Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Democrats Discover Innovative Strategy Of Promising Free Stuff To Stupid People

Democratic Party strategists were thrilled this week after they stumbled upon an innovative new strategy of winning elections by promising free stuff to stupid people.

According to Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, the bold new strategy of showing idiots with promises of free stuff could be "a total game-changer" for the party.

"Hear me out, guys — what if we just tried promising uninformed, ignorant people that we'll give them free stuff if they vote for us?" Mandami reportedly asked at a campaign brainstorming meeting. "Why haven't we tried this before? Come on, people. Get your stuff together and let's start overpromising free handouts to all the morons out there — we'll win in a landslide!"

High-level Democrats said that the new campaigning strategy just might end up changing the party's entire approach to politics.

"This is really fantastic stuff," said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. "Free stuff for stupid people's votes? What a breakthrough! All we have to do is lie about how much stuff we can give away, and those horrible Republicans will never hold office again."

Sources close to the GOP say that Republicans were scrambling to find a suitable response to the new threat.

"We need a plan," Senate Majority Leader John Thune urged his fellow Republicans. "Could we just have Nancy Mace release more inappropriate pictures of herself? Let's get some ideas rolling — midterms are coming up."

At publishing time, Democrats had reportedly discovered a second innovative solution of shipping in millions of illegal immigrants to increase their voter turnout.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

What about all the FREE STUFF for Iran?

Trump proposes giving them $30 BILLION. 😂

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@beckyromero $20,000,000 of that is to be spent on muppet shows, courtisy of usaid

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@beckyromero

Naturally, you didn't want to tell the whole story, Becky. 🙄
Even CNN reported (if one went deep enough into the article):

"Among the terms being discussed, which have not been previously reported, is an estimated $20-30 billion investment in a new Iranian non-enrichment nuclear program that would be used for civilian energy purposes, Trump administration officials and sources familiar with the proposal told CNN. One official insisted that money would not come directly from the US, which prefers its Arab partners foot the bill. Investment in Iran’s nuclear energy facilities has been discussed in previous rounds of nuclear talks in recent months."

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/26/politics/us-iran-talks-nuclear-program

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Thinkerbell

You mean like the $6 billion that President Biden released to Iran that had been frozen? Six billion that South Korea was paying for Iranian oil - and was NOT in anyway U.S. funds?

But did that stop Trump and MAGAists from attacking President Biden.

On November 24, 2023, Donald Trump reposted via Truth Social an interview he gave to Real America's Voice in which he claimed that the U.S. gave Iran "$6 billion that we got for hostages."

Trump said: "Think of that, we gave, they got five (prisoners), we got five (prisoners), and they (Iran) said 'Alright that's probably as good as this group is going to do' and then they (the U.S.) said, 'But, in addition they get $6 billion.'

"Well, nothing surprises me with this group, but we gave them that."

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Thinkerbell

Ever hear the phrase, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander"?

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@beckyromero So you support funding raghead terrorists worldwide, eh?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@sunsporter1649

I, UNLIKE YOU and Il Duce, support ongoing military action that will hopefully not only entirely END Iran's nuclear weapons development program, but perhaps get the additional bonus of toppling that tyrannical regime.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@beckyromero And just what kind of military action?

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@beckyromero

Nation building of that sort hasn't worked well in the Middle East, and does not have the support of a majority of the US electorate.

Better to do what worked in Egypt and Jordan: bloody their noses a few times and make them see the error of their ways.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@sunsporter1649

Not just to go after the KNOWN nuclear enrichment sites, but all radar installations, air bases, naval bases and naval units, ballistic and short-range missile sites, anti-aircraft missile locations, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) bases and command centers, launch centers of the Iranian Space Agency (including those under construction) etc.

Oh, and while we're at it, destroy and sink that mock-up of an American aircraft carrier that Iran likes to use for target practice and propaganda films.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Thinkerbell

Better to do what worked in Egypt and Jordan

More like what worked in Germany and Japan.

THAT is what "unconditional surrender" entails.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@beckyromero Seems the Israelis are doing a good job of that already

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@sunsporter1649

Not quite. Their target list is nowhere that extensive. Nor their capabilities to do so..

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@beckyromero

"THAT is what "unconditional surrender" entails."

Like the unconditional surrender in Iraq, no doubt. 🙄

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Thinkerbell

Like the unconditional surrender in Iraq, no doubt.

That is what I think SHOULD have been the demand by the U.S. in 1991.

Then there wouldn't have been a need to keep bases in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region, nor the need for a second war against Iraq.

My thoughts on the matter have been well documented here on SW.

