were happening. He also promised full disclosure of the Epstein files. As many of you no doubt recall, he did an about face on both of those, even going so far as to tell people if they keep pushing the Epstein thing he doesn't want their support. If he had kept his promises, I probably would have gone out and voted Republican. Instead their party showed it cared more about the Greater Israel Project and Epstein class, than it does about the American people.

[Doan9269]

Speaking for myself, the reason I stayed home instead of holding my nose and voting Republican, was that Trump broke multiple campaign promises. I reluctantly voted for him two years ago because he promised peace. He said we would start no new wars, and would end the ones that were happening. He also promised full disclosure of the Epstein files. As many of you no doubt recall, he did an about face on both of those, even going so far as to tell people if they keep pushing the Epstein thing he doesn't want their support.

Let me say this is just a political game, we all know it that this is not the first time it candidate will be promising heaven on Earth and yet fail to fulfill any, what really happened is that the moment they achieve their intention to emerge into a position, then the public opinion is no more longer an alternative to them to be considered, they will rather see it as an opportunity for them to submerge and make the influence of power known to the entire world by their own way. Politics is full of different games being played without considering the rules of engagement.

[philipma1957]

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.

Pretty good post. I still say cash out 10% of the forum's 1100 plus btc yeah the taxes suck but 100 coins are 78kx100= 7.8 million say 2,8 in tax and you have a 5 million 'safe' war

chest of  funds for the forum.

The dems crushed it bigly as our fearless leader would say.

Be safe and good work.

[legiteum]

It's not the US's responsibility or right to be the policeman of the world. [...]

I certainly agree that Iran has been a debacle, and Trump decision to "do it differently" than all of the (supposedly stupid) presidents before him obviously came to bite him ass last night. This war has cost us lives, giant amounts of money, our standing in the middle east, and critical weapons supplies--and the Iranian regime is stronger than they have ever been.

HOWEVER, let me react to that comment above on the abstract, and flip it around: it is drastically more expensive to the world when every single country needs to have an army capable of defending itself against every other army. In other words, if every country in the world had to spend what the US, Russia or China spends on defense, then we would (and may) have a much poorer world. And realistically, in this scenario, there will be lot more wars--which are also very expensive.

Yes, the USA has been bad in the last 80 years in various ways, and it has caused a lot of problems. But the world can get 10 times WORSE very easily. People living today don't remember WWII when 85 million humans perished in about 6 years. That's 2-3 times as many that died in wars in the 80 years after.

With today's technology, a very angry small country that arms themselves with cheap drones can credibly attack another country far beyond their borders and have a credible war with them, having a decent chance of winning if they sufficiently build up their arms. This hasn't been done in past mainly because of the international community--which from a military perspective is mostly the USA--would credibly threaten said country with retaliation.

Now imagine we took that, "not police force of the world" seriously. Then we let any country attack any other country and don't get involved (btw, economic and diplomatic sanctions are part of being "the police" as well). No, since we're going to take that seriously, the international response to Chili attacking Paraguay is... nothing. Let them fight it out. Or Chili attacking Columbia, or Columbia attacking Mexico, etc. etc. etc.

The military, like the police, is a waste of money. They don't do anything positive for us, only protect us (in the best case scenario) against negative things. Having lots and lots more military means lots more waste. (Obviously the other extreme is not valid either, but I am only explaining why a balance--and the post-WWII balance that lasted for 80 years--is more efficient).

[Gyfts]

I don't think I've seen such an implosion like this in American politics in quite some time. It's certainly a once in a generation inflection point that we may not necessarily see again in our lifetimes. Florida coming within a couple percentage points despite double digit wins by Trump and DeSantis in the past, Texas turning entirely blue, Mississippi senate within .1 points of each other, a likely democratic victory. No one could have predicted this degree of dominance by democrats.

If you look at the maps, I don't think I've found a county that shifted red at all. If one did, it wasn't by much.


The quibble about what policies were to blame, the Iran war, affordability, whether the neocons are right or wrong, whether America first is a fad etc. will continue until 2028. But above all, the Republicans will need to select a new leader to be at the forefront of the Republican party. Trump cannot run. And if '26 is a repudiation of Trump, then Rubio and Vance are damaged goods. It's impossible to serve in an administration and simultaneously distance yourself from the blunders your administration made. Harris tried this strategy with Biden, voters did not buy it.

Factor the troubles of selecting a candidate in 2028 for Republicans, then factor in how Texas is now a blue state and entirely in play in the 2028 Presidential race. You essentially have an automatic victory for dems.

Setting aside the politics, you can also see how demographic changes are fundamentally changing the American electorate. Exit polling showed Republicans generally winning with white males and to a lesser extent, white females. Democrats won every minority group and it was not close, and these groups showed up to vote in numbers. There is simply no Republican answer to this. If the percentage share of white voters in TX and FL continue to go down, what can they possibly do?

All in all, complete shitshow for Republicans for the next 6 years IF they are lucky. The next decade of American politics is looking precarious for them.

Meanwhile, dems may bust out the champagne as I'm certain they have been waiting for this moment for quite some time.

[Valknor]

I think Gyfts hit the nail on the head with the demographic thing. The trend is less White people every year, and more of other races in America. The Republicans suck at pandering to non-Whites, although they desperately try to get the Black vote (see Trumps Historical Black Colleges and Universities speech for an example). Republicans also try to get the Hispanic vote, but they fail miserably in part because they claim to love them, while wanting to deport millions of them at the same time. The data also suggests that Blacks and Hispanics are net beneficiaries of public spending, while Whites are net payers for them. No wonder then why Democrats are better at getting out the Black and Hispanic vote when they talk about how much money they are going to spend on programs, while openly blaming White people for the countries problems (see Biden's speech on the biggest threat to "our democracy") . Non-Whites understand that a vote for Democrats is a vote for more resources and power for themselves and their families. I don't think appeals to fairness and rugged individualism will work on them when Democrats promise them more free stuff-- especially when Blacks and Hispanics both often view themselves as victims of White people (see slavery and colonialism), and they know it is White people who will be paying for these programs.

[OgNasty]

Just curious what people think…

If the leader of the nation you are at war with says this about the results of your elections, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing?

“The process of the US's collapse has accelerated.”

https://x.com/mkhamenei_ir/status/2117970619077976541?a=2ePWrym4N2MmTPT5P6Y&s=46

The enemies of America are celebrating these results. Sadly, the destruction will be self-inflicted.

In the end, the only thing that was needed to conquer the greatest nation in the history of the world was to point a finger and cry racism.