#104 Thank you, Clown. :-)

#100 Don't be daft, bell boi.

Liberals know precisely the difference between a man and a woman:

A woman is a human being who places her hand over the top of her drink when you walk behind her in a bar.

You're welcome.

snip ...

The linked article contains interviews with the leaders of some of these groups, who offer all-purpose explanations for what's going on. For example, the fellow who created the National African American Gun Association says, "People join when certain people get in office, because it scares them. People join when they see these shootings across the country, and it seems like it's just madness starting to grow more and more."

That may be partly on target, but it goes beyond that, we think. First of all, it's been well established in the scientific literature that conservatives tend to be more fearful than liberals. So, "gun sales surge in response to the election of Barack Obama"? OK, that tracks. But "gun sales surge in response to the election of Donald Trump"? It works less well and, in fact, it didn't happen. The visible increase in left-wing gun ownership, and left-wing interest in gun ownership, did not come with the first or second swearings-in of Trump (or, for that matter, after the first or second swearings-in of George W. Bush). It came after ICE was deployed as the President's personal stormtroopers.

snip ...

The problem for Trump, of course, is that the Second Amendment doesn't lay things out in quite that way. Reasonable people can disagree about the meaning of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...," but whatever the interpretation of that clause is, it applies to everyone equally. And since Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly from the current SCOTUS, has made clear that "A well regulated Militia" means "pretty much everyone," then the current state of play is that nearly any adult in the U.S. who wants a gun, and follows the local laws, can have one.

In their desperate attempts to make Alex Pretti responsible for his own homicide (see above), Trump and MAGA have tried to push a line along the lines of "if you're carrying a gun in the presence of police, you're asking for it." The NRA and other gun groups, to their credit, instantly pushed back against this. These groups may be rather fanatical, and most of them may be thinly veiled fronts for the gun industry, but at least they are not hypocrites. And the fact that MAGA and the NRA are on different sides here has given us one of the more interesting and unexpected squabbles in recent political history.

And if that's not weird and unexpected enough, Second Amendment advocates find themselves with a new source of reinforcements these days: liberals. There have always been left-leaning gun groups, groups that exist to serve folks who want guns for the most common reasons (hunting, self-defense, etc.) and who happen to be politically liberal, or groups that exist to help make sure that vulnerable people (e.g., LGBTQ+) are armed as an insurance policy. At the moment, and in response to the violence in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago and other cities, left-leaning gun groups like L.A. Progressive Shooters (left-wing Angelenos), Pink Pistols Twin Cities (gay Minnesotans), Grassroots Defense (liberal Iowans), the National African American Gun Association (Black people) and the John Brown Gun Club (anti-fascists/anti-racists) are seeing a massive surge in interest.

#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.

#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.

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

#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.

#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?

#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.

#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.

#39 Thanks, Corky.

#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

#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.

#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."

#7 Actually, it was Rick Wilson who posits the $300,000,000.00 GOP spree I spoke about in my #6.

As for the loss, between 2020 and 2024, of 6,265,888 supporters, how many of those lost votes were specifically in the 7 swing states in 2024?

That's where the 2024 election was decided.

Several million stay at home/vote Trump/3rd party votes spread across solidly blue states did not affect the election.

All Trump and the GOP needed was just enough votes to swing the swing counties, in the 7 swing states, to move the election to Trump.

In that case, playing the margins was sufficient.

#69 Eberly says, "I register as a republican due to where I live."

100% correct.

If you live in a closed-primary state, and one party is basically non-existent (politically-speaking), then it is prudent to register in a party where your vote might make a difference.

Eb, I think I remember that correctly.

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

#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."

#66 Libertarians are conservatives who smoke weed.

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

#3 Absolutely 100%, C0RI0LANUS.

#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?

#5 I believe that there's a much simpler explanation for the Harris/Walz loss in 2024:

Throughout the month of October, 2024, the Trump campaign (and associated entities) spent $300,000,00.00 on ads in all 7 swing states during televised NFL and NCAA football games. The topic of all of those ads? Then-CA Attorney General Kamala Harris' 2019 response to a question about a Trump administration dictate on gender-affirming (read: trans) care for federal inmates.

And the amount of money the Harris campaign spent countering those ads in the swing states during NFL and NCAA football games? You know, to point out the truth that she was simply responding to a question about a Trump administration dictate on gender-affirming for federal inmates? To counter the deceptive, the lying-by-omission ads run by Trump & company?

Zero dollars

The efficacy of this strategy was born out election night, 2024, when Steve Kornacki was calling individual counties (starting with Pennsylvania) and highlighting that the Harris/Walz ticket was falling short of votes as opposed to the votes in the 2020 election for the Biden/Harris ticket. His reporting was, in effect, a death by 1,000 cuts for Harris/Walz.

Trump & company knew that all it would take would be the suppression of Biden votes in 2024 by just a point or two for Trump to carry those counties, all 7 swing states and, ultimately, the election. They judged, correctly, that men - men of color and white - would be turned off enough by the "pro-trans" Harris that they voted for Trump, or didn't vote at all.

Either way, mission accomplished.

#13 Bravo, YodaGirl ... Bravo!