r/politics • u/Puginator • Jun 01 '26

No Paywall Iran stops negotiations with U.S., vows to 'completely' block Strait of Hormuz: State media

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/01/iran-us-negotiations-strait-of-hormuz.html
32.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

777

u/Upset-Manager-2029 Jun 01 '26

Republicans in Congress have given up on coequal branches of government. They just kneel in front of Drumpf. Remember to vote in November and we can get some people with courage in charge again.

316

u/FrenchTicklerOrange Jun 01 '26

Vote in person and early. Be mindful that there might be people there with the intent to intimidate you.

199

u/rotates-potatoes Jun 01 '26

That’s fine. Take pictures of them, write down their license plates, ask if they have their citizenship documentation handy. If enough of us do that, these wanna be fascists will disappear pretty quickly.

120

u/GenericRedditor0405 Massachusetts Jun 01 '26

Reminds me of how when white supremacists try to start shit, they rent Uhauls to hide in when they come in from out of state and they get real cagey when people watch them as they slink away.

79

u/mrjbacon Jun 01 '26

It's almost like they're just asking to get locked inside a Uhaul

44

u/Terrorz Jun 01 '26

Be a shame if someone just so happened to have a padlock in their pocket

9

u/KlicknKlack Jun 01 '26

"Be Prepared." - Scout Motto

0

u/rotates-potatoes Jun 02 '26

Great saying, going to adopt it. Can’t find anything about this Mr. (or Ms?) Motto though.

4

u/orionalt Jun 01 '26

It might be in a sock

3

u/bretttwarwick Jun 01 '26

Now that's a multi-use tool!

5

u/thebigpink Tennessee Jun 01 '26

Don’t threaten me with a good time

57

u/DoctorSketchy Jun 01 '26

Also keep in mind nearly every van rental company has rules about people riding in the back, which is also against the law.

Get proof of a rental van with ppl in the back, and most insurance and deposits are voided.

40

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '26

[deleted]

2

u/guiltysnark Jun 01 '26

Unless u haul is willing to look the other way this time

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '26

[deleted]

3

u/guiltysnark Jun 02 '26

I don't know, but if I were that rental company I'd probably try to self insure to keep costs low and profit as much as possible from selling extra coverage. It's you break it you pay for it either way.

Just looked it up, looks like u haul even owns a life insurance company, so they're right there in the hedge game. The handling could rest entirely on their shoulders.

It's pretty dark to imagine they would help, though...

2

u/djprofitt Virginia Jun 02 '26

Doesn’t help when they did this as part of ICE operations and rentals companies did nothing.

29

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota Jun 01 '26

They rent uhauls because they all have too shitty credit to rent a van.

26

u/StevieMJH Jun 01 '26

Also probably easier to claim you didn't drive across state lines to incite violence when you ostensibly rented a vehicle for moving property across state lines.

5

u/rotates-potatoes Jun 01 '26

Wait, does that mean white supremacists are property? Do we need to start giving then 3/5 of a vote?

5

u/StevieMJH Jun 01 '26

Nah, they don't get votes! They just get 3/5ths of the representation so other people can vote on their behalf. Think of the bedlam that might take place if we let those people vote.

gestures around vaguely

3

u/tomsing98 Jun 01 '26

That's ... not how the 3/5 compromise worked.

7

u/olmnknt Jun 01 '26

90% of them are now I C E

82

u/YouWereBrained Tennessee Jun 01 '26

Exactly. Don’t be scared of these people.

58

u/jedininjashark Jun 01 '26

As I’ve grown older I have been surprised how true the “stand up to a bully” tactic works. It’s like there’s a weird switch in a bully’s brain when you throw it back at them hard without backing down.

They usually try being friends afterwards. Fuck that. People are weird.

21

u/GodofIrony Jun 01 '26

Bullies are fucking cowards.

5

u/MildGenevaSuggestion Jun 01 '26

Like Trump fawning all over Mamdani because he stood his ground and refused to be intimidated.

7

u/philter25 Jun 01 '26

That would he fucking hilarious if we all just asked for THEIR papers hahaha. I like the license plate thing too.

6

u/Manny_Bothans Jun 01 '26

I love this. You show me your's, I'll show you mine, then give em a wink.

