VENTURA COUNTY, Calif. (KEYT) " The Department of Homeland Security is now accusing George Retes, a U.S. citizen taken into custody during federal raids at two marijuana grow locations on July 10 of this year, of assaulting federal agents after he shared his experience of being detained for three days before being released without any charges publicly.

Democrats love him
#35 | Posted by lfthndthrds

How have Democrats shown their love?
Any sweetheart deals, any pardons, any foreign investments, any golden passports?

"You altered what I Wrote."

I replaced Republicans with Killers, which is reasonable, since Republicans are Killers.

Did you get the point I was making by doing that?

the strongest anti-2A argument is your average gun owner.
#29 | Posted by jpw

I'll give you three.

1. The person a gun owner is most likely to kill is: themselves.

2. The person a gun owner is most likely to murder is: Their wife, girlfriend, intimate partner, ex-lover, stalking victim, etc.

3. The person a gun owner is second most likely to see killed with their guns is their own child; be it accident, homicide, or suicide.

All of these things weaken the security of a free state.

While Black children are mostly victims of homicide, white children are more likely to die by firearm suicide.
Two different reasons needs two different actions.
#28 | Posted by Petrous

The same action, getting rid of the guns, would squarely address both problems.
As we observe when looking at other modern countries.

If that helps the Killers, I don't give a shit.
I'm not voting for people who help Killers.
#28 | Posted by Effeteposer

Not giving a shit if you help the killers is a pretty good way to get more killing.

"The Democratic Party is supposed to be Better than the Republicans Morally and Ethically."

You can't win 'em all.
But you can lose 'em all.

But I'm not sure I would even put it in the top five reasons she lost considering those types weren't going to vote for her anyway.
#126 | Posted by jpw

I think it works like this.
If you are racist, and you see a black pilot, you'll think "Boy, I sure hope he's qualified!"
So you start by seeing a black woman candidate, and you find reasons they're not qualified, that you wouldn't go looking for in a while male candidate.
I think it applies some extra weight to those criticisms. It makes them all a little more concerning. We see this type of reaction from cops and judges every day. Or famously in Katrina, when white people were "gathering needed supplies" and black people were "looting."

This isn't something that should take any convincing. It's like like how the NAACP had to find a squeaky clean black person with no criminal record whatsoever to do their bus boycott. Because if if it had been someone with a criminal record, someone who wasn't well spoken, or someone who mouthed off to the cops, well, that would have just been uppity and nobody likes those ones.

This is also how Jackie Robinson who broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball. The owners actually had another player in mind; I can't remember the name. But when they asked him, you know you'll get called all kinds of names, how are you going to react to that, he replied he'd punch someone out if they called him a n-----. So they picked Jackie, who was more willing to let those insults go by and not take them too personally.

People want someone who is as angry
#121 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

It creates a Catch-22. People want someone who is passionate. But when a woman is passionate, she's accused of "acting emotional."
Meanwhile, Trump's twitter storms at 3AM and never gets accused of "acting emotional."
He might be accused of being a bully, or a racist, but he's never burdened with the mere observation of "acting emotional."
"Acting emotional" is an accusation which is only ever levied at women.

For example, whenever Kamala expressed anger, her message was quickly characterized as Just Another Angry Black Woman by right-wing pundits. And that's all they need to say. They don't need to engage with her messaging because the appeal to sexism and racism is sufficient to discredit the speaker and nullify any policy discussion.

So, does that mean Harris lost because misogyny?
#119 | Posted by jpw

I'd put misogyny on the list of reasons for her loss.
I wouldn't strike it from the list. Would you?

JPW, can you give us a quick yes/no on which of these Democrat women you think could be elected:
(For the record, I don't think any of them could be elected, and that's because they are women.)

But you're right, it's simply because she's a woman.
#111 | Posted by jpw

So you are saying a Democrat woman could win, after Hillary, after Kamala?
Can you name that woman? Surely not AOC.
I don't think you can name her.

"The administration is planning to temporarily reduce tariffs"

Remember when Republicans believed in Free Trade and Free Markets?

"I agree this nation is currently way too misogynistic for a woman to win the presidency."

"Thank you for elegantly and perfectly encapsulating why progressivism is a huge ick for most voters."

JPW,

How is your response functionally any different than when Republicans say teaching about slavery is bad because it makes the white people feel bad?

Same concept in play, just being applied to sexism. No?