This article misses the point that Trump voters find Trump's policies to be better than the left and find his antics amusing.
First, to many (esp rural) working class voters, the Democratic Party stands for Jim Crow (rampant DEI), poverty caused by combatting climate change, and sexualizing children in the schools. These are not popular positions.
Second, Democrats need to stop talking about norms, especially democratic norms. Trump is democracy and people know it. In addition, we trashed the norm of marriage being about one man-one woman. As a result, there are no norms. Let me repeat: there are no norms. People have rejected the liberal social norms that are being imposed on them. To his voters, Trump's flaunting of your norms isn't cause for alarm. It's cause for popcorn.
This is an extremely sophomoric view that I’m not sure you’ve thought through to the end. If a Democrat should be elected in 2028, then immediately issues an executive order banning all firearms (ignoring legal precedents) and then sends armed militias into red counties to confiscate them using fully automatics, anti-tank weapons, etc., will it be enough to say “Repubs need to stop talking about norms, those are gone, they did it Minneapolis”? (Please spare us the ‘the rural gentry will rise up and defeat the government’—we have seen in the past few days that your personal gun collection will not be protecting you from military-grade weaponry)
You’re essentially advocating for a progression towards societal anarchy. (No norms=no society) I could be wrong but I don’t think the average American, whether they lean right ir left, is interested in that vision of America’s future.
And changing norms doesn’t mean no norms exist. Remember that Jim Crow was also once a norm. We got rid of it and managed not to implode as a society.
> "If a Democrat should be elected in 2028, then immediately issues an executive order banning all firearms (ignoring legal precedents) and then sends armed militias into red counties to confiscate them using fully automatics, anti-tank weapons, etc."
- First, the Democrats already did this with vaccine mandates - even for people who had gotten Covid and had measurable antibodies. But conservatives did not behave even remotely like leftists (with organized violent resistance.)
- Second, enforcing immigration policies is the law of the land and has been, including under Obama. If you want to make the analogy work, it would be this: "conservatives suddenly decided Federal environmental standards are illegal and began attacking Federal agents who enforced them."
Trump has shown how that doesn’t *really* matter. Whatever the law might be, here’s what you do:
A.) Issue an order saying ‘we’re doing X’
B.) Do X immediately
It will take the courts months to rule on X, during which time you can continue to do X, while you
C.) label any judges who rule against you in the courts as ‘treasonous’
Then, if the Supreme Court rules against you, issue a *new* order that says you’re not doing X, but instead Y, even though X is in practice the same as Y.
Except that the Supreme Court - and even district courts - have consistently ruled against the activist leftist traffic court judges issuing injunctions. So much so that they had to narrow the scope to issue injunctions because leftist traffic court judges were abusing them.
I don't foresee anyone starting an armed rebellion anytime soon, but I would avoid the well-worn argument that the people cannot stand up to the U.S. Army. The Viet Cong and the Taliban would disagree with that point of view.
"...evaluations of Trump’s record, and it can sometimes seem 'not so bad' when stacked against the legacies of other polarizing, compromised presidents (e.g., Richard Nixon, who, we must remember, escalated the bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos)..."
It's funny that you cherry pick your examples like Nixon when it was Johnson who escalated the ground war in Vietnam and got over 58,000 young Americans killed for no good reason.
I cannot and will not defend Trump, but your "introspection" focuses on things like DEI (which does need to be abolished) and messaging while ignoring the Democrats' long history of working to overturn the First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
You should see the bills and the constitutional amendments Democrats have submitted this year in the General Assembly in Virginia. It's a cornucopia of far-left progressive nonsense that belies all of their promises and instead will make life in Virginia more expensive, less safe and silence their opposition. Boss Tweed would be proud.
So who is worse? The lesser of two evils is still evil, so does it even matter? I am angered and horrified by much of what Trump has done, but until Democrats convince me that they are working to preserve my rights rather than working to deprive me of them, I will remain an independent.
I also remain hopeful that Democrats will come to their senses and give me someone to vote FOR, but articles like this make me see that it's not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
The anti-anti-Trump voter is a pretty large block, I suspect. The Progressive Left really threw its weight around during the Great Awokening and its decade-long temper tantrum of soup throwing, traffic blocking and social hectoring has worn thin.
While it is too early to see if the Minneapolis protests are damaging Trump, the left has to recognize that a lot of people will conclude both sides are at fault in these shootings.
For the democrats the elephant in the room is not immigration policy. It is men. As long as the party is a female-centric one that demands that men accept a place of dhimmitude it is going to struggle. And I do not believe the democrats have the stomach to confront that, let alone change it.
True, their strongest most passionate members are their biggest weakness. They'll never win with the fringe in control. They make Trump look very reasonable by comparison.
A long essay which I will boil down to a final conclusion: if Democrats ever stop being crazy - groveling to their far Left base - they can end the extremes of MAGA and Trumpism. Trump is now either almost completely unhinged or he is suffering from age-related cognitive decline. How else to explain all the crazy things he has said just this month? Think of the most disgraceful thing, dishonoring the military service of our allies in Afghanistan. Trump very likely didn't know the history of that military alliance and the casualties incurred by NATO member countries; par for the course for Trump, being woefully uninformed but expressing himself anyway. But what decent person lacks a filter to avoid saying such an insulting thing in public even if there were any truth to it?
Imagine a genuinely moderate Democrat - a liberal patriot - who supported border security, opposed massive immigration of low-skilled people, opposed the DEI nonsense and transgender mania, while also easing the widespread fears of medical bankruptcy, shoring up Social Security and Medicare, taking realistic steps to greatly decrease the nearly $2 trillion in annual federal budget deficits. In 2028 that moderate Democrat would win 55+% of the popular vote and an electoral college landslide. I can only dream.
A moderate candidate is a good idea, but any Dem who claims the traits listed above is most likely another Wolf in Spanberger's Clothing. After pretending to be a moderate to win an election, in mere hours, Spanberger morphed VA into a Sanctuary State. What Governor looks at Minnesota, and desires the same chaos in their state?
Other VA proposed laws are so Progressive, they make SF look moderate. One outright forbids investigations into non profit fraud. If billions of federal tax dollars are routed to VA NGOs and spent to send employees on Thai Child Sex Tours, no one can investigate. Therefore no one can be convicted, and the spigot of tax dollars, never ends.
The proposed law embraces new Dem dogma. No laws apply in Blue States, unless residents expressly consent to their application. Forget the Civil War. In 2026, Blue States are the new antebellum South.
I'd be happy to vote for such a Dem. He or she would also need to have a plan on what to do with people who successfully evade our border patrol and establish themselves illegally in our country. He'd also need a convincing plan to pass legislation to do all that, like where would he get the votes in the senate. Health care, Social Security, and the debt all cost lots of money, and he'd have to look beyond billionaires to fund them.
Alternatively Republicans could advance candidates supporting similar policies now that they know they can break with the country club set. Sane candidates.
First the obligatory genuflections to “Trump Bad”.
Then we move to “Trump actions stupid and/or evil”.
The close is “trust us we will continue to blow sunshine at you and then do what we want but you can trust us”.
What the authors pitch fails to address is the credibility issues inherent in supporting democrat candidates. Only the DNC and Joes handlers knew what they had planned. The rubes were those who bought the advertised package.
Stop talking about and demonizing Trump. We ALL know you don’t like him.
Find a problem or issue the solution of which involves goals that you can support and work
with Trump and the GOP to craft an approach involving those goals AND outcomes (including feedback and corrections) that you can support. If you do that a few times a lot more of the electorate will see you as a viable alternative. Till then you’re just the same gang running the same game.
And NOW would be a good time to do this. If Trumps shotgunning provides an economy that is cooking when the Presidential election rolls up, you got a problem.
Perhaps the word “liberal” refers to classic liberalism, meaning the philosophical principles that were the foundation of the French and American revolutions.
In that sense, liberal means
1. Individual liberties and so-called natural rights (eg the right to self-determination);
2. Limited government whose powers are constrained (this term is abused by some on the right and by Libertarians, but it originally referred to ideas like stripping the monarch of his right to stomp all over people because he felt like it);
3. A society governed by laws, not monarchs ("the rule of law");
4. The right to own property and the right to free markets;
5. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of of association. So, no jailing people for saying "the leader is wrong" or for not worshipping the same god the monarch does, in the same way the monarch does.
---------------------
We have a problem in this country right now. Extremism is tearing us apart, and it's happening on both sides of the aisle. An unfortunate feature of having extremist beliefs is that the believer doesn't see them as abnormal.
So up really is down: 1. men really can become women and discriminating against white people is fair. 2. The events of January 6 were either perfectly legal, or, if they weren't, Antifa was behind them. 3. Letting millions of people pour over the border really was a good idea. 4. Mass random firings by the DOGE really were okay.
None of these things are okay, but most people with radicalized views would only agree that 1 and 3 or 2 and 4 were wrong.
This is a huge problem. We need to turn the volume down and stop seeing half the country as the enemy. Maybe, just maybe, men can't become women, admissions and hiring need to be race-blind, January 6 was an insurrection, unchecked illegal immigration is undermining the nation, and cruelty isn't a good way to encourage a strong, efficient government.
A lot of Republicans use the term "liberal" as a pejorative when the closest thing to being truly liberal is a (small "L") libertarian. The current Democratic Party is highly illiberal and we should be hoping that they become truly liberal.
The recently elected governor of Virginia took great pains to sound like a Kennedy democrat. Turns out she was lying.
Yes, if you did your homework you knew she was lying (marketing) but if you were silly enough to take her at her word you got what you deserved.
And the rest of us refreshed our understanding of the relationship between truth, intent and democrat politics.
That’s the democrat problem in a nutshell. If you tell us the truth about your intentions no one who actually pays taxes likes you. When you lie, it’s clear that you’re simply not trustworthy. If you don’t fix that there’s really nothing to discuss.
This is very well written, but nearly everything penned regarding Minnesota, misses the elephant in the room. Trump is gone in 36 months. The effect of de facto Open Borders will last forever.
If Dems can dissolve the border, allow 10 million unvetted migrants into the US, then prevent the deportation of just 1/2 of them, US political policy will become more extreme. Also, the border will reopen, in some form, each time Dems hold the WH.
In a Republic, States compete for residents. States must enact policy that appeals to a broad spectrum of Americans, or their population dwindles. Shrinking populations translate to lost House districts, less political power and a longer road to the WH.
Allowing Blue States to replace American citizens with migrants means Blue States can enact any policy they desire, with no concerns they will drive their American State residents to other states. Who cares? Lost state residents will quickly be replaced, with non voting migrants, that count for Apportionment. With a little luck, one day they morph into Dem voters.
