Will You Forgive the Voters Who Did This to America?

#9 Again, I never thought I would have to say this to you, Eb, but try reading the the entire article before you retort.

Cherry picking a single line out of the entire article, and pointing to that, is very unlike you, Eb.

See also: Context

-Cherry picking a single line out of the entire article, and pointing to that, is very unlike you, Eb

Actually, I cut and pasted what you posted which, technically could be defined as what you cherry picked out of the article.

But I still don't see how I misunderstood the author. I did read the article. The author IS referring to 2024 Trump voters. You're suggesting he's referring to voters who didn't vote for Trump in 2024.

but, as you suggested, I'll go seek the medical services you determined I'm in need of earlier.

LOL

#14 Eb, please stop digging.

The rules here are no copy/paste the entire article as per the DMCA.

And you knew that, right ? ? ? ?

"You're suggesting he's referring to voters who didn't vote for Trump in 2024." = What the author referred to as the "Normals clubhouse".

I am still amazed that you don't/can't/will not understand that.

The US is full of one lever voters.

This isn't a one party is at fault.

The voters are hooked on the two parry system.

Who has run the country for 200+ years?
Who ran up the National Debt?
Why aren't the laws perfect?
Both parties have controlled the Legislative and Executive branches, yet voters still wonder why their previous positions aren't solidified in law?

The "supposedly" independent voters are screwing around.

Every election board is driven by two parties. Every freaking judge is of one of the two ruling parties.

The only votes wasted aren't the third party voters.

Its the damn two party voters that haven't learned a damn thing in 200+ years.

No, it's BS to claim one is better than the other.

Why haven't both parties shoved laws we want through when they have it all?

The only votes wasted aren't the third party voters.
Its the damn two party voters that haven't learned a damn thing in 200+ years.
No, it's BS to claim one is better than the other.
Why haven't both parties shoved laws we want through when they have it all?
Posted by Petrous at 2026-01-29 02:52 PM | Reply

Bears repeating.

Why haven't both parties shoved laws we want through when they have it all?
Posted by Petrous at 2026-01-29 02:52 PM | Reply

Money is why.
Both parties are dependent on private money to fund their election campaigns.

While both parties are required to play by the same rules, only the Republican party fought and won for unlimited dark money in American politics.

As a result, for the past twenty years, Russia has been funneling money through the NRA to Republican candidates.
Republicans didn't set that in motion because it benefits We The People.

"The voters are hooked on the two parry system."

The Constitution is the hook.
People who seem like they can figure out water is wet don't seem to be able to make that connection, for whatever reason.

Our Constitution created a winner take all system.
That system might start out as one winner and ten losers, but not for long.
The ten losers are going to join forces to try to take on the one winner.

#16 Petrous says, "Its the damn two party voters that haven't learned a damn thing in 200+ years."

Questions: In all of those 200+ years, how many presidents have been of any party other than the Democratic Party or the Republican Party (following the death of the Whigs)?

And in that same period, how many governors and state legislatures have been elected, outside of the 2-party system, for more than just an historical fluke?

And in that same period, which political party held the majority in the halls of Congress (Senate and House) other than the Democratic Party and the Republican Party?

As for "The only votes wasted aren't the third party voters", how many of those third-party voters were the deciding factor in helping to elect anyone other than the candidates of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?

'Tis all fine and well to place the blame on "party" voters, but what viable options do voters have besides wasting their votes on third party candidates - with no chance of victory - while simultaneously helping to actually elect candidates that might very well be the antithesis of their beliefs?

-The voters are hooked on the two parry system.

People claim they would like a better party but in reality, they don't care about another party enough to support one.

Despite their protestations, folks are just too lazy and apathetic to actually get away from the 2 parties.

It's not the voters, Eberly.

It's the structure of society.

It's much bigger than the voters.

No, it's the public. A huge segment of our population simply does not vote or pay attention.

#21 That, Eb, plus the electoral "success" of third-party candidates makes any person take a somewhat jaundiced view towards such candidates.

I admire folks like Mamdani who can run an alternative platform but not even in NYC will there be another party of consequence.

Mamdani will win by attracting dems and counting on a weak GOP candidate.

I will always boil down to the 2 parties....and who shows up.

Re 25

Because we do not listen and we cannot learn from history.

Apparently.

In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington profoundly warned that political factions and partisan, geographical allegiances would destroy American unity, foster a "spirit of revenge," and allow "cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men" to usurp power. He argued that excessive party loyalty divides the nation, distracts public councils, and enfeebles the government.

#16 Petrous says, "it's BS to claim one is better than the other."

A Democratic president did not nominate, to the SCOTUS, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanagh, or Amy Coney Barrett.

A Republican president did not nominate, to the SCOTUS, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

But, yeah, they're both the "same."

"folks are just too lazy and apathetic to actually get away from the 2 parties."

That's also pointedly missing the point of how change actually comes about. What you're doing, voting for the moderates, is how change is affected. From within. You're failing at it, but you've got the right idea.

MAGA got what they want not by starting a new party, but by completely taking over the Republican Party and turning it into the American Nazi Party. Change comes from within.

