• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged 2026 Mid-Term election outcomes: US Congress

2026 Mid-Term Election Outcome: US Congress

  • Republicans retain control of House and Senate

    Votes: 8 9.9%
  • Republican House, Democrat Senate

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Democrat House, Republican Senate

    Votes: 21 25.9%
  • Democrat House and Senate

    Votes: 41 50.6%
  • On Planet X, Greens take house and senate

    Votes: 9 11.1%

  • Total voters
    81
They need to run on the same platform as the DSA without calling themselves part of the DSA. On every issue, the majority of Americans agree with the DSA. The word "socialist" scares too many Americans because they are ignorant and don't understand context.
On every issue? Does the majority of Americans agree with the DSA on getting rid of the Senate and President? Does the majority agree with defunding the police or ending borders and prisons?

The DSA platform is laughable:

Speaking of bills: you don’t really have them anymore. You have no debt. You don’t need health insurance. You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right. Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren’t for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities.
Why work if you don't have bills? Well:
You enjoy your work; it’s interesting to you, and you’re well trained for it. You work as much as you are able and no more than needed, and you would control your own labor and see it going to good use. It’s not just a job to pay the bills.
I'm guessing nobody ends up cleaning the toilets in this utopia.
 
On every issue? Does the majority of Americans agree with the DSA on getting rid of the Senate and President? Does the majority agree with defunding the police or ending borders and prisons?

The DSA platform is laughable:


Why work if you don't have bills? Well:

I'm guessing nobody ends up cleaning the toilets in this utopia.

Why do people all over the world continue to work when they already have more money than they need for those things for the rest of their lives?

Why do people all over the world volunteer for all sorts of things?

I'm pretty sure whatever issues do arise would be significantly less than the issues that poverty and lacking those things causes.
 
Why do people all over the world continue to work when they already have more money than they need for those things for the rest of their lives?
Because they enjoy it. And nobody who (for example) cleans toilets is in that group.

Why do people all over the world volunteer for all sorts of things?

I'm pretty sure whatever issues do arise would be significantly less than the issues that poverty and lacking those things causes.
Poverty sucks, which is why most of us go to work. Remove the poverty and you'll have a lot less work being done. See retirees, for example; they no longer have to worry about poverty so they stop working. Funny that.
 
Because they enjoy it. And nobody who (for example) cleans toilets is in that group.


Poverty sucks, which is why most of us go to work. Remove the poverty and you'll have a lot less work being done. See retirees, for example; they no longer have to worry about poverty so they stop working. Funny that.
By that logic, cleaning toilets should be the highest paying job in the world.
 
Interesting that the latest voting has D House, R Senate and the reverse equal at 21 votes each.
Whatever happens in November, it's going to be "interesting".
If I were voting (in this poll) today, I'd guess D House, D Senate. It's noteworthy that Predictit now has the split 52 D (counting Sanders and King) and 48 R, although at the same time, the R Senate is slightly favored (54% versus 48%). I think the only thing keeping the GOP above 50% there is time, but time is running out; in less than a month, voters can cast ballots in four states (South Dakota, Virginia, Idaho and Minnesota), and a bunch more will be voting within a few weeks after that.
 
Because they enjoy it. And nobody who (for example) cleans toilets is in that group.


Poverty sucks, which is why most of us go to work. Remove the poverty and you'll have a lot less work being done. See retirees, for example; they no longer have to worry about poverty so they stop working. Funny that.

A lot of retirees I know still work part time or volunteer or do some side hobby business. They're bored or like feeling useful or working with other people or want a little extra money.
 
A lot of retirees I know still work part time or volunteer or do some side hobby business. They're bored or like feeling useful or working with other people or want a little extra money.
I am in that group, but you won't find me picking crops or doing any heavy labor. Do you think people who work those jobs are going to be slow to realize they no longer have to do that now that their every need has been taken care of by the government?
 
But why is it not?
Because it doesn't require extensive training.

I'm sure every CEO would rather do their job than the janitorial staff's if the pay was the same.
A pretty silly premise; presumably you mean that CEO's salaries would be a lot lower and janitor's somewhat higher, than currently? Why would the future CEO work so hard to get ahead, getting his MBA, working nights etc., when he knows he'd be just as poor as the guy who cleans his building?
 
Last edited:
A pretty silly premise; presumably you mean that CEO's salaries would be a lot lower and janitor's somewhat higher, than currently? Why would the future CEO work so hard to get ahead, getting his MBA, working nights etc., when he knows he'd be just as poor as the guy who cleans his building?
The future CEO might do the training in order to avoid having to clean toilets?
 
Giving welfare to the rich.

That's a feature of artificial money systems. We can expand the base eight percent per year, and therefore prices, while giving billions to billionaires, who don't actually have any money really but the opposite in the form of what people call wealth. Now if we were on a Keynesian economic system then the government would instead tax the rich, high income individuals, but not the wealthy, high net worth individuals. But such high tax rates would end 'financial innovation', or wild speculation, by the rich. Who would want a sideways market anyway?

Oh. In about a decade it'll reach eighty trillion dollars and everything will cost twice as much.

PS: Thanks to Dann and Igor for filling in the details. I really went down a rabbit hole for the past two years.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom