Are we expecting the Democratic party to actually support him? Seems the national leadership would rather see someone else in his spot.

I’m trying to determine if we are using words to mean the same things. It seems we are not.

Since I don’t take issue with your goals, only your vocabulary, I suppose that continuing to discuss it is pointless.

Would you claim that the soap box failed of no-one spoke against him?

Would you claim the jury box failed if he was never brought to trial?

What liberty are you talking about? The liberty of approved leaders? It’s a failure because we voted for a bad leader?

We got the leader we voted for. The failure is in the people.

That’s not my idea of liberty at all. But you can’t say the ballot box failed, just because the people elected the worst president in the history of people in suits.

So, you propose to enforce liberty by not letting us choose our own leaders? Democracy, as long as your approve our choices?

This is an abomination.

Put it in the pile with the others.

No-one hates democracy like a Republican.

Interesting. That’s a good origin, and makes sense. They should have explained that a bit in the article, though.

Thanks for the extra info.

Why is the word “trade” in the headline?

new term, “TACO trade,” an acronym

And what is it doing here?

I’m gonna be extra nasty to him.

Agreed on all points. But rational thinking is necessary for a functioning democracy.

As you observe, that’s one reason we don’t have one.

I think you missed the entire point of my statement, which, amusingly, proves my point.

The older generations get pissy about being called the “Democrat party” rather than “Democratic party,” which, to be fair, is the proper name. But it’s really a stupid thing to get worked up over.

The fact that you didn’t even realize that I we talking about such a silly little thing is reasonably good evidence that it is, in fact, irrelevant to modern democrats.

The DNC can do far better, yes. But the voters can also do better. Thinking critically is an important part of participating in democracy.

As I said before the election, there was no option that did not include US funded murder of children. If Trump had been an outspoken opponent of the war in Gaza, (and we had any reason to believe him) then I could see the argument. But that was not the case, was it?

When your choice is keeping the status quo, or everything getting a lot worse, that doesn’t seem to be a difficult choice.

Democrat Party

This “red flag” is meaningless to people broke the age of 50 or so. I am a Democrat. I vote for the candidate who is a Democrat. Obama was a Democrat.

I don’t have time to get pissy over the difference between the noun and the adjective. If that’s all the points they can score on us, they are welcome to them.

The review by 538 is a much more important judgement.

Best we keep reminding them of it.

I’m not a huge fan of intrinsically connecting medication for sexual function with medication for gender-affirming care.

If that were the case, then bottom-surgery wouldn’t be gender affirming care either.

Or maybe I’m just misunderstanding the entire concept. To date, I’ve never seen a single concrete statement on the topic that doesn’t upset someone (discounting bloody right-wingers for whom the entire concept is upsetting, bless their hearts) because it somehow invalidates someone else.

However, we seem to be in agreement that these people are raging assholes, and that’s the important takeaway.

ED meds are gender affirming care, aren’t they? If they are gonna cut it out of military spending, cut all of it out.

They can just have Congress give the nod, and it would all be legal and correct. But for some reason, they don’t seem to want to do that.