As a bonus, non voters render the next election easier to win. Dems need appeal to fewer total voters. They need only "preach to the choir". The inmates are not just running the asylum, they will run it forever.
To avoid that, Trump should propose a $10K exit check for migrant departures prior to June, with free shipping of personal property. Even at $10K each, taxpayers would still save money, over deportation costs alone, let alone future tax payer subsidies. The generous payment would probably produce mass, humane, voluntary repatriation.
Dems will come unglued. Biden's migrants must stay in the US, to prevent Blue State Reapportionment slaughter. Trump could, humanely repatriate millions, save tax payer dollars, rehab his image and reveal the Dem Immigration game plan, all in one fell swoop.
The Democrats are doing all of this, running against Trump, but he won't be on the ballot in '28.
A Republican who stands for the good policy items of Trump but without the personality issues can then walk into the next election against a party that only has "we're not Trump and we really hate him" to stand on.
No clue how to actually govern or policies Americans can get behind (and haven't already rejected).
That's why no matter how low Trump's numbers may go, the Democrats are still lower.
I've lost count of how many people I've spoken with who've told me, "I just can't understand why 50% of Americans voted for Donald Trump." Okay, that goes beyond a failure of imagination. It's a blatant admission of closing your eyes and covering your ears.
I understand why people voted for Trump, because I listened to them when they told me. I didn't argue. I didn't tell them they were deplorables voting against their own interests. I didn't assume they were racist whateverphobes. I listened. What I've heard is that people are angry about Democratic lies, from "inflation is in your head" to "no person is illegal" to "trans women are women." And I was angry about those lies, too. I'm still seething that the people claiming to want to save democracy (tm) anointed a presidential candidate who had never run in even one primary after barring competitive primaries against a physically frail man who has dementia.
But the left: they're caught up in a mass social contagion where they really, truly believe that up is down. Try to say, "maybe you're being rage-baited here," or "maybe men can't turn into women," and the response is almost always anger and accusations as noted above.
You have to hand it to Donald Trump: the con job over Greenland was a meisterwerk of media manipulation. I haven't seen a headline about Epstein in weeks. And the left didn't just fall for this one with its usual intensity: they used it to feed their rage fantasies about war with the EU and the end of peace and global stability. And then they started rioting for peace and justice while making videos on iPhones manufactured in a country that's watching all of this with amusement.
It’s not just the social issues. The Democrats’ tacit approval of rioting, obstruction of justice, and other forms of violence from their side especially when they attempt to gaslight the public into believing that it’s Constitutionally protected speech is not “normal” either.
If I have to choose between federal LEOs enforcing the law more aggressively than I’d like and open frequently violent defiance of any enforcement of the law, I’m going to side with the LEOs.
A few pro-tips for the left. Violence in any protest movement is like fecal matter in drinking water. Any amount ruins the whole thing.
The whole point of civil disobedience as a protest tactic is that you want to get arrested. When you resist arrest bad things are going to happen to you. Even more so if you’re armed with a deadly weapon. Be it a motor vehicle or a firearm.
all who continue to give Trump the benefit of the doubt
What matters is, the Dems were given the benefit of the doubt and erased all doubt they are not fit to govern. Like most of the Independents on here, the Dems have not shown me any inclination they leaned from 2024 and understand governing doesn't include prosecuting every one who participate in the Trump administration or restoring the budget cuts many see as necessary and adding even more, thank chucky for that one.
The Dems problem is, at this point, the one who is most likely to get nominated, whoever that is, will support both of those stupid positions. But hey, believe those polls. Their inaccuracies have been so good to Trump
Trump is the TR of the 21st Century. He waits an appropriate time for others (states, Congress, the courts) to act, then responds to public demands that something be done. TR said "I took Panama and left Congress to debate me." But the key is that anyone who isn't totally in the D bag sees that whatever he does it's out of love for the USA to make the nation great again.
I cannot find a single D who the public would view in such a manner. Not one that I can find talks about American Greatness, restoring a golden age, of energy growth, or American jobs returning. It's only "Trump is Hitler," and for that, this Republican thanks you. It has set the playing field for a 2026 GOP hold of Congress (yes, both houses0 and for a 2028 J. C. Vance 320-340 EV win based on where voter registrations are now, and where they are heading. (FYI, people here were saying "Wait till we see what is happening in voter registrations in 2026." Welp, first out of the gate is AZ and nothing whatsoever has changed in the trend lines, as EVERY. SINGLE. AZ. COUNTY. moved further to the right since Nov. 2025. Pima, the bluest, has lost nearly a full point of its D lead since 2024, and lost more in the last part of 2025. For anyone thinking this is going to change, I have an old Russkie word for ya. "NYET!"
Well written and thoughtful article. What I think I heard and what I agree with is Trumps broad goals have a lot of support throughout the US However many of his leaders ( not all) and he himself have chaotic, incompetent and unsettling ( even ) upsetting execution of those goals. The problem with the Democrats is they appear to protest both so the public has to pick between the two.
The central premise of this essay is mistaken. The problem facing Democrats is not excessive condemnation of Trump, but the opposite: a persistent failure to confront, clearly and relentlessly, the concrete harm his presidency has already inflicted and continues to threaten.
