REPUBLICANS run the ENTIRE government, so this EPSTEIN SHUTDOWN is on THEM; mike "tiny" johnson is a pedo twink; maga VOTED to destroy our standing in the world; NO KINGS was a rousing success, which is why republicans are trying to discount it; and YOUR VOTE MATTERS, or republicans wouldn't be trying to disenfranchise you--so VOTE like your life depends on it BECAUSE IT DOES!
Yes, republicans are lusting to price your basic health care out of your reach so they can watch you suffer and die for fun and profit, but we all know that this is a wholly republican owned and operated government shutdown because THEY run all three houses of government.
This is an EPSTEIN SHUTDOWN.
And, in true republican "let them eat cake" fashion, trump is demolishing the American people's--not his!--White House and building his epstein ballroom and big beautiful bunker while republicans gleefully get off on watching the rest of us suffer.
If maga mike "tiny" johnson were innocent, he'd RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES, TRUMPSTEIN FILES, TRUMP-EPSTEIN FILES.
If republicans like pam bondi were not pedos themselves, they'd RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES, TRUMPSTEIN FILES, TRUMP-EPSTEIN FILES.
If trump were not a pedo rapist implicated with bff epstein for the worst crimes known to humanity, he'd RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES, TRUMPSTEIN FILES, TRUMP-EPSTEIN FILES as promised during the campaign.
Duh.
And maga knowingly, deliberately voted for cruelty and poverty to happen to themselves. Yes, they voted to harm and kill innocent people they hate, but they also voted for themselves to suffer and die.
What will it take for them to wake up and join society and democracy?
What will it take for them to realize that it isn't the innocent people they hate who are harming them but the billionaires?
What will it take for them to stop hitting themselves in the head with the proverbial "I only vote for republicans I know will harm me" hammer?
I don't know, but I sure hope it happens soon for ALL of our sakes.
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Trump voters are slowly realizing he’s TERRIBLE FOR THEMDiehard MAGAs are feeling the cost of Trump’s broken promises
 Trump voters are starting to wake up. It is not happening all at once, and it is not even fully conscious yet, but you can feel the shift. The comments are coming in quietly, almost guiltily, as if people are afraid to admit what they are seeing with their own eyes. For years they were told that Donald Trump was fighting for them, that he was their voice, that he would make America great again. But now they are looking around, checking their grocery receipts, their insurance bills, their paychecks, and realizing something is deeply wrong. And Trump, despite all the promises, is nowhere near fixing it. Let us look at some examples of what is bubbling up among Trump’s own supporters:
Cindi still cannot bring herself to blame Trump directly. She is hesitant, like someone refusing to admit a bad investment. She is still holding onto the idea that all of this began under Biden. But buried in her comment is the first crack in the wall. She is acknowledging that life under Trump is not getting better. She is living through the decline, and it is hitting home. The story of the “forgotten American” that Trump ran on is now Cindi’s reality, except this time Trump is the one in charge, and she is still struggling. Here is what another Trump voter had to say:
This one cuts deeper because he is right. While Trump parades around claiming he is solving global conflicts, some real and some completely fabricated, everyday people cannot afford an unexpected four-hundred-dollar expense. J. Mathew is tired of the showmanship. He does not want another victory lap in some foreign policy fantasy. He wants a president who makes life livable again. But that is the thing. Trump never really intended to fix what is broken here. The entire project of Trumpism has always been performance. The gold letters, the rallies, the endless grievance, the reality television politics, all of it is designed to make people feel like he is fighting for them without actually doing the hard work of governing. And now the bill for that performance is coming due. Here’s more from someone who shares the economic frustration:
That is the paradox in full color. The person acknowledges the pain, the high prices and the bills piling up, but immediately recoils from considering any alternative. They say, “I love Trump, but do something,” then dismiss the Democrats as incapable of helping. It is a trap of loyalty, and it is one Trump relies on. These voters are locked in a belief system where no matter how bad things get, the only acceptable emotional response is to reaffirm their allegiance. Still, even in that, there is a seed of doubt. The act of saying “do something” means they are noticing the absence of action. They are aware that Trump’s endless campaign rallies and media stunts do not put food on the table. That kind of awareness is slow-moving, but it is dangerous for any politician who has built his brand entirely on illusion. Here is yet another voice speaking out about the hardships:
