This woman also said, “You violated the law, you are not entitled to due process," because she apparently doesn’t know what due process is.

Yeah, this is common on all issues. Political hacks are adept at turning things into partisan issues with branding when we all agree on them. Ask a conservative if they like Socialism and they’ll say hell no, but ask them if they support labor unions, minimum wages, social security, UBI, etc., you’ll find lots of support.

It’s the same with guns; gun control is a scary plot by the left to take away your guns, but sure, they support reasonable measures universal background checks, permits, and restrictions in certain large-capacity weapons. Just so long as it’s not gun control!

Do me a favor and search, “FDR New Deal.”

TL;DR: the filibuster. The thing the Democrats say they can’t abolish because they need it to block the Republican agenda. Even though they just refused to use it to block a Republican agenda.

But it won’t. Hakeem Jefferies will have his members wear, “How will this lower the cost of eggs?” t-shirts as they’re obediently led in front of firing squads.

Bernie is too old and he knows it. He’s not gonna run. AOC has a pretty bad favorable to unfavorable ratio nationally. That’s not automatically disqualifying; numbers aren’t set in stone, and a lot could change between now and 2028, but she’s not starting from the same place of broad appeal that Sanders did. As much as I love both of them, we need to look beyond the same two people for progressive candidates.

As someone else already said, there is functionally no difference in terms of what he’s doing to our country. But if we elevate unverified nonsense about Trump being a secret sleeper agent, it makes credible evidence of Russian influence seem less credible.

LOL, you’re literally doing the thing I’m describing. You’re making an outlandish claim (that I am a paid Russian agent) that’s going to make a real issue (Russian online disinformation campaigns) seem less credible. If your reaction to someone saying, “Trump is clearly in Russia’s pocket, but you should be wary of outlandish claims with unverified sources,” is, “you must be a Russian propagandist,” you need to touch grass.

“I can’t believe it so it’s likely untrue,” is a fundamental misinterpretation of what I’m saying. “There is enough evidence of a Trump/Russia connection without unreliable sources,” would be more accurate.

Believing unverified claims has consequences. Remember the Steele dossier, with its wild allegations of blackmail and urinating prostitutes? It’s now pretty much entirely discredited due to unreliable sources, and the very real, very clear connection between Trump and Russia lost credibility with it.

Similarly, the Mueller investigation was also undermined by outlandish claims. Left-leaning grifters like Louise Mensch and the Krassenstein brothers made predictions of imminent arrests and treason charges. When the Mueller Report was finally released, it stated that, while there wasn’t enough evidence to say Trump definitively colluded with Russia, there was no evidence to clear him of that charge, and he committed criminal obstruction of justice during the course of the investigation. That should have been a damning conclusion, but after months of wild speculation and overhype, it was labeled a nothing-burger.

So, I’m going to remain skeptical of an old KGB agent’s Facebook post about a 38 year plot to recruit Donald Trump as a spy, and instead stick to what is known: Trump has long had business dealings with Russian oligarchs, the Russian government supported him through online propaganda, there were credible accusations of collusion between his campaign and Russia, and he is now promoting a pro-Russia foreign policy. That’s significant enough.

And that is not saying, “I can’t believe the world is round so Occam’s razor it must be flat because that I can understand.” That’s saying, “I can see the Earth is curved, and while some people claim we’re actually on the back of giant turtle, Occam’s Razor says it’s probably just round.”

I’m always skeptical of claims like this. Don’t get me wrong, Trump is actively working to advance the Russian agenda, and Russia has actively supported him financially and through propaganda. But I’m wary of tales of kompromat or clandestine, decades long KGB plots.

Occam’s razor, I think Trump is a piece of shit that would destroy his own country to make a quick buck, and Putin offered him a quick buck. Honestly, elaborate Manchurian Candidate conspiracies would probably be less scary than the idea that our entire democracy can collapse because one real-estate conman was willing to sell us all out.

I mean, yeah, if you want to have a populous movement, you can’t do it without half the country. Also, sure, hardcore MAGA voters are fragile, racist, white working class folks, but the majority of people in these districts aren’t that type of voter. Most of them are low information voters who pulled the lever for Trump because they liked one or two things he said in a speech. Even more of them are people who just didn’t like either candidate and decided their vote wasn’t important. We need to activate those people and get them to scream at their Senators and Congressmen if we want to stop Trump and Musk from gutting our democracy.

Reminder that Bannon is an ethno-fascist who’s just pissy that he’s been sidelined for techno-fascists. If his goals align with anti-fascists for the moment, great, but don’t for a second think that he is any less vile or dangerous than Trump, Musk, or any of the other chittering goobers that are gnawing away at our democracy right now.

Exactly. Also, be prepared to do it in stages. I’m sure a lot of people probably aren’t ready to admit that voting for Trump was a mistake, but they might be willing to admit that Trump is making mistakes by starting a trade war or giving Musk so much power. Take what common ground you find and try to build on it.

I know it’s tempting to dunk on these people, but if you know anyone like this, tell them to call their Senator and voice their displeasure. They probably won’t listen, and they deserve their, “leopards ate my face,” moment, but trying to mobilize them would be far more productive than saying, “told you so.”

Yeah. They spend their elections chasing moderates, then when the moderates don’t vote for them, they blame the progressives.

Yup. We’re past the pre-election period where progressive groups are loud minority that need to be ignored because listening to their fringe views will alienate the average voter. Now we’re in the post-election period, where progressive groups are powerful bullies who cost the Democrats the election because they wouldn’t meet their unreasonable demands.

I was also surprised that Pelosi and Schumer wanted Ben Wikler, but I doubt Ken Martin means change. He seems likely to maintain the DNC’s status quo.

His opponent was way better. He wanted to audit all of the DNC’s consultanting contracts, which would have put people who keep getting lucrative contracts to lose elections (like Jennifer O’Malley Dillon and David Plouffe) in the cross hairs. Meanwhile, Martin wants to keep taking money from, “good billionaires,” are condemned pro-Palestinian protesters.

I’m 90% sure he was the one who ruined Congressman Dean Phillips’ (D-MN) career. If you don’t know, Phillips was the one guy who (correctly) thought Biden was in serious jeopardy of losing and tried to get the party to hold a real primary. He ran against Biden and begged other Democrats to join him. Not only did no one help him primary Biden, but two Democrats decided to primary him instead. He decided not to run for reelection, since it was pretty clear his own party was running him out of politics.

Ken Martin was the head of the MN Democrats at the time, so it’s hard to believe any Democrats would primary Phillips without at least consulting him. He was also very critical of Phillips for running and made this incredibly passive-aggressive statement when he decided not to seek reelection:

We appreciate Dean’s service and his 100% voting record supporting President Biden’s historic record of accomplishments. There are a number of talented DFLers who would be great representatives for Minnesota’s third district and who understand the importance of reelecting President Biden and keeping this seat in DFL hands. I’m confident we will have a strong and loyal nominee for the DFL Party at the conclusion of the process.

This lady who had to resign from her town council after doing it. I thought there was at least one other, but I can’t find it now.