Trump has not merely “blustered without immediate catastrophe.” The catastrophes are material and ongoing. His tariffs have raised costs for American consumers, damaged farmers and manufacturers, and destabilized global trade. ICE deployments have escalated violence, undermined civil liberties, and normalized federal intimidation of communities. His assault on NATO and open contempt for European allies have weakened the most successful security alliance of the modern era and emboldened authoritarian adversaries. The politicization of the Justice Department and routine investigations of political opponents represent a direct erosion of the rule of law.
Domestically, Trump has largely abandoned governing in favor of patronage and grievance. Renewable energy and long-term industrial policy have been kneecapped in service of favored oligarchs, ceding strategic advantage to China. Public health and scientific institutions have been hollowed out, with Americans’ medical welfare placed in the hands of conspiracy-minded figures. These are not symbolic norm violations but policies with enduring consequences for national prosperity and social trust.
The deeper failure is not rhetorical excess but rhetorical insufficiency. Democratic leadership has too often spoken in abstractions—“norms,” “democracy,” “decency”—rather than prosecuting a sustained case that Trump’s actions are making Americans poorer, less secure, less healthy, and more isolated globally. Public complacency has not been caused by over-alarmism, but by the absence of a clear, forceful accounting of consequences.
If the stakes are truly as high as this essay acknowledges, then waiting for Trump’s excesses to discredit themselves is not prudence. It is abdication.
It would end tomorrow if Minnesota simply ended being a sanctuary state, and turned over all illegal immigrants they come in contact with just as was done during the Clinton and Obama administrations.
Agreed. Somehow I missed the article in the Constitution that says Democrats get to pick and choose which Federal laws they want to follow. What we're watching in Minnesota is far closer to being an insurrection than Jan 6:
- armed
- organized (over Signal, a secure messaging app)
- repeated violent attacks on law enforcement
- in order to defy Federal law
And Obama supported the exact same policies as Trump! I have to admit I'm genuinely torn:
- Option A: everything Trump does must be opposed
- Option B: as the left radicalizes, they've now decided that the existence of national borders is essentially the same as the Holocaust (the "if you [conservatives] were alive during WW2, you'd have informed on Anne Frank" - also the same people who set up snitch lines for people having friends over during Covid).
Agree, so can someone please explain an entire state going to bat, for migrants convicted of horrendous crime? Explain the desire of Minnesotans to allow criminals to waltz out of jail or prison, and look for their next Minnesota victim?
Reasonable people can disagree on much of Immigration Law, but what could be the possible reasoning behind, refusing to allow ICE to pick up a murderer, rapist, wife beater . . . . within a jail, as they are ready to exit?
Is this just a " must oppose Trump" even if he cures cancer, thing, or is the real reasoning, Sanctuary States believe no one should ever be deported, ever, regardless of criminal activity?
It's not the entire state, but a whole lot of people in Minneapolis. I don't think they care that much about immigration, or Floyd.
I think there are a couple things going on. Many enjoy the fruits of really cheap labor provided by illegal immigration and all low wage immigration and guest worker programs. A lot of discretionary spending is on labor. They are ok with violent criminal immigrants subject to criminal law no different than our own homegrown variety. Of course most of the negative aspects are foisted on people in other zip codes thank god.
There is a smaller but more vocal woke population for whom "resistance" is a source of belonging. It goes beyond a hobby, maybe best compared to a religion. They have martyrs, high priests, heretics, and all the rest. It's a way to accomplishment, not work, not athletics, not family.
I'd for sure say the current Border Patrol apprehensions are too chaotic with confrontations and traffic I do think that if all of the state, local, and federal law enforcement coordinated especially in designating safe spaces and areas for people to exercise their first amendment rights things would become much safer. Confrontations are what police making arrests want to avoid.
I live about 20 miles from where most of the anti-ICE actions are occurring. What ICE is doing is now counterproductive, the long-term negative consequences far outweighing the gains. At the same time, Minnesota needs to start honoring ICE detainer requests at all jails and prisons; most of the problem results from a few big counties not cooperating with ICE by transferring people who are subject to deportation.
The ICE activity has obliterated all news coverage of the massive benefits fraud here. That helps Tim Walz and his cronies who turned a blind eye to the problems for fear of offending Somali voters.
This article misses the point that Trump voters find Trump's policies to be better than the left and find his antics amusing.
First, to many (esp rural) working class voters, the Democratic Party stands for Jim Crow (rampant DEI), poverty caused by combatting climate change, and sexualizing children in the schools. These are not popular positions.
Second, Democrats need to stop talking about norms, especially democratic norms. Trump is democracy and people know it. In addition, we trashed the norm of marriage being about one man-one woman. As a result, there are no norms. Let me repeat: there are no norms. People have rejected the liberal social norms that are being imposed on them. To his voters, Trump's flaunting of your norms isn't cause for alarm. It's cause for popcorn.
This is an extremely sophomoric view that I’m not sure you’ve thought through to the end. If a Democrat should be elected in 2028, then immediately issues an executive order banning all firearms (ignoring legal precedents) and then sends armed militias into red counties to confiscate them using fully automatics, anti-tank weapons, etc., will it be enough to say “Repubs need to stop talking about norms, those are gone, they did it Minneapolis”? (Please spare us the ‘the rural gentry will rise up and defeat the government’—we have seen in the past few days that your personal gun collection will not be protecting you from military-grade weaponry)
You’re essentially advocating for a progression towards societal anarchy. (No norms=no society) I could be wrong but I don’t think the average American, whether they lean right ir left, is interested in that vision of America’s future.