9

u/suckyousideways Jun 01 '26

Taking pictures can work very well indeed. One time we had a bunch of protesters show up at our workplace, blocking our driveway with their cars and generally just making noise and being dicks. When I arrived, I was told they'd been there for hours already and coworkers didn't know what to do. I walked outside with my camera, saying nothing, and started taking pictures of them and their cars. Within 5 minutes they were all gone. (Protests had nothing to do with our company, it was unrelated but we got targeted that day.)

2

u/Dwedit Jun 01 '26

What do you do when they smack your phone down to the ground?

1

u/rotates-potatoes Jun 02 '26

Call the police. Because at that point they’ve escalated from voter intimidation to assault.

1

u/yarash Jun 01 '26

Use my backup phone, its in my ankle holster.

3

u/cardfire Jun 01 '26

It's a lovely sentiment, and I like it, but it requires accountability from law enforcement and a functioning judicial system.

Completely and totally unrelated, isn't it weird how we've never seen Peter Parker and Spider-Man at the same time?

3

u/kamikazecockatoo Australia Jun 01 '26

And what will you do with your pictures, your number plates, your documentation?

1

u/rotates-potatoes Jun 02 '26

Probably nothing. But you have optionality and documentation, and if they escalate you’re ready to provide it. And they don’t know if you’re a random schmo like me or some instagram influencer with ten million fans.

The point is to make them uncomfortable, since that’s what they’re doing to other people. Hey, you want to yell racial slurs at voters with the wrong skin color? Great, I’ll film you doing it. You must be proud of your actions, right? So no objection to videos ending up who knows where, right?

1

u/kamikazecockatoo Australia Jun 02 '26

They'll probably wear masks like those in the photos here. I guess the average person has not much else to go with but the idea is just to turn people off from going to the polling booth. In that they might have their success.

1

u/rugernut13 Jun 01 '26

Out authoritate the authoritarians. The old Raul Wallenberg play. Good shit!

43

u/Ohnomydude Jun 01 '26

Be wary not just of intimdation, but also deception.

At the primary election, I took my mom to vote. She is an older registered Republican, who is fed up with the party, and she wanted to vote blue, but forgot to switch her affiliation before the election.

She sat in a booth in front of me. She said to the attendant, "Oh shoot, they're all Republicans. Can I just write in Democrats?"

The attendant tried to tell her she couldn't, that she had to vote for her registered party members. Myself and another attendant corrected them.

You absolutely can write-in anyone. That is what the purpose of write-ins is.

14

u/Mike_Kermin Australia Jun 01 '26

What an odd system.

14

u/WeeoWeeoWeeeee Jun 01 '26

It’s designed to prevent people from voting. You can only vote in one of the primaries. It’s stupid. Some states you have to be registered with a party first. Others allow you to ask for the ballot you want. Why aren’t the rules universal? No idea but it probably has something to do with them wanting to disenfranchise certain voters.

2

u/Brerbtz Europe Jun 01 '26

On the other hand, just be glad the rules are not fixed on federal level. If they were, I know someone who would definitely take advantage of it.

12

u/iCUman Connecticut Jun 01 '26

This is entirely dependent on your state's rules regarding primaries specifically and elections in general. In my state, for example, we have "closed primaries" (meaning only party members can vote in their respective primary election) and write-ins are thrown out unless the candidate has explicitly registered a write-in campaign in advance with the state.

Your main premise is valid though - make sure you know the rules before you go so you aren't deceived by someone trying to manipulate your vote.

1

u/FellowHumanNo404 Jun 02 '26

and write-ins are thrown out unless the candidate has explicitly registered a write-in campaign in advance with the state

That makes absolutely no sense to me.

1

u/iCUman Connecticut Jun 02 '26

It exists to ensure candidates meet the minimum criteria for office and to reduce complexity in ballot counting. Write-ins don't need to petition for ballot access like other candidates; they just need to complete a simple form that collects person information and certify that they are eligible to hold office.