Including this one:

People who say that the Muslim world will need decades, even centuries, to ''reform'' itself are wrong. Change need not take that long. One needs only to look at the Protestant Reformation, the end of slavery in the United States, the Russian and Chinese revolutions, the U.S. Civil Rights movement of the mid-20th Century or, especially, the economic and cultural rebuilding of Japan following World War II, to see examples of rapid cultural change.

Furthermore the idea of Iraq, in its current state, becoming a democratic model for the Middle East is a farce.

What kind of modern democracy denies basic human rights to over half of its population?

...

https://similarworlds.com/442893-I-Am-Disgusted-By-Saudi-ArabiaS-Treatment-Of-Women/2119388-Islamic-Society-Needs-a-Feminist-Revolution-As-the
August 7, 2018
(I originally published this story on a now-defunct blog, September 2, 2006, and then later on [iThe Experience Project.[/i])

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Thinkerbell

Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf had wanted the Iraqis to sign a surrender document onboard the battleship USS Missouri in the Persian Gulf, with the ceremony broadcast throughout Iraq so that the Iraqi people would know, without a doubt, how badly Saddam Hussein brought them down in defeat.

It is possible just that alone would have lead to his humiliation in front of his own people and downfall.

But Schwarzkopf was overruled and then the Iraqis were allowed to use military helicopters throughout the country, which they would use to attack the Kurds in the north and the Shia's in the south.

The "surrender" instead became weak ceasefire agreement signed under a tent in the desert.

Ideally, Saddam Hussein should have been put on trial BACK THEN, by an international tribunal and charged, among other crimes, for using chemical weapons on Iranian civilians during the Iran-Iraq war.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@beckyromero

"That is what I think SHOULD have been the demand by the U.S. in 1991.

Then there wouldn't have been a need to keep bases in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region, nor the need for a second war against Iraq."

No need...? 🙄
You are forgetting two things.

1. We had the backing of other Arab states in 1991 only for the purpose of expelling Saddam from Kuwait.

2. The Islamofascists were in Iran, necessitating keeping our bases on the Arabian peninsula, no matter what happened with Iraq and Saddam.

"Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf had wanted the Iraqis to sign a surrender document onboard the battleship USS Missouri in the Persian Gulf...."

Surrender what? Kuwait? That had already de facto happened, document or no document. And no, it was not likely that Saddam would be overthrown by his own people, what with his Secret Police. The most that could be expected was his replacement by some other Baathist tyrant.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Thinkerbell

1. We had the backing of other Arab states in 1991 only for the purpose of expelling Saddam from Kuwait.

We did NOT need their military support. (We didn't even need their UN votes; the motion carried with only two "nays.")

UN Resolution 678 authorized use of force included the phrase "to restore international peace and security in the area."

It did NOT limit military action solely to Kuwait. As the war record indicates.

2. The Islamofascists were in Iran, necessitating keeping our bases on the Arabian peninsula, no matter what happened with Iraq and Saddam.

We didn't have military bases in Saudi Arabia before the invasion of Kuwait. Nor did we need them if Iraq's military was destroyed and Hussein removed from power.

Some neo-cons will argue, "But Iran..."

Iran was in no position in 1991 to launch a successul military invasion of a boarding school, let alone Saudi Arabia.

it was not likely that Saddam would be overthrown by his own people...

And yet that it was CIA-supported radio in Iraq was encouraging the Iraqi people to do.

what with his Secret Police. The most that could be expected was his replacement by some other Baathist tyrant.

Not if we had "obliterated" the Republican Guard units, as Gen. Barry McCaffrey was in a position to do.

And don't forget,, the Baathist regime was supported by Sunni Muslims, the clear minority in Iraq.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@beckyromero

"And don't forget,, the Baathist regime was supported by Sunni Muslims, the clear minority in Iraq."

Yes, and if the Shia Muslims had taken over after a Baathist downfall, we would have been in the same situation we subsequently found ourselves vis-a-vis Iran.

beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP

@Thinkerbell

Yes, and if the Shia Muslims had taken over after a Baathist downfall, we would have been in the same situation we subsequently found ourselves vis-a-vis Iran.

How so?

By them having them KNOWINGLY realize we HELPED liberate them from Baath tyranny?

For starting to build a bridge to better relations with IRAN, by demanding justice for the chemical weapons that were used by Hussein?

No, I disagree with you, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell.

I will instead side with Margaret Thatcher. You need to PUNISH dictators and/or remove them from power. What we did was give Hussein a slap on the wrists in 1990-91.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@beckyromero

"By them having them KNOWINGLY realize we HELPED liberate them from Baath tyranny?"

Which we did in 2003.
Didn't help then, nor would it have in 1991.

"For starting to build a bridge to better relations with IRAN, by demanding justice for the chemical weapons that were used by Hussein?"

Not a chance. The islamofascists in Iran were always hell-bent on destroying Israel. Any "better relations" with the US would have been (and were) used to further that goal.