And changing norms doesn’t mean no norms exist. Remember that Jim Crow was also once a norm. We got rid of it and managed not to implode as a society.
> "If a Democrat should be elected in 2028, then immediately issues an executive order banning all firearms (ignoring legal precedents) and then sends armed militias into red counties to confiscate them using fully automatics, anti-tank weapons, etc."
- First, the Democrats already did this with vaccine mandates - even for people who had gotten Covid and had measurable antibodies. But conservatives did not behave even remotely like leftists (with organized violent resistance.)
- Second, enforcing immigration policies is the law of the land and has been, including under Obama. If you want to make the analogy work, it would be this: "conservatives suddenly decided Federal environmental standards are illegal and began attacking Federal agents who enforced them."
Clearly you miss the distinction between social/political norms and Constitutional law.
Trump has shown how that doesn’t *really* matter. Whatever the law might be, here’s what you do:
A.) Issue an order saying ‘we’re doing X’
B.) Do X immediately
It will take the courts months to rule on X, during which time you can continue to do X, while you
C.) label any judges who rule against you in the courts as ‘treasonous’
Then, if the Supreme Court rules against you, issue a *new* order that says you’re not doing X, but instead Y, even though X is in practice the same as Y.
Rinse, repeat.
Except that the Supreme Court - and even district courts - have consistently ruled against the activist leftist traffic court judges issuing injunctions. So much so that they had to narrow the scope to issue injunctions because leftist traffic court judges were abusing them.
I don't foresee anyone starting an armed rebellion anytime soon, but I would avoid the well-worn argument that the people cannot stand up to the U.S. Army. The Viet Cong and the Taliban would disagree with that point of view.
A Fish Called Wanda on VietNam: It was a tie! It was a tie!
Apes don't read philosophy.
lol!
Things didn't go so well for the VC during Tet, it was mostly the NVA who remained alive to win the war.
"...evaluations of Trump’s record, and it can sometimes seem 'not so bad' when stacked against the legacies of other polarizing, compromised presidents (e.g., Richard Nixon, who, we must remember, escalated the bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos)..."
It's funny that you cherry pick your examples like Nixon when it was Johnson who escalated the ground war in Vietnam and got over 58,000 young Americans killed for no good reason.
I cannot and will not defend Trump, but your "introspection" focuses on things like DEI (which does need to be abolished) and messaging while ignoring the Democrats' long history of working to overturn the First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
You should see the bills and the constitutional amendments Democrats have submitted this year in the General Assembly in Virginia. It's a cornucopia of far-left progressive nonsense that belies all of their promises and instead will make life in Virginia more expensive, less safe and silence their opposition. Boss Tweed would be proud.
So who is worse? The lesser of two evils is still evil, so does it even matter? I am angered and horrified by much of what Trump has done, but until Democrats convince me that they are working to preserve my rights rather than working to deprive me of them, I will remain an independent.
I also remain hopeful that Democrats will come to their senses and give me someone to vote FOR, but articles like this make me see that it's not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
The anti-anti-Trump voter is a pretty large block, I suspect. The Progressive Left really threw its weight around during the Great Awokening and its decade-long temper tantrum of soup throwing, traffic blocking and social hectoring has worn thin.
While it is too early to see if the Minneapolis protests are damaging Trump, the left has to recognize that a lot of people will conclude both sides are at fault in these shootings.
For the democrats the elephant in the room is not immigration policy. It is men. As long as the party is a female-centric one that demands that men accept a place of dhimmitude it is going to struggle. And I do not believe the democrats have the stomach to confront that, let alone change it.
Democrats have not yet understood that while they thought they controlled the “groups”, the groups grew to control the Democrats.
There is no such thing as a moderate Democrat any more. The “groups” won’t allow it.
True, their strongest most passionate members are their biggest weakness. They'll never win with the fringe in control. They make Trump look very reasonable by comparison.
A long essay which I will boil down to a final conclusion: if Democrats ever stop being crazy - groveling to their far Left base - they can end the extremes of MAGA and Trumpism. Trump is now either almost completely unhinged or he is suffering from age-related cognitive decline. How else to explain all the crazy things he has said just this month? Think of the most disgraceful thing, dishonoring the military service of our allies in Afghanistan. Trump very likely didn't know the history of that military alliance and the casualties incurred by NATO member countries; par for the course for Trump, being woefully uninformed but expressing himself anyway. But what decent person lacks a filter to avoid saying such an insulting thing in public even if there were any truth to it?
Imagine a genuinely moderate Democrat - a liberal patriot - who supported border security, opposed massive immigration of low-skilled people, opposed the DEI nonsense and transgender mania, while also easing the widespread fears of medical bankruptcy, shoring up Social Security and Medicare, taking realistic steps to greatly decrease the nearly $2 trillion in annual federal budget deficits. In 2028 that moderate Democrat would win 55+% of the popular vote and an electoral college landslide. I can only dream.
A moderate candidate is a good idea, but any Dem who claims the traits listed above is most likely another Wolf in Spanberger's Clothing. After pretending to be a moderate to win an election, in mere hours, Spanberger morphed VA into a Sanctuary State. What Governor looks at Minnesota, and desires the same chaos in their state?
