"It's been in the cards for 10+ years now. Austin and its growth, plus all immigration, that has been happening for 15+ years."

Great Replacement Theory is true.
2026 Proves Great Replacement Theory is true!

#32
Trump, Vance, Miller, Musk.
The Four Horsemen of "Saying The Quiet Part Out Loud."

-Remove ALL private funding of elections.

If the democrats are serious, they can start creating the framework for that.
#36 | Posted by eberly

What "framework" is going to repeal the First Amendment, you pompous -------?

Some things, when broken, can't be fixed.

That's why you read Humpty Dumpty to your children.

But it's just like a Republican, to hope Democrats fix the thing Republicans broke.

The US had extensive battle plans for Iran, decades of prep, rehearsals.
#53 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Trump is afraid to commit troops needed to actually win that war, which for a country the size of Iran, is essentially all the troops.

Perhaps the best thing that happened vis a vis Trump's desire to be a War Hero President is he failed misearably at war, just nine days into office:

Trumps probably giving Hegseth the boot after the debacle in Iran cost him everything.
#52 | Posted by Alexandrite

I'd rather see Trump have Hegseth charted with Treason.
That would be dramatic.

46 you have bought in to this lie that not being able to give money to a candidate limits your speech.
#48 | Posted by Imshakinitboss

No I did not buy into any lie.
I merely exist in, and am aware of, our shared reality.
The one where the Supreme Court said that spending money in an election is First Amendment protected speech.

From Wikipedia:
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States ruling that certain campaign finance restrictions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.