Having listened to this interview, that was Col Wilkerson’s conjecture based primarily on the reality of the consequences awaiting the regime, and everyone who has been a part of the Project 2025 open conspiracy these past two years, should the Dems take even one house, much less two.
His expectation is that they will deploy the Brownshirts to battleground states to intimidate voters, and that if that’s not enough the regime might reach for martial law as a last resort.
The suggestion of what the average person can do about it was agreed upon by both the host, a Democrat, and Col Wilkerson, a lifelong Republican: be prepared to take to the streets in numbers that they can’t handle, especially in battleground states. And understand that you may need to protest for weeks.
They didn’t mention it in this segment, but I would add…
Do your best to connect with your local political activist organizations and neighborhood social groups and help prepare for prolonged mutual support. What is coming may have the character of a siege and with mutual support all of us can weather it. Also, as we’ve seen repeatedly this past year, the Brownshirts like to corner those who are isolated and alone, but they tuck tail and run when outnumbered and outgunned. Sticking together is not just mutual support, it’s mutual protection.
The larger thing to do, would be to get popular candidates that their cheating would fail against given overwhelming support for populists. For 2028, which is when this martial law is in danger of being called in my opinion, although I don’t doubt they want to do a test run here and fix midterms moreso than they already do.
But no, we will nominate the most unpopular person we can find and trust the courts will back them up against the republican machine, a very reckless and unpatriotic strategy for the dem establishment. They are controlled opposition.
I was pleasantly surprised by how well we did on that front for these midterm elections, and it’s really showing in the current projected margins (89% and 58% betting odds for house and senate takeover, respectively). And the time of the establishment DNC is closing rapidly. AIPAC funding appears to be their key remaining leverage, and even that was overcome by old-fashioned grassroots action in dozens of primaries this year. Most of the new Dem candidates are running in some degree of open defiance to the DNC, which means the only thing that might protect their position would be a significant number of these new disruptors losing their elections and the GOP holding both houses.
But that’s why I’m of the mind that this election is the make or break moment. As in, there won’t be another shot. Martial law wouldn’t be necessary in 2028, because by that point the capture would be complete and total. If on the other hand Dems take back one house, they can halt the takeover and reverse a little damage. If they can take back both houses, Trump is done, and it unlocks a huge amount of immediate housekeeping that makes 2028 a guaranteed overhaul election year backed by strong public mandate.
Holy shit, off subject, but it just occurred to me we could arbitrage these betting markets. Buying and selling the same bet in different markets to make risk free profit, I feel this is an ape stronger together moment, lmk if you are interested.
I am getting 53 to 48 odds the republicans will keep the senate, from the non profit betting market predict it, (that was outlawed for political predictions at some point, 7 years back maybe. They sued, not sure if they can take us money but they can from everyone else.
The election is also make or break because of 2028, this is just setting up for that. If they control the senate they can refuse to recongnize slates of electors and throw the election to the states, (each state 1 vote, they control over 30 states firmly.)
That said, I don’t share your hope. Jeffries is the party leader, he’s against the left, against universal healthcare, neither him nor schumer has seen a single fucking challenge for leadership, the president was anointed without contest in 2024 despite being the most unpopular person they could find, then they browbeat us all into pretending like she was going to win, (i kew better, did you?)
The only populists in the party, are minorities from the inner city. Why are there no white populists? That in itself is a question you should ask yourself. Bernie doesn’t count at this point.
I was just averaging numbers from the 4 big (yes illegal) betting sites, but I wouldn’t give those much weight at this point, even in a less compromised political climate, just suggesting that perception may be explained in part by these new blood Dems.
Agreed that the senate race is a clincher according to rules of play that the regime intends to ignore regardless.
Re: DNC, party leadership has power/influence over candidates and their platforms only to the extent that they can aid a candidate’s election or reelection. So when leadership demonstrates a lack of interest in winning, or even a vested interest in losing, they forfeit that influence. That’s why I say at this point Jeffries’ fate is bound to the regime’s and I’m not particularly interested in or worried about what he might do or say from here forward.
I have no opinions on the white populist front. I could speculate as to why but it doesn’t strike me as relevant or important.
The lack of white populists in a party of a country were 65% of the population is white, shows they, somebodies, are killing populists in the cradle, killing the ones that could challenge the current leadership. The minority ones can’t so they don’t crush them, character assassinate them before they can get close to office. Is what I figure and I could say a lot about this and I do.
As to the betting markets, when they illegalized predict it they gave the thumbs up to the for profit ones for the same thing. I didn’t hear much of it since, 2021 I think.
I totally agree on Jeffries and the rest of the establishment and leaders and the rest.
I’m not sure a lack of white candidates would necessarily suggest that they’re under-represented in populist movements. Anecdotal, but the volunteers I worked with in the Mamdani campaign were closer to that percentage representation in most work groups, canvassing teams, and crowds; i.e., plenty of white people who were not only voting for a populist candidate but contributing their time and skills to the campaign.
The simplest explanation as to why POC dominate this year’s roster might be that they represent communities who are more acutely affected by these matters of policy, so they can speak a bit more directly to the challenges addressed by their campaigns. Or something along those lines. Is it possible there’s some dark trend suggested by the demographics of the candidates not matching the national distribution? Sure. But I think I’d need more or better evidence before entertaining that hypothesis.