Other VA proposed laws are so Progressive, they make SF look moderate. One outright forbids investigations into non profit fraud. If billions of federal tax dollars are routed to VA NGOs and spent to send employees on Thai Child Sex Tours, no one can investigate. Therefore no one can be convicted, and the spigot of tax dollars, never ends.
The proposed law embraces new Dem dogma. No laws apply in Blue States, unless residents expressly consent to their application. Forget the Civil War. In 2026, Blue States are the new antebellum South.
I'd be happy to vote for such a Dem. He or she would also need to have a plan on what to do with people who successfully evade our border patrol and establish themselves illegally in our country. He'd also need a convincing plan to pass legislation to do all that, like where would he get the votes in the senate. Health care, Social Security, and the debt all cost lots of money, and he'd have to look beyond billionaires to fund them.
Alternatively Republicans could advance candidates supporting similar policies now that they know they can break with the country club set. Sane candidates.
But Virginia just thought they elected such a moderate...and what is on the agenda? This is hard. Both sides are completely insane.
You'd have to be a special kind of idiot to think Spanberger was going to be a moderate. She couldn't even criticize Jay Jones.
I think a lot of moderate democrats desperately want to believe that there are moderate Democrat politicians.
Interestingly, there are: Trump, Vance, Gabbard etc. all moderate Democrats.
Thanks for the laugh.
Typical.
First the obligatory genuflections to “Trump Bad”.
Then we move to “Trump actions stupid and/or evil”.
The close is “trust us we will continue to blow sunshine at you and then do what we want but you can trust us”.
What the authors pitch fails to address is the credibility issues inherent in supporting democrat candidates. Only the DNC and Joes handlers knew what they had planned. The rubes were those who bought the advertised package.
Stop talking about and demonizing Trump. We ALL know you don’t like him.
Find a problem or issue the solution of which involves goals that you can support and work
with Trump and the GOP to craft an approach involving those goals AND outcomes (including feedback and corrections) that you can support. If you do that a few times a lot more of the electorate will see you as a viable alternative. Till then you’re just the same gang running the same game.
And NOW would be a good time to do this. If Trumps shotgunning provides an economy that is cooking when the Presidential election rolls up, you got a problem.
What part of "liberal" in the name of this publication - "The Liberal Patriot" - do you not understand?
Perhaps the word “liberal” refers to classic liberalism, meaning the philosophical principles that were the foundation of the French and American revolutions.
In that sense, liberal means
1. Individual liberties and so-called natural rights (eg the right to self-determination);
2. Limited government whose powers are constrained (this term is abused by some on the right and by Libertarians, but it originally referred to ideas like stripping the monarch of his right to stomp all over people because he felt like it);
3. A society governed by laws, not monarchs ("the rule of law");
4. The right to own property and the right to free markets;
5. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of of association. So, no jailing people for saying "the leader is wrong" or for not worshipping the same god the monarch does, in the same way the monarch does.
---------------------
We have a problem in this country right now. Extremism is tearing us apart, and it's happening on both sides of the aisle. An unfortunate feature of having extremist beliefs is that the believer doesn't see them as abnormal.
So up really is down: 1. men really can become women and discriminating against white people is fair. 2. The events of January 6 were either perfectly legal, or, if they weren't, Antifa was behind them. 3. Letting millions of people pour over the border really was a good idea. 4. Mass random firings by the DOGE really were okay.
None of these things are okay, but most people with radicalized views would only agree that 1 and 3 or 2 and 4 were wrong.
This is a huge problem. We need to turn the volume down and stop seeing half the country as the enemy. Maybe, just maybe, men can't become women, admissions and hiring need to be race-blind, January 6 was an insurrection, unchecked illegal immigration is undermining the nation, and cruelty isn't a good way to encourage a strong, efficient government.
A lot of Republicans use the term "liberal" as a pejorative when the closest thing to being truly liberal is a (small "L") libertarian. The current Democratic Party is highly illiberal and we should be hoping that they become truly liberal.
The recently elected governor of Virginia took great pains to sound like a Kennedy democrat. Turns out she was lying.
Yes, if you did your homework you knew she was lying (marketing) but if you were silly enough to take her at her word you got what you deserved.
And the rest of us refreshed our understanding of the relationship between truth, intent and democrat politics.
That’s the democrat problem in a nutshell. If you tell us the truth about your intentions no one who actually pays taxes likes you. When you lie, it’s clear that you’re simply not trustworthy. If you don’t fix that there’s really nothing to discuss.
This is very well written, but nearly everything penned regarding Minnesota, misses the elephant in the room. Trump is gone in 36 months. The effect of de facto Open Borders will last forever.
If Dems can dissolve the border, allow 10 million unvetted migrants into the US, then prevent the deportation of just 1/2 of them, US political policy will become more extreme. Also, the border will reopen, in some form, each time Dems hold the WH.
In a Republic, States compete for residents. States must enact policy that appeals to a broad spectrum of Americans, or their population dwindles. Shrinking populations translate to lost House districts, less political power and a longer road to the WH.
Allowing Blue States to replace American citizens with migrants means Blue States can enact any policy they desire, with no concerns they will drive their American State residents to other states. Who cares? Lost state residents will quickly be replaced, with non voting migrants, that count for Apportionment. With a little luck, one day they morph into Dem voters.
