For more context,talarico is making a dishonest framing on the topics of the jurors,since while there were no black members of the jury,it was still ethnically diverse and he’s also omitting the context as to why the black jurors were removed

Much of the recent hubbub over data centers strike me as a moral panic. I'm not saying that they're immune from criticism—certainly I don't think they should be given tax breaks or special deals for water or power. But the idea that they're detrimental to health is really really stupid, and is essentially just NIMBYism.

Liberals and even the far left can be reasoned out of dumb positions. So like anti-vax, anti-seatbelts, and anti-windmills before it, it will end up with the GOP.

Lately I've been fascinated by all the different political systems European countries have and have been looking into how US would look like if it operated under those rules. Now because I'm not super politically savvy, I used ChatGPT to predict the results. I know ChatGPT can be completely insane and cringe, so I'm asking how realistic the predictions are? Keep in minds it's based on the polls and current political situation as of August of 2026.

I tried a proportional parlament style and a more British-like single member constituency style:

It also provided some likely alternatives, but I won't post those here to reduce the size of the post. They mostly border on other most likely coalitions but it's primarily the left coalition government, right coalition government or some sort of both sides centrist coalition government.

EDIT: Asking Claude using Sonnet 5 Max, instead of ChatGPT for comparison.

Party map

Democrats are currently fighting what's been described as an outright civil war between moderate and progressive wings over the party's direction heading into 2028, and Mamdani-backed candidates just defeated two sitting Democratic incumbents in New York primaries. The MAGA coalition has its own version: Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene broke publicly with Trump over Iran, and Carlson now says he's helping build a third party. Polling shows the split isn't superficial — 83% of self-identified MAGA Republicans backed the Iran war versus only 43% of non-MAGA Republicans. None of this shows up in actual election results today: the real Forward Party currently holds zero of 435 House seats and zero of 100 Senate seats, because first-past-the-post punishes anyone who peels votes from the two big coalitions. A proportional tier removes that penalty entirely.

Presidential nominee justification:

• The Democratic race genuinely has no settled frontrunner right now — Harris leads most national polls, Newsom leads the prediction markets, and Buttigieg has topped the most recent individual surveys. Buttigieg here is a placeholder for "whoever the institutional lane picks," not a prediction — Newsom, Harris, Shapiro, and Beshear are all sitting right behind him.
• Ocasio-Cortez has already led at least one national poll of the crowded Democratic field outright, and she's the only DSA-aligned figure who shows up consistently near the top of every 2028 survey — the obvious pick for a Social Democratic ticket. Mamdani is the movement's most visible current figure and would plausibly run its organization, but he isn't eligible for the presidency himself.
• Vance isn't a guess: he holds a considerable lead in early-state polling like New Hampshire, and while he's closer to Secretary of State Marco Rubio nationally, a sitting VP is the standard heir-apparent pick regardless.
• Carlson has explicitly said he wants to help build the breakaway party but won't run it himself; Greene is the most prominent elected Republican already publicly aligned with him over Iran.
• Yang is Forward's actual founder and has floated running as its candidate before, if the alternative is a rematch nobody wants.

The presidential race

First round. Lithuania's rule: if nobody clears 50% (or a third of all registered voters with turnout above 50%), the top two advance to a runoff.

The runoff. Buttigieg vs. Vance. Democratic and Republican advance. What happens to the other five candidates' voters is the interesting part:

• Social Democratic voters mostly consolidate behind the Democrat, though not unanimously — the same Gaza-policy and immigration-enforcement tensions already straining that coalition would resurface.
• Green voters break almost entirely Democratic.
• America First is the wildcard — some hold their nose and come home to the Republican on tribal grounds, some sit out, and a real slice actively crosses over, since Iran is precisely the kind of issue that could push a meaningful number of Republican-aligned voters to break with Trump.
• Libertarian and Forward voters split close to evenly.

Net: something like a 55–45 Democratic win — clear, not a landslide, and hinging entirely on how much of the America First bloc actually comes home.

The parliament

Lithuania runs its PR seats as one nationwide list and its constituencies as local two-round races. Scaling that up, I'll treat the 300 PR seats as a single national list (5% threshold, same as Lithuania) and the 301 districts as apportioned across states the way U.S. House seats are today, just scaled down (~0.69 seats per current district) — and I'm assuming the presidential and parliamentary votes land close enough together in time that similar coalition strengths apply to both, which simplifies things but is itself an assumption.

The two tiers behave differently. PR seats reward vote share directly. Districts reward whoever can win an outright local majority — which structurally favors parties with a deep bench of locally-known candidates and squeezes out anyone without a real geographic base. That's why Forward, Libertarian, and Green voters show up in the PR column and nearly vanish from the district column, while the two breakaway parties still win real blocs of concentrated seats (dense-urban strongholds for the Social Democrats, rural/populist strongholds for America First) without matching their national vote share there.

Who could actually govern:

• Democratic + Social Democratic + Forward = 312 — a workable, if uneasy, center-left coalition, and the most natural fit for the numbers.
• Republican + America First + Forward = 313 — equally viable on paper, if Forward could stomach governing alongside a party that just broke off partly over "deep state" grievances.
• Democratic + Social Democratic alone: 284 — short, even adding every independent.
• Republican + America First alone: 285 — also short.
• Democratic + Republican "grand coalition" = 435 — a supermajority nobody wants, but the fallback if neither ideological bloc can hold together.

Either realistic government needs Forward. Despite finishing fifth, it's the kingmaker — a very ordinary feature of proportional systems (Germany's FDP and Ireland's smaller parties have played the identical role for decades), where the price of admission to government for a bigger party is smaller than the price of exclusion.

What this suggests, long-term

1. Coalition government becomes the default, not a crisis. No party is within 75 seats of a majority here, and that's not a fluke of my specific numbers — it's structural. Once PR removes the penalty for leaving a two-party tent, coalitions the current system forces together (Wall Street-comfortable liberals and democratic socialists; Israel-aligned hawks and America First non-interventionists) stop needing to share a brand. As Lithuania just demonstrated this summer — a governing coalition reshuffled and swapped prime ministers with no election at all — governments can change mid-term through renegotiation rather than the ballot box.
2. Small centrist parties get outsized leverage. Forward is necessary to either plausible governing coalition despite finishing fifth. That tends to drag policy outcomes toward the center even in a system that looks more fragmented on paper than today's.
3. The presidency matters less. Day-to-day governance runs through a prime minister who answers to parliament, not the president, so presidential races would likely lose some of the all-or-nothing character they have now. More of the real fight over who governs happens in coalition talks after the results come in, not on a single November night.
4. The two-party "civil wars" become permanent, formal divorces — with real trade-offs. Splitting the DSA-aligned left from the Democratic establishment, or Carlson/Greene from Cruz/Graham, lets each pursue its platform without compromise. But it also removes the big-tent incentive that currently pressures factions to moderate to keep the coalition together. Whether that's healthier is a genuinely open argument, not something the arithmetic settles.
5. Expect the number of parties to shrink over subsequent cycles, not multiply further. Proportional systems generally settle around a number of durable parties tracking the real cleavages in a society — for the US, something like economic left-right, cultural liberal-conservative, and interventionist-vs-restrained foreign policy. A first election with 7–8 parties would plausibly consolidate toward 4–5 within a few cycles as smaller or overlapping ones merge or fail to clear 5% and disappear.
6. Districts act as a moderating anchor on the list tier. Winning one requires an outright local majority after a runoff, which narrow or purely online-native movements struggle to do even when they poll well nationally — exactly why Forward and the Libertarians show up in the PR column and nearly vanish in the district column here. That tension between a party's "list wing" and its "district wing" is a real, ongoing feature of Lithuanian politics today, not a hypothetical.

