I'd argue that there is a motherlode of votes to be found among the sensible folks. I've noticed that the phrase "common sense" (formerly an oxymoron) has been getting more traction. Call me superstitious, but I think that's a good sign.

Which side will be the one to bench its self-selected zealots in favor of its wise, to achieve a high signal-to-noise ratio? I'm very encouraged with what I see in our Dems. The Republicans are getting close to being sick of their clowns, though. We may start to see a gold rush to compete for the reliable majority in the middle, the true base, the people who count to ten. I just hope it doesn't happen too late. And I hope it's the Dems who are the first to take a closer look at the glittering rocks right under our feet and stake our claim.

It would keep demonstrators from making Dems look bad by protesting outside people's homes. We would keep some of the votes demonstrators currently cost us and our causes would benefit. I'm not sure DeSantis has thought this through.

The existence of the test is, in part, a rhetorical assertion of a set of hidden premises. I.e., it's in a category that includes push polls and other such backhanded ways of persuasion and advocacy. A particularly unfortunate unstated implication of this particular test (I would say) is, "Pass this test or you're a homophobe." (Others are free to dispute that that is an implication, of course.)

Making such an implication would be immoral (probably unintentionally) on at least two grounds, in my opinion: 1) It asserts one's authority to stand in judgment of others and, 2) The implication attempts to persuade by striking fear. The former puts one in danger of evincing a form of authoritarianism. The latter is the destructive irony that accompanies any argument made for a good cause that is made less than well, thus damaging the cause.

His admirers aren't into his personality so much as his very evident ability to accomplish great things. I have yet to hear a good argument against him. Most of the arguments against him I've heard come across as arguments for him. They're so seemingly ill-considered and superficial that they backfire.

Musk is not the only area where we sometimes hear loud arguments from voices whose logical backup, reasoning, and effective morality (not "intended morality," effective morality) argue for their being more on the listening side than the talking side.

Musk's goal is a sustainable world of abundance for all. And he's someone who accomplishes what he sets out to accomplish.

The regular Joe's and Jane's among the Republicans need to realize they're now officially sleeping with dogs. They need to look at the Dems and ask, are my Dem neighbors and co-workers really pedophiles or have I just been listening to dogs and guzzling doggy hooch?

And who grouped Joe and Jane Normal Republican with a smelly, stupid mob of addled dogs anyway? I mean, they did it to themselves of course. They chose their company. But who helped pull the levers that let the riffraff, not just into the show, but let them literally take the show over?

Rupert Murdoch and his troop of Murdoch Players come to mind. Trump, Carlson, Cruz and the rest are just mouth parts. "Get in there with the dogs, Joe and Jane Republican!" they commanded, laughing to themselves. "That buffalo guy and the guy who shits on furniture? Consider them your masters. You're the dogs!"

I'm not seeing this message out there much. Just looking for something powerful and true to drown out the Republican Hunter/CRT lie thrumming.

If you're voting against a Trump Republican, you're owning Putin. Every vote for a Trump Republican makes Putin happy. Louder and louder. Repeat and repeat.

Notice I didn't say, "It's dumb to look down on dumb." That's like the Cretans paradox. A lot of our problems on both sides are caused by failing to break out of the spiral of that paradox, IMO. Tolerance, counting to ten, etc., can break the cycle.

I essentially agree with every point you make. And I do agree that "now we have this fight going." My point is that we should win the fight.

Labeling, judging, and name calling can be very effective. Don't get me wrong. It definitely (perhaps unfortunately) has a place, but we definitely don't do it well. The Republicans in this case have created a framing where our name calling with names like "bully" or "bigot" is to our disadvantage. That's what "witch hunt" politics are all about, creating an indisputable enemy in people's imaginations. Our best bet is to demolish that framing, not break our swords ("bully" and "bigot" labeling) on a rock.

Still use those words. By all means. Just don't forget to be against "the witch," while calling out that it's a scare tactic used by cynical, Putin dupe, spit-on-the-flag Republican career politicians to draw suckers who should know better.

And, of course, I'm fully behind all the legal battling being done by our team. I'd just like to see us win all the battles.

The Republican "witch hunt" for what must be a miniscule number of botched gender-affirming health care cases is, of course, a disgusting, dirty political strategy. It's a standard wedge issue for them, just like "bathroom choice" or "partial birth abortion" or "Terri Schiavo." A tiny handful of extreme cases are weaponized for political war against Dems.

How many times are we going to take that bait?

I don't think the best response is to accuse Republicans of "bullying" transgender kids, their parents, and their health care providers. That's punching them in the fist with our faces. It's what they want us to do. It's arguably immoral for us to do that, really, because it weakens us in our pursuit of other Dem and progressive priorities. Moreover, it encourages the Republicans to bully even more people. We need a better answer.

Doctors are not gods, nor are they even pure-hearted, altruistic, ultimate authorities. They're people who need to make a living, just like the rest of us hacks. It's easy for me to imagine a few hack doctors mongering grotesquely incompetent and damaging "gender-affirming health care services." I don't think Dem politics should rely on that type of doctor not existing in nature.

So, a suggestion is that we Dems affirm the rights of parents and children to health care treatment by trained experts for gender-related problems. Then we, perhaps, champion regulations on the health care industry to help ensure the safety and wellbeing of children in those and other cases. We attack the Republicans for being against our regulations.

What was it Republicans in both houses of Congress showed when they let Trump off the hook in two impeachments? Weakness. They knew he did something wrong, but they looked the other way to save their own skins. Now we need to ask, "Would Putin have invaded Ukraine if those Republican cowards had shown courage?"

People really need to call Republicans on their use of the word "weakness." Too often, some hear a Trump-shy, cowardly Republican say Biden somehow showed weakness and, in the spirit of debate, the unfortunate hearer might reflexively wonder to themselves, "Hmm. Did Biden show weakness?" It's nuts how that works. It's sleight of hand. The mind focuses on the word "weakness" and not on the coward who is using the word.

I, for one, don't do that. I hear a cowardly Republican say weakness and I think, "You mean what you showed, and Biden hasn't?"