As a bonus, non voters render the next election easier to win. Dems need appeal to fewer total voters. They need only "preach to the choir". The inmates are not just running the asylum, they will run it forever.
To avoid that, Trump should propose a $10K exit check for migrant departures prior to June, with free shipping of personal property. Even at $10K each, taxpayers would still save money, over deportation costs alone, let alone future tax payer subsidies. The generous payment would probably produce mass, humane, voluntary repatriation.
Dems will come unglued. Biden's migrants must stay in the US, to prevent Blue State Reapportionment slaughter. Trump could, humanely repatriate millions, save tax payer dollars, rehab his image and reveal the Dem Immigration game plan, all in one fell swoop.
The Democrats are doing all of this, running against Trump, but he won't be on the ballot in '28.
A Republican who stands for the good policy items of Trump but without the personality issues can then walk into the next election against a party that only has "we're not Trump and we really hate him" to stand on.
No clue how to actually govern or policies Americans can get behind (and haven't already rejected).
That's why no matter how low Trump's numbers may go, the Democrats are still lower.
I've lost count of how many people I've spoken with who've told me, "I just can't understand why 50% of Americans voted for Donald Trump." Okay, that goes beyond a failure of imagination. It's a blatant admission of closing your eyes and covering your ears.
I understand why people voted for Trump, because I listened to them when they told me. I didn't argue. I didn't tell them they were deplorables voting against their own interests. I didn't assume they were racist whateverphobes. I listened. What I've heard is that people are angry about Democratic lies, from "inflation is in your head" to "no person is illegal" to "trans women are women." And I was angry about those lies, too. I'm still seething that the people claiming to want to save democracy (tm) anointed a presidential candidate who had never run in even one primary after barring competitive primaries against a physically frail man who has dementia.
But the left: they're caught up in a mass social contagion where they really, truly believe that up is down. Try to say, "maybe you're being rage-baited here," or "maybe men can't turn into women," and the response is almost always anger and accusations as noted above.
In one case, I was angrily told that "no one was rioting like this when Obama was deporting people!" The person who said this had no idea that he was making my argument about rage-baiting for me. On the contrary: he was certain that no one was rioting because Obama was kindly and gently deporting people. Never mind that pesky ACLU report: https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/speed-over-fairness-deportation-under-obama . Or the AFL-CIO report: https://aflcio.org/2016/1/6/obama-administrations-crackdown-immigrants-ignores-due-process-and-creates-communities . Or any of the reports. That was different!!
You have to hand it to Donald Trump: the con job over Greenland was a meisterwerk of media manipulation. I haven't seen a headline about Epstein in weeks. And the left didn't just fall for this one with its usual intensity: they used it to feed their rage fantasies about war with the EU and the end of peace and global stability. And then they started rioting for peace and justice while making videos on iPhones manufactured in a country that's watching all of this with amusement.
It’s not just the social issues. The Democrats’ tacit approval of rioting, obstruction of justice, and other forms of violence from their side especially when they attempt to gaslight the public into believing that it’s Constitutionally protected speech is not “normal” either.
If I have to choose between federal LEOs enforcing the law more aggressively than I’d like and open frequently violent defiance of any enforcement of the law, I’m going to side with the LEOs.
A few pro-tips for the left. Violence in any protest movement is like fecal matter in drinking water. Any amount ruins the whole thing.
The whole point of civil disobedience as a protest tactic is that you want to get arrested. When you resist arrest bad things are going to happen to you. Even more so if you’re armed with a deadly weapon. Be it a motor vehicle or a firearm.
all who continue to give Trump the benefit of the doubt
What matters is, the Dems were given the benefit of the doubt and erased all doubt they are not fit to govern. Like most of the Independents on here, the Dems have not shown me any inclination they leaned from 2024 and understand governing doesn't include prosecuting every one who participate in the Trump administration or restoring the budget cuts many see as necessary and adding even more, thank chucky for that one.
The Dems problem is, at this point, the one who is most likely to get nominated, whoever that is, will support both of those stupid positions. But hey, believe those polls. Their inaccuracies have been so good to Trump
Trump is the TR of the 21st Century. He waits an appropriate time for others (states, Congress, the courts) to act, then responds to public demands that something be done. TR said "I took Panama and left Congress to debate me." But the key is that anyone who isn't totally in the D bag sees that whatever he does it's out of love for the USA to make the nation great again.
I cannot find a single D who the public would view in such a manner. Not one that I can find talks about American Greatness, restoring a golden age, of energy growth, or American jobs returning. It's only "Trump is Hitler," and for that, this Republican thanks you. It has set the playing field for a 2026 GOP hold of Congress (yes, both houses0 and for a 2028 J. C. Vance 320-340 EV win based on where voter registrations are now, and where they are heading. (FYI, people here were saying "Wait till we see what is happening in voter registrations in 2026." Welp, first out of the gate is AZ and nothing whatsoever has changed in the trend lines, as EVERY. SINGLE. AZ. COUNTY. moved further to the right since Nov. 2025. Pima, the bluest, has lost nearly a full point of its D lead since 2024, and lost more in the last part of 2025. For anyone thinking this is going to change, I have an old Russkie word for ya. "NYET!"
Well written and thoughtful article. What I think I heard and what I agree with is Trumps broad goals have a lot of support throughout the US However many of his leaders ( not all) and he himself have chaotic, incompetent and unsettling ( even ) upsetting execution of those goals. The problem with the Democrats is they appear to protest both so the public has to pick between the two.