Having listened to this interview, that was Col Wilkerson’s conjecture based primarily on the reality of the consequences awaiting the regime, and everyone who has been a part of the Project 2025 open conspiracy these past two years, should the Dems take even one house, much less two.
His expectation is that they will deploy the Brownshirts to battleground states to intimidate voters, and that if that’s not enough the regime might reach for martial law as a last resort.
The suggestion of what the average person can do about it was agreed upon by both the host, a Democrat, and Col Wilkerson, a lifelong Republican: be prepared to take to the streets in numbers that they can’t handle, especially in battleground states. And understand that you may need to protest for weeks.
They didn’t mention it in this segment, but I would add…
Do your best to connect with your local political activist organizations and neighborhood social groups and help prepare for prolonged mutual support. What is coming may have the character of a siege and with mutual support all of us can weather it. Also, as we’ve seen repeatedly this past year, the Brownshirts like to corner those who are isolated and alone, but they tuck tail and run when outnumbered and outgunned. Sticking together is not just mutual support, it’s mutual protection.
The larger thing to do, would be to get popular candidates that their cheating would fail against given overwhelming support for populists. For 2028, which is when this martial law is in danger of being called in my opinion, although I don’t doubt they want to do a test run here and fix midterms moreso than they already do.
But no, we will nominate the most unpopular person we can find and trust the courts will back them up against the republican machine, a very reckless and unpatriotic strategy for the dem establishment. They are controlled opposition.
I was pleasantly surprised by how well we did on that front for these midterm elections, and it’s really showing in the current projected margins (89% and 58% betting odds for house and senate takeover, respectively). And the time of the establishment DNC is closing rapidly. AIPAC funding appears to be their key remaining leverage, and even that was overcome by old-fashioned grassroots action in dozens of primaries this year. Most of the new Dem candidates are running in some degree of open defiance to the DNC, which means the only thing that might protect their position would be a significant number of these new disruptors losing their elections and the GOP holding both houses.
But that’s why I’m of the mind that this election is the make or break moment. As in, there won’t be another shot. Martial law wouldn’t be necessary in 2028, because by that point the capture would be complete and total. If on the other hand Dems take back one house, they can halt the takeover and reverse a little damage. If they can take back both houses, Trump is done, and it unlocks a huge amount of immediate housekeeping that makes 2028 a guaranteed overhaul election year backed by strong public mandate.
Holy shit, off subject, but it just occurred to me we could arbitrage these betting markets. Buying and selling the same bet in different markets to make risk free profit, I feel this is an ape stronger together moment, lmk if you are interested.
Haha, it’s possible. Alas the only gambling I have the stomach for is low stakes card games with friends.
I am getting 53 to 48 odds the republicans will keep the senate, from the non profit betting market predict it, (that was outlawed for political predictions at some point, 7 years back maybe. They sued, not sure if they can take us money but they can from everyone else.
The election is also make or break because of 2028, this is just setting up for that. If they control the senate they can refuse to recongnize slates of electors and throw the election to the states, (each state 1 vote, they control over 30 states firmly.)
That said, I don’t share your hope. Jeffries is the party leader, he’s against the left, against universal healthcare, neither him nor schumer has seen a single fucking challenge for leadership, the president was anointed without contest in 2024 despite being the most unpopular person they could find, then they browbeat us all into pretending like she was going to win, (i kew better, did you?)
The only populists in the party, are minorities from the inner city. Why are there no white populists? That in itself is a question you should ask yourself. Bernie doesn’t count at this point.
Sawn Fein 2028! (UAW boss.)
I was just averaging numbers from the 4 big (yes illegal) betting sites, but I wouldn’t give those much weight at this point, even in a less compromised political climate, just suggesting that perception may be explained in part by these new blood Dems.
Agreed that the senate race is a clincher according to rules of play that the regime intends to ignore regardless.
Re: DNC, party leadership has power/influence over candidates and their platforms only to the extent that they can aid a candidate’s election or reelection. So when leadership demonstrates a lack of interest in winning, or even a vested interest in losing, they forfeit that influence. That’s why I say at this point Jeffries’ fate is bound to the regime’s and I’m not particularly interested in or worried about what he might do or say from here forward.
I have no opinions on the white populist front. I could speculate as to why but it doesn’t strike me as relevant or important.
The lack of white populists in a party of a country were 65% of the population is white, shows they, somebodies, are killing populists in the cradle, killing the ones that could challenge the current leadership. The minority ones can’t so they don’t crush them, character assassinate them before they can get close to office. Is what I figure and I could say a lot about this and I do.
As to the betting markets, when they illegalized predict it they gave the thumbs up to the for profit ones for the same thing. I didn’t hear much of it since, 2021 I think.
I totally agree on Jeffries and the rest of the establishment and leaders and the rest.
I’m not sure a lack of white candidates would necessarily suggest that they’re under-represented in populist movements. Anecdotal, but the volunteers I worked with in the Mamdani campaign were closer to that percentage representation in most work groups, canvassing teams, and crowds; i.e., plenty of white people who were not only voting for a populist candidate but contributing their time and skills to the campaign.
The simplest explanation as to why POC dominate this year’s roster might be that they represent communities who are more acutely affected by these matters of policy, so they can speak a bit more directly to the challenges addressed by their campaigns. Or something along those lines. Is it possible there’s some dark trend suggested by the demographics of the candidates not matching the national distribution? Sure. But I think I’d need more or better evidence before entertaining that hypothesis.