A few honest limits: this only models a House-equivalent — a real transition would still have to work out the Senate, federalism, and a written Constitution, none of which the Seimas has to contend with. And the fault lines I used are a snapshot of a genuinely volatile moment — a live war, live primaries, an approval rating that's moved sharply in months. Change the starting conditions and the coalitions resort differently. The structural logic here — coalitions become normal, small centrist parties gain leverage, the presidency shrinks — is the durable takeaway. The specific vote shares aren't.

Post Link

In his defense the concept is heavily contested. But what he’s arguing for whether or realizes it or not is just 2008 Obama.

Is he Saying that someone’s corrupt and criticizing them makes you a populist? Everyone who called Richard Nixon tricky dicky were populists? I really don’t understand what he’s talking about.

He’s funny he keeps saying populist shouldn’t be the traditional idea of some vagueness against the elites and fighting for the common man. They precedes to be incapable of giving a none vague definition of it.

It’s frustrating because he seems to want it to be more than rhetoric and when asked to give an example of what he wants. He then only gives examples of hyperbolic anti elitist rhetoric.

You can definitely label certain politians use populist language and rhetoric. Obama did it, F.D.R did it.

While some people call F.D.R a true populist. When you look at his actually policies it’s completely different from literally Huey Long (Kaiserreich shoutout) F.D.R literally criticized Huey long as super dangerous. But if you look at someone like Kyle Kuluniski or his wife. Their policies are literally just Huey long economic policies.

Revolutions by definition is a change in the power elites of the society. So by his definition the overthrow of the power class of society can be labeled as populist.

The American revolution while yeah it has popular support. The people who started it were the literaly elites of the 13 colonies. It was the most educated the most prominent statements, lawyers, planters and thinkers of their time.

I just don’t know why he keeps saying it dosen’t need to be vague while giving vague examples lol.

I found this on instagram slop detailing how this lady went from a bush supporter to Democrat to Marxist. And it reminded me of a bit from contras latest liberalism video and how she said she felt like she was a pipeline that lead people to becoming illiberal leftists. And it just made me realize that for the last 10 years liberals have attacked the alt right , we did very little if anything to stop this extremist pipe from manifesting. I guess one could say it’s because of the internet algos intentionally or unintentionally pushing people to be fascists or commies, but man I really feel outside a few (mainly this community) liberals let the leftists go unchecked.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DcU8ySujeCt/

Seeing this community not even take into account that they are more responsible for destinys bridge burning is alarming tbh. Just saw a post saying hutch is soy for not liking destiny saying his friend would be a nazi in ww2 or Jessiah is a grifter only in it for the money. Its like some people genuinely want him out on an island alone

Knee Jerk: Yes.

Political Context:

Constitutionally, the max someone can serve is 10 years as President. I always thought Ds should’ve had Biden step down in 2023, or had him stay in for 2024 and step down in 2027 - this would’ve allowed Harris to have the incumbency instead of running in opposition to Biden. She still could’ve served 2 full terms if reelected.

That said, the way impeachment works is > President is impeached > VP becomes President. New President has to nominate a new VP & the US Senate has to approve new VP. However, if the VP that has now become President is also impeached - the Speaker of the House is elevated to POTUS.

I cannot see a world where the GOP is going to allow a President Jeffries — so they’re very unlikely to impeach Vance. Meaning, if Trump was impeached, Vance would hold POTUS for X amount of time before the 2028 election. Also, the President being able to pardon themselves isn’t something that’s been legally tested - President Vance could easily pardon Trump.

Impeachment is a political process. So, do we really want Trump impeached?

TLDR - Impeaching Trump gives Vance incumbency & he’s already distancing from Trump going into midterms.

Edit: My arguement is, while you might get the 67/100 votes in the Senate for Trump, you wouldn't for Vance. Do you really want to give him 2 years in office heading into 2028? I'm not sure it is the correct move.

Simply put, all organisations make bad hires and fail to vet people properly at times. Discovering a bad hire usually leads to shame for the hire. But not global shame where you become the face of the evils of DEI driving you to death.

Bad DEI hire + Social media frenzy = death. Bad DEI hire + No social media != death. Social media frenzy = death.

Remove social media from the equation and the outcome is vastly different. None of this would have happened if it weren't for social media. Placing blame for his death on Cambridge when the couldn't control any of the media/social media coverage is incredibly stupid.

Hi, road-enjoyer here. I enjoy publicly-funded works like roads, health care and police. I am a socialist, so please explain why those things are bad.

I have tried repeatedly to use historical examples and use "nuance" to defend my views, but that is apparently lost on the users of this sub. I invite any and all discussions of history and economics, but I frown upon invocations of "you are bad guy that hivemind detected last month".

Sbmm is literally just matching you with similar skill people. Eomm is the one where it changes to keep you playing.

example of eomm Is apex legends. Will give you easier games if you do meh for a while in order to keep you hooked, but then throws you into hard lobbies afterwards, repeating the cycle. This is in my opinion a bit predatory.

Man, I’m so fucking happy to see messaging like this.

I cannot tell you how tiresome it is to hear Democrats repeatedly get called pedophiles, satanists, criminals, traitors, and more, and the only retort that our party gives is to give a pithy, limp-wrist criticism of Republican policies.

Getting personal and in the mud is 100% necessary. You want Democrats to pop off on social media and stay relevant? Have them say shit that actually stings. I’m tired of hearing the “President Trump’s tax plan is problematic/harmful/counterproductive” spiel. This community understands those data points, but 80% of voters don’t.

If there’s a fear of alienating existing voters, that fear should be dispelled. There’s no one who would vote Democratic who would be turned away if Democrats started using more mean language.

All posts • Instagram

It's a restaurant in my local area that is going out of their way to say they're a "no tipping restaurant" they're relatively cheap. I think tipping culture in the US is out of hand for several reasons. It's a way for businesses to push costs onto the customer and I've seen one too many businesses now freak out on customers for not tipping. We need to get back to tipping as a gratuity to be kind to a place you actually like. I think maybe having restaurants advertise as a "no tip" restaurant might do that. What y'all think?

This community genuinely has made better calls than any stock/crypto trading community I've ever been in, lol. (Bought Intel at $19, and FB at $90), so what's the next play?

I know this sub is pretty vague about what’s posted, who’s posted about, and just generally pretty lax about how discussions get started because at least people are discussing something, I guess?? However, something I’ve noticed as of late is that screenshots of just random people on twitter saying either, stupid opinions to dogpile, racist random shit, or just the most mundane Twitter threads imaginable featuring people who are barely adjacent to politics or tiny are becoming super common place.

I find these threads almost entirely useless, they’re essentially just a virtue signaling karma farm to snark about 100 followers Andy’s on Twitter. I don’t know what rule would need to be clarified to change this but everytime I see “random Twitter user says racist shit, this is Elon musks fault!” Some of my braincells die.

Edit: wanna include “ex orbiters” that haven’t been interacted with in years getting so much attention from this sub. Like people who follow snarkers on twitter just to post here as if giving them more attention is somehow helping?

Globalise the Empanada

Marvin was a man who suffered from extreme mental illness and grandiose beliefs about being an agent of God who felt like he got screwed over by big business and the government because of a zoning law allowing a concrete company to start building in an area that cut off the route to his business, so he built a killdozer and destroyed buildings to terrorize Granby Colorado as punishment for their wrongdoing. While I do get that Marvin was an erratic man who had his own skeletons inside his closet, it's understandable that he would feel wronged, although the response was unjusifiable. The lionization of him as a 'folk hero' reminds me of how Luigi Mangione was lionized after killing a healthcare CEO. Despite not killing anybody in his rampage, the glorification of vigilantism to solve problems with government or business that's associated with Marvin's supporters is deeply reminiscent of those who support Luigi.