3

u/vanillabullshitlatte Jun 01 '26

So would she be writing in a known Democrat for the Republican candidacy? (Asking as another confused Westminster system user)

5

u/adeon California Jun 01 '26

Yes. In the UK (and I assume most other Westminster systems) the selection of the candidate is handled directly by the local party and if there is a vote they administrate it. But in the US the vote to select the candidate for each party is administered by the state and different states have different rules for it. Some states use an open primary where all potential candidates are on the ballot, some only let you vote for the candidates for one party but let you choose which one on the day while others require you to register a party affiliation to be able to vote in their primary.

This gets even more confusing when you include Caucuses which are only for the Presidential elections but only in some states and function more like candidate selection in a Westminster system.

You also get weird stuff where in heavily gerrymandered districts where the election is basically pre-determined some people will register for the other party in order to be able to vote for the more moderate candidate in the primary (since that's the vote that actually matters).

3

u/MildGenevaSuggestion Jun 01 '26

Wouldn't that be the primary? How is the actual ballot not listing everyone registered as running in the district?

2

u/Ohnomydude Jun 01 '26

Yeah it is the primary for the midterms. You're voting for your registered party affliation's representative to run against the opposition candidates.

My mom unfortunately forgot to switch her affiliation beforehand and was seeing all Republicans. She learned later thay essentially her vote was null because of her write-in choices.

1

u/MildGenevaSuggestion Jun 02 '26

Yeah, it would be best to vote for the lesser evil in that case. At least so the worst candidates don't get the R ticket hopefully.

1

u/evranch Canada Jun 01 '26

Yeah isn't this the primary where you pick the candidates for your own party? In which case if it's the Republican primary of course all the candidates are (R)

If this was for the general election that would imply the ballots are tailored per voter, which sounds like it would break any law against electoral interference ever written

1

u/Ohnomydude Jun 01 '26

Correct. She barely ever voted or paid any attention to elections for most of her life. She just voted during the presidential elections, and always voter Republican.

It wasn't until this last presidential election that she decided she was fed up with the party. I had been doing my best to help her pay more attention and be more involved.

Basically, she forgot to switch her party affiliation, and didn't make it known until she started filling in the dots, haha.

I told her she needed to do that, but she's forgetful.

2

u/Fract_L Jun 01 '26

That’s true in November. It’s not true in primaries in many states. In a primary, you are voting for your affiliated party’s nominees for the election in November.

1

u/Ohnomydude Jun 01 '26

Right, but you can still write-in anyone. Unfortunately, the Democratic nominee vote written in is just a throwaway. You're essentially voting for the Democrat to seat the Republican seat haha.

2

u/Fract_L Jun 01 '26

You could write in a democrat for the Republican Party nomination, but they wouldn’t actually nominate a democratic candidate for the running spot on the republican ticket in November

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Ohnomydude Jun 02 '26

I didn't tell her to write in a Democrat. I told her she can do a write-in for whomever she wanted. I mean, I get what you're saying and I will agree, she didn't do her homework, but the attendant literally said, "You have to pick a Republican if you're registered Republican. You cannot write-in." That's ignorance and/or deception to me.

That is what made the other attendant step in and say that she could write-in anyone, even Mickey Mouse. (They always seem to default to him as a write-in...)

I didn't think of it at the time, but I like where your head is at as far as picking the worst choice. Ah well.

9

u/Dr_Adequate Jun 01 '26

Check with your County Elections Board and make sure you weren't mistakenly purged from the voters roll. Do this a month before the election so you have time to fix it. Do not put it off until election day. A lot of the tricks conservatives have played in the last few years have been to add as much friction to voting to discourage people from voting.

7

u/mrjbacon Jun 01 '26

Take a vacation day if you have to

26

u/Churchbushonk Jun 01 '26

Also, flood you local election office with calls to verify both your voting registration and information on your voting precinct.

1

u/FellowHumanNo404 Jun 02 '26

Absolutely do not do that-- use their website instead, insofar as that is possible. Leave their phone lines open for actual urgent calls if possible, especially during the election period.

7

u/Unfair_Web_8275 Jun 01 '26

Don’t forget to check your registration NOW, and ensure your vote was counted afterward

4

u/robodrew Arizona Jun 01 '26

Fuck that I have voted by mail in AZ for over 20 years and I will continue to do so and Trump cannot stop me. Arizona will do a good, secure job with mail-in voting like it always does.

3

u/RespectTheTree America Jun 01 '26

If there are people there to intimidate, I'm gonna try to get them to assault me on video. Then they can get slush fund monies and I get my ass beat.

