Find someone who looks at you like Mike Rogers looks at Donald Trump.

At the end of the day, is the voting demographic going to look better in 2028 than it did in 2024? Inarguably yes, probably by a substantial margin. And we won in 2024. Partly because it is a little more complicated than demographics math makes it sound. And this isn't me arguing against demographic realities. Quite the opposite. It's the poison pill of Democrats' strategy here. The first thing is the limiting factor. For the foreseeable future, the conversion rate of immigrants to voters is not 1. It's entirely too high, but it isn't 1. And as Democrats start bringing in more and more of the third world, that becomes their voting base. That becomes the bloc of voters they're trying to impress. That's how you get a lot of Trump cutting into Democrat margins on inner city blacks and making these inroads with Hispanics. The bell of the ball is jealous because they aren't getting enough attention anymore. Now, do I think this is a longterm solution and the GOP needs to become a "super diverse coalition!" No lol. Demographics puts a ceiling on your ability to do that. What I'm saying is it sways the numbers appreciably. And it can do this reliably until you get the third world out of here. At which point, another political shift will take place and whites will get more GOP while Democrats start treating black and brown Americans like the bell of the ball again. That's how it looks on the current trajectory. But again, it's like I said in the last post... the current trajectory is not set in stone.

Dearborn for Detroit

The results of Ken Paxton's actual elections because Democrats want you to believe it's time to get Talafreaky in Texas:

*ANTHROPIC WARNS OF CATASTROPHIC, EXISTENTIAL RISKS TO HUMANITY

People don’t really understand that when Lula stole trillions, it wasn’t to eat caviar, it was to put it in the global communism finances. If you think the commies who flood Europe with migrants and Lula are not related, you’re naive. It’s an international movement

How did Lula manage to win in Brazil yesterday? 1. The most important reason – voter turnout. An exceptionally high turnout rate of nearly 81%. The leftist bloc simply made a greater effort to get their voters to the polls, particularly in the northeast of the country. Bolsonaro’s team assumed they had already won, as most polls and media outlets had predicted. They became complacent, and in the south—Brazil’s right-wing heartland—the turnout rate was lower than in the north. 2. Voters dependent on government programs. Lula’s success over the years has consistently stemmed from the rollout of an increasing number of government programs. Some estimates suggest that as many as 94 million people in Brazil rely on state welfare and pensions. These voters know that a right-wing government, in an effort to restore fiscal order (as seen in Argentina), would cut back on such programs. These groups—poorer individuals, the elderly, etc.—turned out to vote in very large numbers yesterday. 3. An aging population. Over the past 15 years, the percentage of the population over the age of 60 has increased by more than 70%. Older voters tend to vote in large numbers for leftist candidates (like Lula) to ensure that generous government programs remain in place. We see a similar trend in European countries, for instance, where older people also fear that right-wing parties and leaders might raise the retirement age or reduce pension benefits. 4. After more than a decade of the "Bolsonaro effect" in Brazil, many voters have been alienated by the persistent political strife involving the Bolsonaro family. While the right-wing Liberal Party gained 22 seats in Congress, Bolsonaro lost the election by more than 4 million votes. Brazil needs a fresh, new right-wing leader—one untainted by controversy, corruption, or ongoing disputes regarding election results. 5. The Supreme Court’s controversial decision to extend the operating hours of polling stations likely contributed to Lula’s victory. In working-class areas, in particular, there were very long queues of people waiting to vote. However, this alone cannot account for the victory. 6. Severe weather across large parts of southern Brazil also led some Bolsonaro supporters—who likely assumed their candidate would win regardless—to stay home. Yet, this, too, is not a sufficient explanation for the defeat. Although Brazil is the world’s 10th-largest economy and one of the most significant export economies in the Western Hemisphere, its national debt—approaching 85%—and its 10% budget deficit are unsustainable. The country is heading toward a fiscal crisis, a situation largely brought about by Lula’s left-wing policies. However, in a nation where nearly 100 million people depend on government handouts, the primary reason for Lula’s victory lies in his generous, unfunded promises of ever-increasing state largesse. At some point, however, the country will face a deep crisis, and then a Milei-like candidate—chainsaw in hand—will likely seek to rescue a desperate nation. Ultimately, Bolsonaro’s campaign during the final two weeks was not convincing enough. He rested on his laurels. His defeat can be attributed primarily to his own mistakes.

Anche se Lula è un personaggio corrotto e spesso politicamente incoerente, la sua riconferma è positiva per il mondo: mantiene uno dei fondatori dei Brics, impedisce l'americanizzazione totale dell'America Latina ed evita che vada al potere un altro evangelico sionista.