Reagan, as you know full well, did a massive amnesty for immigrants. If Reagan did that today, he'd get shot, and not by a crazy person trying to impress Jodie Foster, but by a Patriotic Republican trying to save America from an invasion of filthy disease carrying mud races Who admittedly would also be a crazy person, but his crazy is 100% aligned with today's Republican Party.

Because Republicans changed. That Republican party left you a long time ago, Eberly.

She's not coming back.

I will always boil down to the 2 parties....and who shows up.
#25 | Posted by eberly

Well, we're getting to "who is allowed to show up" territory now.
But yes, in a functioning democracy, this is all that really matters. Turnout.

#25 Mamdani was the Democratic nominee for mayor of NYC:

Democrats sweep key elections as Mamdani wins NYC mayor's race

"I admire folks like Mamdani who can run an alternative platform but not even in NYC will there be another party of consequence."

Yes but there's no other alternative.
To get a Parliament would require a Constitutional Amendment.
For obvious reasons, neither party in a Duopoly has anything to gain by allowing other parties to join the fun.

Perot did pretty well in '92. Huey Long probably should have won in the 30s.
But there's no sustained third party in this country because there's no unmet need that would drive the moneyed interests to fund a third party.

"Two parties" the illusion of choice.

You either get the democrat who has to dance for the billionaires approval or republican who has to dance for the billionaires approval.

George Carlin - Elections are a Charade - starts at 3:15

"Elections are the illusion of choice."
-George Carlin

#32 Clown says, ""Two parties" the illusion of choice."

A Republican president did not nominate, to the SCOTUS, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

But, yeah, they're both the "same."

Washington was the only unaffiliated president we had.

No, the author isn't talking about "normal" Trump voters or "normal" GOPyer voters.

The author is talking about anybody who voted for Trump who regrets their vote, which is currently a lot of people who normally vote for the Republican Party.

These same people will vote for whoever the Republican candidate is in 2028, especially if it's Trump.

Expressing frustration that Trump's policies are affecting them isn't going to change who they decide to vote for, because Republican policies always adversely affect poor people, and yet every election they go back for more.

Eberly's right, these people won't learn anything.

And as for "moderates", like KXRW, they're still blaming Democrats. They're still worried they'll wake up as the opposite gender should democrats win.

Red states are gonna remain red, blue states are gonna remain blue, swing states are gonna be turning red thanks to efforts of MAGA Republicans and their billionaire owners.

Well, Biden spent four years singing Kumbaya and hoping for bipartisanship, Republicans figured out how to dismantle American democracy and take control of this country.

#35 Clown says: "The author is talking about anybody who voted for Trump who regrets their vote, which is currently a lot of people who normally vote for the Republican Party."

100% correct.

But the author goes on to say, about anybody who voted for Trump who regrets their vote:

In fact, I would argue that the ones who regret it now should've known better and are therefore more guilty for manifesting such a colossal disaster.

The author says no "Kumbaya" for them; they deserve even moreridicule.

A Democratic president did not nominate,

Well then they failed.

Obama failed to secure a Supreme Court justice.

Obama also failed to prevent Trump from becoming the Republican primary candidate. Especially considering we now know how much information was available about Putin's connection to Trump.

The DNC failed by nominating Hillary when it was obvious the Republican Party had a strategy on how to defeat her.

The DNC also failed again when Biden was in office to hold Trump accountable for inciting the insurrection, or any of Republicans in Congress, who incited the insurrection and signed an oath saying they will not recognize Biden as president of the United States, guilty of treason to the United States.

Then the DNC failed when they threw Harris at America four months before the election.

Democrats have failed America.

And currently they're doing nothing more than writing strongly, worded letters of disapproval while voting to fund ICE.

#37 Clown, there's a singular fact I would appreciate a straightforward, no caveat answer:

FACT: In this upcoming election, in November 2026, the results are going to be either...

A continuation of a GOP majority led by Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson; or
The Democrats gain the majority and (maybe) Jeffries will become Speaker

Which one do you want: 1 or 2?

The problem with the both sides thing is that given an opportunity to vote for a good public financing bill, most Dems would vote for it, most GOPhers not so much.

As it is now, if they don't take the big money they can't by big media so they can't get elected.

It's the law that needs to change in favor of the People, not the Elites.

Here's some ideas, and some that already werk:

www.google.com

The problem with the both sides thing is that given an opportunity to vote for a good public financing bill, most Dems would vote for it, most GOPhers not so much.
As it is now, if they don't take the big money they can't by big media so they can't get elected.
It's the law that needs to change in favor of the People, not the Elites.
Here's some ideas, and some that already werk:
www.google.com

Posted by Corky at 2026-01-29 04:03 PM | Reply

You're so full of BS it's not even funny. If you want to get big money out of elections then you need to lead by example. You can't say you're against big money at the same time as you are taking big money donations. Nobody is going to believe you if you do that.

-And as for "moderates", like KXRW, they're still blaming Democrats. They're still worried they'll wake up as the opposite gender should democrats win.

speaking for myself, I'm surrounded by Trumpers who still blame democrats for everything.