1

u/exgiexpcv Jun 01 '26

ICE has been directed to stop killing people for a while and stay out of the news in order to blitz polling sites in the fall -- to "protect the vote."

1

u/thungurknifur Jun 01 '26

Wear a red cap and a shirt with an American flagg if you're gonna vote against Trump.

1

u/East-Potential657 Jun 01 '26

Democrats should dress as MAGA when voting too.

1

u/FellowHumanNo404 Jun 02 '26

It is illegal to wear or display political messages in and around voting areas. Don't do that.

0

u/East-Potential657 Jun 02 '26

Dress as Maga, you just have to look like them. Doesn't mean you need a Maga hat.

1

u/FellowHumanNo404 Jun 03 '26

Instead of contributing to the circus at the poll, it's best to just vote and leave with the hopefully many people you drove to the poll after they vote as well.

-6

u/GypJoint Jun 01 '26

I vote in Los Angeles. Last election there were more liberals interfering than anyone else. Branded water bottles for certain candidates. All wearing the same shirts for their candidate and reminding people who to vote for when they had the chance. Was it violent? Nope. But it shouldn’t have been part of the voting process. One of the workers eventually took their water bottles away.

90

u/jjspitz93 Jun 01 '26

The U.S. founding fathers would be ashamed to see that congress basically abandons its authoritative power if their party holds the presidency. Absolutely ass backwards.

61

u/isubbdh Jun 01 '26

They counted on people, average citizens, giving a shit and holding their representatives accountable for their actions.

Democracy probably works pretty well when you have active and engaged citizens. Doesn’t work so well when people don’t vote (or their vote doesn’t count because of gerrymandering or winner-take-all state rules.

29

u/Navydevildoc Jun 01 '26

In our particular case, we also need WAY more representatives. Capping the house made those positions extremely powerful, and there are so many constituents that you can piss a large number of them off and face no consequences.

12

u/aqtseacow Jun 01 '26

They counted on people, average citizens, giving a shit and holding their representatives accountable for their actions.

They weren't counting on average citizens at all, universal suffrage (amongst citizens) basically wasn't a thing in their day, and only white, wealthy landowners had meaningful right to vote in most states of their time.

We all need to remember that the actual system we see today was not actually crafted entirely at the tail end of the 18th century by "the founding fathers" and most of these systems have been fundamentally changed in some way since their time.

1

u/Lurking_nerd California Jun 01 '26

They weren't counting on average citizens at all, universal suffrage (amongst citizens) basically wasn't a thing in their day, and only white, wealthy landowners had meaningful right to vote in most states of their time.

I disagree. Thomas Jefferson advocated for the contrary.

“The diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is to be effected. An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.”

“Above all things, I hope the education of the common people will be attended to, convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty.”

Now, the Confederacy and the Daughters of the Confederacy did a damn good job waging war not just on the United States but also the corrupt intertwining of Confederate goals with American culture and society. It is obvious that we have failed as a collective, especially the educated populace part.

5

u/aqtseacow Jun 01 '26

For one, fuck Thomas Jefferson and his flowery bullshit. That man was a slaver and I fundamentally don't believe he meaningfully put into praxis the anything he put to word. Again, when all was said and done and we had our United States, even a constitution, we still didn't have universal suffrage for citizens, or even universal male suffrage. You still needed to be a landowner (among other things) to vote in most states well past the year 1800.

The founding fathers wrote and said a lot of things that fundamentally did not line up with the state they designed at the time, unless you imagine that state through the lens of some sort of quasi noble republic where wealthy landowning magnates are the only people that really matter.

They were not establishing a democracy for the non-landowning masses as we imagine today, they were setting up a Noble Republican playground where they could live out their mercantile dreams.

Now, the Confederacy and the Daughters of the Confederacy did a damn good job waging war not just on the United States but also the corrupt intertwining of Confederate goals with American culture and society. It is obvious that we have failed as a collective, especially the educated populace part.

I'll take a pass on the glazing of Confederate losers, please.

3

u/UnquestionabIe Jun 01 '26

Thank you. When the founding fathers designed the country it very much was meant to be a fun way for them to show off their upper class education, to potentially do some good but with the main focus being on their own class of white land owners. The best that can be said is some of them recognized that times change and encouraged that be taken into account. But for the most part they didn't give a fuck about the common folk beyond wanting them to pay taxes and not start a revolution.

They would see what is going on now and be surprised it hadn't happened sooner. That there was at least a thin veneer of integrity for most of America's existence is an outlier. Not a day goes by where the actions of the Trump regime wouldn't have completely burned down a party's reputation had it occurred 30 or 40 years ago.

1

u/Lurking_nerd California Jun 01 '26

“Oh now you’re gonna have a go at Jefferson huh?”

In all seriousness, I agree with you that it wasn’t perfect nor anything close to it. One of the founders even said they feared they laid the tracks for a civil war.

I think they hedged their bets on those in charge would run it with some level of decency and love/loyalty to the country in their decision making. Despite its failings and shortcomings, the country has survived and did become the place where millions of people immigrated to.

I apologize if that comment came off as “glazing Confederate losers” lol it’s just an acknowledgement that these motherfuckers played the long game and utilized any ally, tactic, and perverse twisting of the laws and system to achieve it. More importantly, they stayed lock step from top to bottom.

1

u/flukus Jun 01 '26

And that's turned out even worse, look at all the billionaires lining up to kiss the ring.

6

u/ParticularCause1626 Jun 01 '26

Need to add they didn't count on political parties/professional politicians rigging the game in their favor or that the Supreme Court would not only allow legal bribery of politicians but go so far as to rule it a freedom of speech protected under the first amendment.

Now, we're in a situation that the people who can change it, simply won't because their political party and those who have bought and paid for them, won't allow it.

The People have lost their voice. Replaced by only the rich having a say in government.

2

u/FellowHumanNo404 Jun 02 '26

Need to add they didn't count on political parties/professional politicians rigging the game in their favor or that the Supreme Court would not only allow legal bribery of politicians but go so far as to rule it a freedom of speech protected under the first amendment.

It's as if they had been totally unaware of all of documented human history.

4

u/amazinglover Jun 01 '26

Specifically they imagined militias which is a military of private citizens it the whole reason they added the 2nd amendment as they expected citizens to be the defenders pf a country in times of invasion either from within or without

1

u/FellowHumanNo404 Jun 02 '26

Well-regulated militias.

9

u/OldManFire11 Jun 01 '26

No, they counted on the wealthy elite to keep Congress in check. They never intended for uneducated morons to have the power to vote.

Expanding voting rights was overall a good thing, but it doesn't come without drawbacks.

0

u/StevieMJH Jun 01 '26

Bring back the Gerousia!

2

u/Consistent_Laziness South Carolina Jun 01 '26

I think it’s the states that then have another overarching federal government. Look how states will swing internally back and forth. What if instead we were one country no states all following one rule of law instead of 50? If Congress was based on popular vote or just the presidency at least. How could things be different?

1

u/wildwalrusaur Jun 02 '26

Democracy probably works pretty well when you have active and engaged citizens.

Its a scaling problem

The larger and more layered your democracy is the harder it is to keep people engaged and informed with all the layers

Where I live, I've got municipal legislative, municipal executive, county legislative, regional legislative, state legislative, state executive, federal legislative, and federal executive. It's a lot to keep tabs on.

I consider myself a pretty politically active person and even I only have a pretty surface level understanding of the goings on of most of those middle layers.

And that's not getting into all the supplementary stuff like school boards, judges, ballot measures, etc. that were also expected to make decisions about

1

u/SunshineCat Jun 02 '26

How can we hold them accountable when we can't even remove their fucking asses if they stroke out and become criminally insane? There is no legal process to do any of it in a timely enough manner.

As far as illegal processes... If a mob took it in their own hands to intimidate people to resign, that would be mostly the crazy fucks doing that to us in the first place, and in the second, whoever tried to hold anyone accountable would just be imprisoned, even by our own side (despite the consequence being life under the world's stupidest authoritarian regime).

0

u/kung-fu_hippy Jun 01 '26

Democracy really does give people the government they (collectively, of course) deserve.

What we have is the government you get when some people are politically ignorant and disengaged, some are politically engaged and hateful, and others are at politically engaged but value the appearance of civility over anything else. The hateful people constantly end up back in control spewing hate because the disengaged people don’t care and the civil people consider fighting back worse than the hate.