That word, “urgent,” captures it perfectly. This is not partisan noise. These are people genuinely struggling. They are not talking about abstract policy or culture war distractions. They are talking about survival, the price of bread, the electric bill, the cost of health insurance. These are the everyday realities of the working and middle-class families Trump claimed he would save. And the truth is, they are being crushed under his watch. What makes these posts so revealing is that they are all coming from inside Trump’s base. They are not anti-Trump liberals. They are not progressive activists. They are the backbone of the movement, and they are starting to notice that their champion has left them behind. To be clear, none of this means they are about to vote Democrat. Every one of these people makes that explicit. They are saying, we are hurting, but we are still loyal. It is political Stockholm syndrome. The loyalty persists because the alternative feels unthinkable. The right-wing media ecosystem has spent years telling them Democrats are socialists who want to take their jobs, their guns, their culture. So even when reality slaps them in the face, when they cannot afford gas or groceries, their reflex is to double down on the same party that caused it. But here is where Democrats and the broader pro-democracy movement need to pay attention. These voters are doing half the work already. They are identifying the problem. They are admitting the system is not working. They are saying out loud that life is harder under Trump. The missing piece is connecting that pain to its source, the policies and politicians they keep supporting. That is where political communication becomes essential. It is not enough to mock these voters for their misplaced loyalty. Democrats have to meet them where they are. When someone says, “My kid’s college tuition is out of reach,” that is not a random complaint. That is a political opportunity to explain how policy decisions created that reality. When someone says, “My insurance premiums doubled,” that is a moment to talk about who benefits from deregulating the health industry and who actually fights for consumer protections. If Democrats want to win these voters, or at least neutralize their despair, they have to connect the dots. They need to say, yes, you are right, your grocery bill is out of control, your electricity costs too much, your wages are not keeping up. But that did not happen by accident. It is the product of decades of policy choices made by the very party you are still voting for. And for that to be convincing, Democrats have to do more than gesture toward vague ideas. They need an actual plan, clear, credible, and easy to explain. They need to show how a working family’s real-world costs would go down under their policies. They need to make the argument not in think tank language but in kitchen table terms. The irony is that Trump’s entire movement was built on the illusion of populism, the idea that he was the only one who could stand up for the forgotten men and women of America. But he never governed for them. He governed for the wealthy, for corporations, and for himself. And now, as inflation and economic strain hit his own base, that illusion is starting to crumble. So yes, Trump voters are slowly realizing he is terrible for them. But realization alone does not change elections. It is up to those who understand the game, the Democrats, the media, anyone who still believes in a functioning democracy, to help people connect that realization to action. That is the next step. That is the work ahead. |
Talk
of a “national divorce” comes up every few months, usually from
confused Republicans or right-wing influencers who imagine a glorious
red utopia free from the supposed tyranny of Washington DC and the
federal government. The fantasy goes like this: red America walks away,
blue America collapses under the weight of its own liberalism, and
everyone finally gets the country they deserve. The problem is, it’s not happening. Actual secession is a legal and logistical impossibility. The U.S. Constitution provides no pathway for states to leave the Union. The Civil War and the Supreme Court case Texas v. White in 1869 settled the matter definitively: states cannot unilaterally secede. Even if they could, the practical challenges would make the idea collapse before the first “Republic of Texas” flag finished printing. Who keeps the military bases? Who assumes the national debt? What happens to the interstate highway system, the power grid, or the water compacts that sustain entire regions? Secessionists love to imagine independence; they rarely explain how they’d disentangle the electrical infrastructure that literally keeps the lights on. And then there’s the human element. Tens of millions of Americans live in politically “opposite” states, blue voters in red states and vice versa. To actually divide the country would mean uprooting tens of millions of people, redrawing borders, and reshuffling entire economies. The population swap alone would make Brexit look like a tidy divorce. But what if blue states didn’t need to secede at all? What if they just stopped paying for everyone else? Because here’s the uncomfortable truth: for decades, blue states have been net donors to the federal government, while most red states have been net takers. In other words, the blue states pay the bills, and the red states cash the checks. In 2022, New Jersey got back just $0.91 for every federal tax dollar it sent to Washington. New York got $0.93. California got $0.99. Meanwhile, Mississippi received $2.53 for every dollar it sent, West Virginia $2.36, and Alabama $2.02. The pattern is unmistakable: the states shouting loudest about “freedom from Washington” are often the ones most dependent on Washington’s money. That’s where the idea of a soft secession comes in, not a dramatic breakup, but a quiet, calculated withdrawal. Instead of tanks and trenches, it’s spreadsheets and budget lines. Blue states could start to scale back their participation in certain federal programs, decline to chase every federal grant, and craft policies that make federal aid less necessary. No declarations, no fireworks, just a slow financial unplugging. The effect would be devastating for red states. Without a steady flow of federal dollars, many would face enormous budget shortfalls, forcing cuts to education, healthcare, infrastructure, and emergency services. Unlike blue states, they don’t have diversified economies or large tax bases to make up the difference. It’s the ultimate irony: the regions most obsessed with independence are the ones least capable of surviving without the support of the system they despise. This isn’t about vengeance. It’s about reality. If red states truly believe in self-reliance, they should be ready to prove it. And if blue states ever decided to call that bluff, they could do it quietly, legally, and effectively. It wouldn’t take a civil war to end Trump’s second administration, just a soft secession. Of course, it’s not simple. Pulling off even a partial fiscal decoupling would come with serious hurdles. Most federal dollars come with strings attached. Want highway funds? You have to meet federal speed-limit standards. Want Medicaid funding? You have to cover the populations Washington says you must. Blue states can’t have it both ways; they can’t reject federal control while still accepting federal money. The workaround is straightforward but painful: say “no thanks” to the cash. That’s perfectly legal, but it means the state has to replace that money with its own tax revenue. It’s expensive in the short term but strategically freeing in the long term, especially for states wealthy enough to stand on their own. In certain areas, state governments can’t override federal law. A state can’t nullify federal air-traffic rules or environmental protections. But what it can do is refuse to help implement them. States can decline to enforce certain programs or withdraw logistical support. That doesn’t stop the federal government, but it slows it down and makes the cost of administration skyrocket. It’s a passive-aggressive approach, not rebellion, but resistance through bureaucracy. Many federal programs involve agreements between states on water use, rail networks, or disaster response. Dropping out of those compacts can cause chaos. But again, there are workarounds. States can renegotiate the deals, fund them themselves, or build regional networks without federal oversight. In practice, this means states like California or New York could run their own regional climate initiatives or infrastructure plans with neighboring blue states, bypassing Washington altogether. A soft secession wouldn’t look like Fort Sumter. It would look like California saying, “We’ll handle our own environmental policy.” It would look like Massachusetts funding its own public health programs (which it partially already does, with notable success), or New York declining to compete for certain federal grants. Over time, these decisions would amount to a re-balancing of power, a quiet decentralization that shifts financial leverage away from the federal government and back to the states that can afford it. Politically, that’s the real nightmare for Trump and his allies. Their movement feeds on grievance, on the idea that coastal elites are leeching off the heartland. But the numbers tell the opposite story: the heartland depends on those elites more than it likes to admit. If that dependence were ever exposed through action, through blue states simply stepping back, it would reveal how hollow the right’s “independence” rhetoric really is. So maybe a national divorce isn’t necessary. Maybe it’s enough for blue states to stop subsidizing the illusion. In the end, a soft secession wouldn’t be about leaving America. It would be about reminding everyone who’s really keeping it running. |
posted by Dot Calm @ 9:45 AM