They might very well regret a Trump vote but that's likely to remain private and they under no circumstances are going to accept an olive branch in a manner suggested by the author. He's contemplating not offering said olive branch to folks who couldn't give a ---- less if he offered it anyway.

Regret or not....they aren't interested in being forgiven by the left.

Good. Because Lincoln was wrong. We should have burned the south to the ground and slaughtered every single one of those traitorus dogs. We won't make the same mistake this time.

I would appreciate a straightforward, no caveat answer:

Ideally with a better candidate as Speaker.

We should have burned the south to the ground

The lack of repercussions and consequences for confederates will always be reason why America still so deeply rooted in racism, especially in the south.

You can't say you're against big money at the same time as you are taking big money donations. Nobody is going to believe you if you do that.
#41 | Posted by LauraMohr

If Eberly can be a Republican and be against what Republicans are doing, I don't see the problem with Corky being a Democrat and being against what Democrats are doing.

"We should have burned the south to the ground"

We kinda did?

"The lack of repercussions and consequences for confederates will always be reason why America still so deeply rooted in racism"

Racism was bipartisan back then.

Republicans merely opposed slavery. They didn't support equality.

The notion that blacks should have equal rights was extremely radical and unpopular even after the Civil War. It's like a Republican of today saying Trans people should be accepted as equals.

So you can't blame it all on the South.

The blame rests with Whites. On Both Sides, even.

The notion that blacks should have equal rights was extremely radical and unpopular even after the Civil War

Is it a fantasy to claim America is racist? Does it make you feel superior or something?

Because your statement certainly doesn't match the reality.

The 14th Amendment was passed on July 9, 1868, close to two years after the war.

Following states ratified it ...

Connecticut: June 30, 1866
New Hampshire: July 6, 1866
Tennessee: July 19, 1866
New Jersey: September 11, 1866 (rescinded ratification February 20, 1868/March 24, 1868; re-ratified April 23, 2003)
Oregon: September 19, 1866 (rescinded ratification October 16, 1868; re-ratified April 25, 1973)
Vermont: October 30, 1866
New York: January 10, 1867
Ohio: January 11, 1867 (rescinded ratification January 13, 1868; re-ratified March 12, 2003)
Illinois: January 15, 1867
West Virginia: January 16, 1867
Michigan: January 16, 1867
Minnesota: January 16, 1867
Kansas: January 17, 1867
Maine: January 19, 1867
Nevada: January 22, 1867
Indiana: January 23, 1867
Missouri: January 25, 1867
Pennsylvania: February 6, 1867
Rhode Island: February 7, 1867
Wisconsin: February 13, 1867
Massachusetts: March 20, 1867
Nebraska: June 15, 1867
Iowa: March 16, 1868
Arkansas: April 6, 1868
Florida: June 9, 1868
North Carolina: July 4, 1868 (after rejection December 14, 1866)
Louisiana: July 9, 1868 (after rejection February 6, 1867)
South Carolina: July 9, 1868

#42 Thanks, Clown.

We're on the same page.

And, agreed; I am underwhelmed with Jeffries.

Now, do yourself a favor - and the Democrats you say you want to win in November, 2026 - a favor:

Stop with your incessant damning of the Democratic Party, elected Democrats, the DNC, Democratic presidents, and everything else that is actually working towards our mutual goal: 2. The Democrats gain the majority and (maybe) Jeffries will become Speaker.

Anything contrary to that advice is only giving aid and comfort to the Republican Party and its candidates ("See? Even Democrats can't stand Democrats. Hahahaha.").

If you are truly interested in changing the Democratic Party (and you are spot-on target with many of your criticisms), then there are definite concrete steps that even individuals can take.

But, remember, the GOP has been on their current jag since the Lewis Powell memorandum to the US Chamber of Commerce in August, 1971, and just look at how they have stayed the course laid out in that document for over 55 years, and have succeeded much further than even Powell envisioned.

Changing the Democratic Party should, hopefully, not take a half-century, but it does require that those of us who support the same ideals at least fight in the same direction.

Only overwhelming political power can make a difference**, and there are many, many new, young, up-and-rising Democrats who can help the movement that you and I support. The first step is to get them elected at the local, state and national level.

I've said it before, and I'll repeat it again: Never fear the next generation; at one time we were all the next generation.

** And sorry, Ms. Laura, but in this case it is you who are full of BS. To think that Democrats should eschew the current rules and refuse money (from whatever source), is the height of naivete. The GOP opponents will simply use their unlimited coffers to define the weak, naive Democratic candidate (and laugh and laugh), politically aware political watchers will laugh along with the Republicans, and the rest of the voters will have no other idea of who/what the Democratic candidate is except for what his/her Republican rival says. And such voters usually make their selection in the last few weeks leading up to the election. And they are not going to be impressed with a naive candidate who they may not have even heard of - because he/she had no money to advertise.

No, if you really want to get unlimited money out of politics, your idea of "leading by example," will lead straight to defeat.

But, if you really want to get unlimited, anonymous money out of politics, then there must be overwhelming political power to force a repeal of Citizens United, and pass truly effective campaign/money reform. THAT is leading by example. Oh, and that's not going to happen under Republican rule.