>>3776030

A topic worth considering, yes. I think that POTUS needs a prominent opponent, someone or some thing, that merits his political wrath. When he takes on someone of little weight, he can look like a chainsaw going through butter. And Americans love an underdog. This is so regardless of which party one might lean toward.

Our republican form of government readily supplies what is needed. Checks and balances. The Dems, predictably, rely on the abuse of checks and balances because that has worked for them for a very long time. They abuse power as if such abuse was constitutionally mandated. Kek.

So POTUS does better, and the optics are better also, sure, when the opponent is worthy of a good fight. Think of Wrestling and the good guys vs the bad guys.

I think the "Dictator reaction" thing is answered by our form of government. If POTUS were to abuse his powers, then, there are Anons here, many of us, who would seek to check it and to restore balance, again.

But I have confidence in Pres Trump because wherever he could have done something through Exec action alone, he has first pushed the matter back to Congress or to the Judicial branch. He has acted as a constitutional authority – within the bounds and the spirit of the presidential powers, the Executive branch. The temptation to go the other way must have been quite appealing these past two years. But he has shown restraint. Admirably so.

>>3776254

You have every right to do so. And Anons such as myself, who are patient and feel satisfied with the midterm results (as established so far, at least), will listen. Because those who have been seasoned by disappointments and by delays or sidetracks have been where you are now. The only way is through it, not around it.

That said, please look with fresh eyes on how the Dems have been feeling – for just two years, mind – and how divided they have become. What little unites them now – despair and feeling cornered and hopeless.

For us it remains 15 mins prior to 15 mins prior.

Continues to be an honor to serve with you, Anon.

>>3776373

Keep in mind that about three dozen Repub incumbents did not seek re-election. Waiting now to see how many of the new candidates won previously Repub seats. Ain't easy to do in an off year right after your party won WH.

>>3776566

Right. This is on target.

>>3776629

What might the Dems elected yesterday think is their mandate?

1. impeachment?

2. open border – put I.C.E. on ice?

3. Russia Russia Russia?

4. Hike taxes?

and so on.

Now, go ahead and implement one or two of those and try to get re-elected. Or, instead, do not deliver on what was promised and go ask for votes again in two years.

They are trapped by their own panic.

>>3776630

You got it, I think. Bloody chum. And, strangely enough, using a bright light at night works pretty good on the smaller fry. Kek. Where they smell blood they will come.

Or could just use a stick of dynamite and the stunned bodies float to the surface. Brute force.

>>3776739

>>3776764

>>3776728 >>3776739 >>3776764

They ran on a referendum against Trump, first and foremost. These issues were fillers. Yes, some of the candidates seemed sold on these issues themselves, but many used the fillers or placeholders with the expectation that they will not have to deliver because POTUS will veto.

But the more they press these types of issues, the more they will lose votes in future – especially the pres race in 2020. These issues will not play well in 2 years in Senate races either. And, depending on how the Dem majority performs in opposition to Pres and Senate, the walkaways are going become legion. Takes time, but not so much time that you could not have noticed the trends already during this midterm.