Cooperation between parties used to be common, often because everyone knew what was at stake if they didn't work together. Everyone who lived through the WWII era knew we could never make the mistakes that lead to that tragic horror again. Their descendants forgot.

I'm gonna say something a lot of you won't like. America only has two parties on paper. In reality, we have four: Democrats, Independents, Reagan Republicans, and MAGA. It could be argued that the Social Democrats are also a separate entity, but at the moment, they are aligned closely enough with regular Democrats that I don't think the distinction comes into play. Now, people in countries with multiple parties will tell you that one party alone can't rule without a supermajority; it takes coalitions. And it wasn't just Democrats who won this election; it was a coalition of Democrats, disaffected Independents, and disillusioned Republicans. We forget that at our peril. If we forget that, we lose in 2028, and this all starts over again.

JD, sweetie... it's the hate, the wedges being driven, the rhetoric actively trying to divide Americans and pit us against each other instead of bring us together. It's the tariffs. It's the destruction of our alliances and abdication of our global influence, our position as leaders of the free world. It's the pandering to russia. It's the cruelty. It's the extreme party politics and the refusal to work together for the greater good. We're sick of all of it. And yeah, the war, and cost of living. But there's a lot more to it than that. Great leaders bring a country together, not tear it apart.

I think most of us can agree that we don't want the old guard leading the Democrats. Jeffries and Schumer aren't the right men for the job. Someone young, bold, and energetic should be at the helm. Who do y'all think it should be?

Remember what republicans really think of Trump:

Far be it from me to doubt that Trump could actually do the dumbest thing in the history of dumb things, but... has Tucker Carlson actually named his sources? Everyone's quoting him as if he's some kind of reliable, reputable journalist, and he's far from it.

They're working very, very hard to convince people to let them declare the elections invalid on the grounds of imaginary cheating. All of their desperate messaging looks to me like it's leading to that.

The administration is obsessed with Talarico because the dichotomy between the morally bankrupt, walking scandal Paxton and the kind and faithful Christian, scandal-free Talarico highlights just how awful MAGA has become. That's not something they want their base noticing.

Madame Le Pen, as a friend and ally of France, Poland does not interfere in your politics. Please respect us by not interfering in ours.

PBS is factually correct. Under current U.S. election laws, results on election night are unofficial and incomplete. Mail, provisional, and late-arriving ballots are often tabulated after in-person votes, so leads in close midterm races routinely shift overnight or later. This has occurred in multiple cycles due to reporting order and state rules, not inherently fraud. Official certification always takes days to weeks. Rapid Response rejects normalizing the process, reflecting broader concerns about delays and transparency, but the described scenario itself is standard.

Ken Paxton drives slow in the left lane.

The situation in Poland is much simpler than all the talk of a “coup” suggests. PiS, Jarosław Kaczyński’s party, which backed current President Karol Nawrocki, refused to recognise three lawfully elected Constitutional Tribunal judges back in 2015, together with then-President Andrzej Duda. Those judges were Roman Hauser, Andrzej Jakubecki and Krzysztof Ślebzak. PiS installed its own picks in their seats: Henryk Cioch, Lech Morawski and Mariusz Muszyński. Even after the Tribunal confirmed that the original three had been lawfully elected, PiS and Duda refused to respect its ruling. They put their own political interests above the court’s decision. Yes, the previous PO–PSL coalition had also broken the rules by electing two additional judges before it was entitled to: Bronisław Sitek and Andrzej Sokala. But when the Tribunal ruled against those appointments, the coalition accepted the decision. Borys Budka even apologised on behalf of PO. PiS never complied with the ruling concerning the three lawfully elected judges. That difference matters. One side accepted an unfavourable ruling. The other refused to obey it. The court’s membership changed over the years. Cioch and Morawski died in 2017 and were replaced by Jarosław Wyrembak and Justyn Piskorski. Muszyński’s nine-year term ended in December 2024. Other judges’ terms ended too. Seats became vacant, and new judges needed to be elected. Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal judges are elected by the Sejm, the lower house of parliament, for nine-year terms. Donald Tusk’s governing coalition currently holds a majority there. That majority has the constitutional right to elect judges to fill those vacancies. PiS losing its parliamentary majority did not give it the right to block that process indefinitely. The Sejm elected eight new judges. President Nawrocki accepted the oaths of three: Magdalena Bentkowska, Dariusz Szostek and Sławomir Patyra. But he refused to accept the oaths of the other five: Krystian Markiewicz, Maciej Taborowski, Marcin Dziurda, Anna Korwin-Piotrowska and Maciej Berek. They eventually took their oaths without him present, formally addressing them to the president. The oath is required by law. But it does not give the president a personal veto over parliament’s choice of judges. He is required to accept their oaths. The Tribunal itself ruled on this back in 2015. In October 2026, the Venice Commission backed that interpretation and supported allowing judges to take their oaths without the president physically present if he blocks the process, provided the necessary formalities are followed. Yet the leadership of the very same Tribunal where PiS had unlawfully installed its own judges refused to let the new judges do their jobs. The court’s president, Bogdan Święczkowski, insisted that they could not serve unless they took their oaths in Nawrocki’s presence. The president blocked the normal procedure, and the Tribunal’s leadership used that blockage to keep them out. On October 30, Anna Korwin-Piotrowska announced the temporary suspension of Święczkowski and his deputy, Bartłomiej Sochański, and assumed leadership of the Tribunal. Lawyers dispute whether she had the legal authority to suspend them in that way. That specific step deserves legal scrutiny. It does not erase the obstruction that led to it. I support Tusk’s efforts to end this obstruction, and I don’t buy the claims of a coup. PiS does not get to unlawfully install its own judges, refuse to respect court rulings, and then demand that everyone treat the situation it created as untouchable. Tusk is right to push back. Judges elected by the Sejm should be allowed to do their jobs. The president has constitutional duties, not a personal veto over the court’s membership. And PiS has no permanent claim to Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal.

A guy at work today declared loudly in a break room full of people that he hopes El-Sayed gets his throat cut on live television. The people he was ranting to nodded. But tell me again about the left's violent rhetoric.

🦃

RT @pictureladyjan: There would be no humanitarian crisis without russian occupation. Stop presenting yourself as a saviour.