snip ...

But look, I'm not running for Congress, either, so I'll just say it: I will never stop referring to the 77 million voters who re-elected Donald Trump as suckers and dummies. I will always and forever hold them responsible for the disruption pornography that used to be flawed but normal American politics.

George Carlin observed that stupid ignorant voters give us stupid ignorant politicians. Garbage in, garbage out, he said. If you voted for Donald knowing about his criminality, his cozy relationship with tyrants, his self-dealing - if you knew about January 6; his criminally negligent response to COVID, leading to 400,000 American suffocation deaths during his final 10 months in office; and of course his screechy propaganda war against the truth, against reality, and against American values, you deserve not only the crap end of the lollipop but also the shame and ridicule of those who tried to warn you.

snip ...

When I'm told that we shouldn't shame these people, I don't know who they're talking about. I have no idea specifically which Trump voters regret their choice versus the 35 percent or so who will never regret it. How on Earth do we pick the gnat sh*% out of the pepper? Sorry, but they're all equally responsible for this crisis, regret or not. No takebacks. 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.

I get their justifications, as twisted and nearsighted as they are. Some of these people voted for Donald because they couldn't bring themselves to support a Black woman. Some of them voted for him because they were concerned about grocery prices. Some voters, including many liberals, decided not to vote for president at all and either stayed home or skipped that part of their ballots, allowing Donald to win with a narrow plurality of the popular vote and therefore fueling the bogus claim of a mandate for his horrendous Project 2025 agenda.

#5 Eberly, you are absolutely the last person I would feel warrants this, but after reading the first line of your retort ("Who in God's name are you talking about? Normal Trump voters? Normal republican party voters?"), this feels only appropriate:

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

When the author says, "...welcome them back into the Normals clubhouse..." he is referring to those voters who were not stupid enough to vote for Trump in 2024 after all he said and did before November, 2024.

And that would be you.

Right ? ? ? ?

#9 Then I would suggest that you see an otolaryngologist, Eb.

#14 Eb, please stop digging.

#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?

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

#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."

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

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

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."

#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.

#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...

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

#39 Thanks, Corky.

#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.

#52 Eb, you seem to be in an out-of-context mood today.

But go ahead and cherry pick one sentence out of a post and straw away.

#54 I see you are being obstinate as well as cherry picking.

Oh, and lying by omission is still lying:

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.

Cherry picking - while ignoring the entire context of my post, and lying by omission (ignoring the part about why: Anything contrary to that advice is only giving aid and comfort to the Republican Party and its candidates) is the very definition of out-of-context and lying.

Care to double-down?

#57 If Kamala Harris runs in 2028, her loss in 2024 will seem like a walk-in-the-park in comparison to her devastating defeats in Democratic primary after primary in early 2028.

#59 Just what have I refused to answer, Eb?

#52 Why?

MY PREVIOUS ANSWER:

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.").

MY PREVIOUS ANSWER:

("and you are spot-on target with many of your criticisms)

MY PREVIOUS ANSWER:

(ignoring the part about why: Anything contrary to that advice is only giving aid and comfort to the Republican Party and its candidates)

You were the last person I would have suspected to be incapable of understand the English language, but here we are.

Was I too nuanced for you?

Or are you just in favor of internecine warfare... so long as it helps to defeat Democrats? **

** See: There's another answer to your "why," Eb.

#63 Then you're not really interested in what I thought was our mutual goal: 2. The Democrats gain the majority and (maybe) Jeffries will become Speaker.

Clown, as I said earlier, you are spot-on in many of your criticisms.

But, at this politically perilous time, now is not the time to engage in internecine warfare because Democrats aren't perfect. Now is not the time to lambast people who would naturally count you as an ally.

Anything and everything taking away from what I thought was our mutual goal: 2. The Democrats gain the majority and (maybe) Jeffries will become Speaker. only helps the Republicans.

I am sorry that you cannot see that as clearly as I can - and as others can see - so your often times, over-the-top internecine warfare will continue, unabated.

Noted.

But, like others I have crossed on this very topic - internecine warfare - you seem more interested in demanding purity over power, and airing as much dirty Democratic laundry as you can, and to what end I have no idea.

If you were truly interested in changing the Democratic Party, there are effective and proven ways of doing so, as an individual and as a member of a team dedicated to the same goals.

But, you are uninterested in doing that and, again, to what end I have no idea.

So, again, noted, Clown ... with a deep sense of sorrow on my part. I have always admired you, and felt that we were fighting the good fight, together.

I was wrong.