The central premise of this essay is mistaken. The problem facing Democrats is not excessive condemnation of Trump, but the opposite: a persistent failure to confront, clearly and relentlessly, the concrete harm his presidency has already inflicted and continues to threaten.
Trump has not merely “blustered without immediate catastrophe.” The catastrophes are material and ongoing. His tariffs have raised costs for American consumers, damaged farmers and manufacturers, and destabilized global trade. ICE deployments have escalated violence, undermined civil liberties, and normalized federal intimidation of communities. His assault on NATO and open contempt for European allies have weakened the most successful security alliance of the modern era and emboldened authoritarian adversaries. The politicization of the Justice Department and routine investigations of political opponents represent a direct erosion of the rule of law.
Domestically, Trump has largely abandoned governing in favor of patronage and grievance. Renewable energy and long-term industrial policy have been kneecapped in service of favored oligarchs, ceding strategic advantage to China. Public health and scientific institutions have been hollowed out, with Americans’ medical welfare placed in the hands of conspiracy-minded figures. These are not symbolic norm violations but policies with enduring consequences for national prosperity and social trust.
The deeper failure is not rhetorical excess but rhetorical insufficiency. Democratic leadership has too often spoken in abstractions—“norms,” “democracy,” “decency”—rather than prosecuting a sustained case that Trump’s actions are making Americans poorer, less secure, less healthy, and more isolated globally. Public complacency has not been caused by over-alarmism, but by the absence of a clear, forceful accounting of consequences.
If the stakes are truly as high as this essay acknowledges, then waiting for Trump’s excesses to discredit themselves is not prudence. It is abdication.
End ICE actions in Minnesota and concentrate on managing benefit fraud.
It would end tomorrow if Minnesota simply ended being a sanctuary state, and turned over all illegal immigrants they come in contact with just as was done during the Clinton and Obama administrations.
Agreed. Somehow I missed the article in the Constitution that says Democrats get to pick and choose which Federal laws they want to follow. What we're watching in Minnesota is far closer to being an insurrection than Jan 6:
- armed
- organized (over Signal, a secure messaging app)
- repeated violent attacks on law enforcement
- in order to defy Federal law
And Obama supported the exact same policies as Trump! I have to admit I'm genuinely torn:
- Option A: everything Trump does must be opposed
- Option B: as the left radicalizes, they've now decided that the existence of national borders is essentially the same as the Holocaust (the "if you [conservatives] were alive during WW2, you'd have informed on Anne Frank" - also the same people who set up snitch lines for people having friends over during Covid).
Agree, so can someone please explain an entire state going to bat, for migrants convicted of horrendous crime? Explain the desire of Minnesotans to allow criminals to waltz out of jail or prison, and look for their next Minnesota victim?
Reasonable people can disagree on much of Immigration Law, but what could be the possible reasoning behind, refusing to allow ICE to pick up a murderer, rapist, wife beater . . . . within a jail, as they are ready to exit?
Is this just a " must oppose Trump" even if he cures cancer, thing, or is the real reasoning, Sanctuary States believe no one should ever be deported, ever, regardless of criminal activity?
It's not the entire state, but a whole lot of people in Minneapolis. I don't think they care that much about immigration, or Floyd.
I think there are a couple things going on. Many enjoy the fruits of really cheap labor provided by illegal immigration and all low wage immigration and guest worker programs. A lot of discretionary spending is on labor. They are ok with violent criminal immigrants subject to criminal law no different than our own homegrown variety. Of course most of the negative aspects are foisted on people in other zip codes thank god.
There is a smaller but more vocal woke population for whom "resistance" is a source of belonging. It goes beyond a hobby, maybe best compared to a religion. They have martyrs, high priests, heretics, and all the rest. It's a way to accomplishment, not work, not athletics, not family.
It's all about power and that power comes from winning the hearts and minds of voters they care nothing about.
“I’ll have those ni***rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
—Lyndon B. Johnson
End ICE actions in Minnesota? Why? Is illegal immigration now legal in Minnesota?
No, but after reading about the Minneapolis ICE monitoring networks it seems that that city has become too dangerous for everyone.
So Minneapolis (or the whole state, really) is just going to be a carve out state making their own laws?
Soon it will be Sharia Law.
I'd for sure say the current Border Patrol apprehensions are too chaotic with confrontations and traffic I do think that if all of the state, local, and federal law enforcement coordinated especially in designating safe spaces and areas for people to exercise their first amendment rights things would become much safer. Confrontations are what police making arrests want to avoid.
I live about 20 miles from where most of the anti-ICE actions are occurring. What ICE is doing is now counterproductive, the long-term negative consequences far outweighing the gains. At the same time, Minnesota needs to start honoring ICE detainer requests at all jails and prisons; most of the problem results from a few big counties not cooperating with ICE by transferring people who are subject to deportation.
The ICE activity has obliterated all news coverage of the massive benefits fraud here. That helps Tim Walz and his cronies who turned a blind eye to the problems for fear of offending Somali voters.
If MN starts honoring ICE detainer requests then the problems largely go away. So ICE to Minneapolis: you first.
The worst fraud is the autistic children's services. I know many people who struggle and to have chosen that program to cheat seems so very low.
Could you define “right wing populism”? It would make it clearer what the better alternative might be.