that as usual that fails to look at history and how we got here. Once Dems embraced civil rights and women's rights the white working class (not just in rural areas, but perhaps it's more pronounced there) fled for Nixon and Reagan's GOP. Ronnie Raygun of course the great hero of the working class lol.

All politics are tribal and people vote on not just economic but also cultural issues. We will never get social conservatives. Our best bet is to reach out to and mobilize the culturally liberal/moderate elements (ie, those who are less religious and pro-choice) of the white working class. We are losing them in recent years for a variety of reasons but we can win them back.

We do need to solve the gun violence issue while not impacting rural folk.

We need to solve climate by promoting the national security benefits of it (freedom from Middle East oil and wars) as well as the economic benefit (green energy is the future).

Another flashing red light is we are doing worse with males across the board as well as Latinos (many of whom live in rural areas) in recent years.

I think the perception that Dems are for open borders hurts us more deeply than any other issue. Even PoC do not want excessive immigration because it drives down wages and puts stress on the safety net.

both of whom majority vote Republican.

The most powerful pro-choice action is to vote Dem, and liberal white men and men of color do so.

Thus the issue of choice is less men vs women (though that dynamic does exist) but rather white conservatives (driven primarily by racism) vs others.

It should be noted that anti-choice laws disproportionately harm women of color and poor women.

not what we wish it to be. Like it or not Trump could run a second time and there's nothing we can do to stop it. He should be in jail but our system and its laws benefit wealthy white collar criminals like Trump and his friends.

Karl's analysis is excellent because of this. He's asking difficult questions of the media itself, for it not to be played by Trump like it was the first time.

The main three networks proper are not where the big money is at anyway when it comes to political coverage, which is mainly done by the cable news networks (CNN,MSNBC,FOX), online sites/blogs (politico, huffpo, axios etc) and the major news papers like NYT, WaPo, etc.

Trump is a clown but he's skilled at one thing and that is sensationalism. He was a former reality TV star and tabloid celebrity. He's not a normal politician practicing normal (ie, boring) politics. Thus, he and his crazy antics cause articles to be written, headlines/chyrons blazing on TV sets, books to be sold, etc.

There are certain activities (eg, eating) where one can't wear masks. But for most activities masking, distancing and ventilation work well enough for most of society to continue operating.

or at least don't see racism as a deal breaker.

Jews are a highly successful minority. In Western society only white xtian protestants are 'supposed' to be at the top, even Catholics initially faced blowback.

Jews are also blamed by the far-right for attempting to 'depurify' xtian whites and 'destroy' the traditional white order via various policies (globalism, diversity, social justice etc).

The far-right views Jews as highly intelligent, but also dangerous. So IOW it is also a form of projection.

not a legal/law website.

Values and opinions are not informed by a literal reading of the law. The law once held that black people and women were property. Such a view (even when it was supported by law) was wrong then and wrong now. Rittenhouse is a terrorist despite what (one interpretation) of the law found. And judges and juries have often nullified the laws, and if required could've done so here - but were clearly on the racist cry baby's side from the beginning.

for liberals and Democrats, and Rittenhouse is an abhorrent figure (from a moral and political view) to liberals, who can clearly see the favoritism he received from the judge, and that if the situation were reverse (if a BLM activist had shot him in self defense) they surely would not have been treated with such kid gloves. The cops viewed him as 'on their side' from the beginning, and he felt entitled to threaten and then kill those he viewed as political enemies. He's a terrorist pure and simple.

however I doubt the judge/jury would've viewed them favorably, being perceived (whether they were or not is inconsequential) as supporters of BLM.

Agree about Shittenhouse's thought process. He went down there to 'do battle with the left/antifa/BLM' and was an aggressor in the entire situation. The police/authorities were on his side from the beginning, as they are generally on the side of RW militia types, which Rittenhouse clearly is.

Recall that there was a similar situation in Portland, involving antifa activist Michael Reinoehl - who claimed he shot a far-right protester in self defense. Reinoehl then went on the run and was later gunned down in cold blood (IMO, based on what I've seen) by US Marshalls, who never gave him a chance to surrender and have due process. Law Enforcement in this country is fundamentally right wing and racist, and until we reform them, as well as the entire criminal justice system, there really will be no justice in America, as the forces of oppression will always resist reform.