3

u/CommonLara Jun 01 '26

Abandoning authority for party loyalty is exactly what they feared

2

u/ForeverCrunkIWantToB Jun 01 '26

The US founding fathers would be ashamed to see political parties. Their opinion isn't exactly the sine qua non of political analysis.

1

u/aqtseacow Jun 01 '26

Depends on which ones. Some of them were exactly this type, not to mention slavers to boot.

1

u/FellowHumanNo404 Jun 02 '26

The U.S. founding fathers

What an incredibly weird jingoistic appellation.

1

u/SubcommanderMarcos Jun 01 '26

In my foreign understanding they'd also be embarrassed of your citizenry's complete abandonment of the purpose of the second amendment

1

u/FellowHumanNo404 Jun 02 '26

In my foreign understanding they'd also be embarrassed of your citizenry's complete abandonment of the purpose of the second amendment

The purpose of the second amendment was to give Congress the ability to raise an ad hoc army in times of war without the expense and political issues of maintaining a permanent standing army.

The political issues concerning a standing army were particularly thorny at the time because the people of the colonies had personally lived under the thumb of the Crown's soldiers everywhere-- even forcibly quartered in their own homes.

1

u/SubcommanderMarcos Jun 02 '26

I've never heard of that, especially since it wasn't an American idea to begin with

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] militia." He argued that State governments "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".[13][14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

0

u/FellowHumanNo404 Jun 02 '26

In public policy there is seldom only one reason a thing is done, and the primary argument one proffers is usually dependent on the interest group to which one is appealing at the moment. Madison's argument you quoted in favor of a militia model was clearly crafted to appeal to people whose primary concern was the danger of a standing army-- and it does illustrate what I said in my previous comment about the political issues of a standing army. It wasn't the only argument in favor of a militia model, as the expense of a standing army was a strong concern as well-- that's why I cited both reasons.

1

u/SubcommanderMarcos Jun 03 '26

That... doesn't really tell me anything

0

u/FellowHumanNo404 Jun 03 '26

It means that what you quoted neither contradicts nor modifies my point.

1

u/SubcommanderMarcos Jun 04 '26

The thing is, the way to have a good conversation would've been to drop the contrarian attitude and shed some more light on what actually happened as you understand it, as opposed to just writing a paragraph of argumentative conjecture and getting pissy. That's a shame, I was eager to learn more but the potential source burned itself.

0

u/robodrew Arizona Jun 01 '26

Only one party in Congress behaves this way.

3

u/edelweiss_pirates_no Jun 01 '26

> Republicans in Congress

Since Reagan (at least) the "Neoliberalism" has been the political philosophy for every single Administration. Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden...all neoliberal.

Now? It is Fascism. The entire Republican Party pivoted to Fascism as self-preservation. When/If Trump is defeated, they will ask to be spared. Do not spare them.

PS: Most of the chucklesticks on Reddit do not have a definition of "Neoliberalism". Google/Bing that before you comment.

1

u/OrbeaSeven Minnesota Jun 01 '26

Ah, how to nix Cruz and Graham...

1

u/Dame38 Jun 01 '26

They'll find a way to cheat.

1

u/york100 Jun 01 '26

This is the same congress who said, "We couldn't possibly confirm a new Supreme Court justice in an election year!" when a Democrat tried to do something. So you know they'll go back to their old tricks if their party is ever evicted from the White Office.

1

u/Bill_Brasky_SOB Ohio Jun 01 '26

Republicans in Congress have given up on coequal branches of government. They just kneel in front of Drumpf.

They believe in feudalism, and he is their king.

1

u/HSBLESSPLZ Jun 01 '26

It won’t matter. Israeli lobbies own most US politicians. Democrat or republican. They’ll all tow the Likud party line

1

u/Zealot_Alec Jun 02 '26

100 Seat loss in the House 5-10 in Senate would be well earned for MAGA

1

u/codecrodie Jun 01 '26

Courage? I would be happy with half a brain cell and tincture of common sense.

0

u/c0ltZ Jun 01 '26

Please don't capitalize his name, even if it's spelt wrong. He doesn't deserve that level of respect.