To be fair, I only ever say that I won't vote for him in a primary. And I won't. We can do way better.

They understand. They just don't care. It's not THEIR doors being kicked in. And besides, their billionaire owners like Trump and want to keep him around.

Another option would be to take him on a plane, fly up to at least 10k feet above sea level, shoot a hole in the window, and watch as he gets sucked out into the upper atmosphere.

I'm just pointing out that there are options, not expressing preference here.

Maybe not completely sidestepped, but their impact will be diminished as more and more people get information from elsewhere and tune out of what they have to offer.

From my perspective, there are certain media orgs I'll never trust again, unless/until they undergo massive seismic changes, and most of them are legacy media outlets (e.g., WaPo, NYT, network TV, etc.). The gatekeepers of the late 20th Cent., basically.

I think they could be sidestepped by '28.

I agree with this in broad strokes, but one thing that might scramble matters is an anti-media backlash that would be seen in the wake of the Trump years. This could dilute the impact of traditional media outlets who would almost certainly savage AOC and hound her campaign.

Ah, some of my favorite haunts back in that era.

That was also back when Flavors of the Avenue on EPA was brand new. Good times for food and drink.

That, also, is separate from people *in* the regime, who I think get treated very, very differently from the folks who merely supported it from afar. One group gets social consequences. The other gets *legal* consequences.

I suspect that last part will trip up most people, because while they may accept that they *perceived* MAGA wrong, and got suckered themselves, they'll want to turn themselves into a victim to avoid the responsibility of making amends.

Broad strokes, I'm for the opportunity for redemption, but that requires genuine contrition, and actual *work* to make amends. During that process, the person must also banish their ego, and recognize they aren't entitled to forgiveness from their victims.

Mind you, the people saying this will still feign that they want democracy, voting rights, etc.

But it's a lie.

They want dominance with the *trappings* of democracy to legitimize that dominance. And that requires anti-democratic structures to be maintained. The Senate, the EC, etc.

Had this exact realization from my own such debates. I remember arguing with one guy in particular who came out and basically said that rural areas' votes should be weighted higher so their voices can't be drowned out.

Fundamentally, it goes back to dominance and a rejection of democracy itself.

All of the majority threats to EVERYTHING are coming from the right!

That's not how this kind of thing works. The approach is the same as in 2020: raise enough questions to justify claiming you won regardless of the result, then trust that your goons in government make it so.

Again, this fails to understand the backlash that will likely occur.

Ah yes. More kayfabe.

Sure seems like the real, underlying problem is either:

(A) Power protects power,

(B) The culture of the people in modern politics in the US and EU is incapable of meeting the moment, or

(C) Both of the above.

There's an Elvis Costello song about something like this, although it was applied to Margaret Thatcher.

I think of it fondly from time to time.

Has there been an examination of small dollar donors for primary challengers?

If my current rep wasn't retiring already, I'd be supporting a challenger as long as they didn't suck.

Maybe the small dollar donors are just sick of these guys.

I'm especially interested in *how* they answer the question. Lots of ambiguous language/refusal to say one way or the other? Clear yes/no? How is their language couched? (e.g., "Yes, providing there is an exhaustive investigation"/"Yes, if everyone else agrees"/etc.)