> Well excuse me for failing to show kindness to the most bigoted and hateful beings on the planet.

Except... They're not? I've seen more hatred and bigoted behavior directed at Musk by the Democratic party in general than I've seen directed at any minority group by Republicans of any flavor (to pick two common examples of hate in today's politics). I agree that there's been a lot of hate from the latter, but it does not compare in scale and general "acceptability" to the hateful rhetoric I see thrown about on a daily basis by Democratic leaders in the most mainstream of places.

Maybe you "only hate the most bigoted ones", but I suspect that's just a rationalization on your part? I suspect every person I see this hateful rhetoric from would say the same thing about "only hating those who deserve it": but the scope and scale of actual hateful rhetoric tells me that's just rationalizing and posturing. Many Democrats are quite gleeful when they spew their hatred, and there's are not nearly enough Democrats speaking out about it.

> Seemed to work well enough for the republicans.

And yet they also came up with a very detailed plan of action and are currently executing on it. So they clearly are doing more than "just" complaining how bad things were under Democrats.

The Republicans' victory in this past election should be a searing indictment of Democrats' perceived ability to execute.

> You're a fool if you really believe they will stop at only illegal residents. In fact, go read the news right now. They also deport legal residents now.

This is wild speculation and the exact kind of rhetoric that does you no favors. I've seen a couple accounts that this has happened in isolated incidents, but certainly nothing that rises to the level that you're claiming here.

As much as it sucks, I would expect any deportation program to mistakenly deport a few people it shouldn't, no matter how carefully they identify individuals.

Maybe I'm a "fool" for believing it's a baseline error rate thing, but I would certainly be a fool if I believed every person who was as convinced of malfeasance as you seem to be! Every situation over the past few years that could be plausibly extrapolated to "ending democracy" has been by Democrats, regardless of how feasible that outcome actually is... So perhaps I now carry more skepticism of those kinds of hyperbolic claims than I should.

> It already did.

It didn't, though. Some aid programs were immediately exempted from the EO, and more exemptions have been added over time.

So, no. You're factually incorrect

> It is illegal, go read what lawyers are saying. Trump does not hold absolute power (yet), we don't live in a monarchy (yet). He is supposed to abide by the law but doesn't. Which is why I am concerned. I feel like talking to a wall here.

I've seen a lot of ink spilled by lawyers about what's "illegal" over my lifetime, and more often than not the courts do not agree with them. You can find a lawyer willing to make a case that anything is illegal, and everyone has one they're ready to trot out to question the legality of their opponents' actions.

As such, I've put a lot less weight on the authority of those statements.

I agree that some of the things the current administration is doing could be illegal, and I agree with some of the rationale behind why some lawyers are saying it is illegal. However, I'm not convinced it is illegal, due to the poor predictive power of such blanket announcements--especially when they're being made in such an information-poor environment.

Being concerned is fine. I'm concerned, too. Categorically declaring the actions are "definitely illegal" based on the words of some lawyers' motivated reasoning? Probably foolish.

> We do agree on the basic issue, but I think our conclusions are completely opposite. You seem to advocate for the democrat becoming some sort of republicans-lite. This won't help anyone, not even themselves. They can't win by weakly catering to MAGA voters.

No, I'm saying Democrats should cater to the moderates, and stop giving their most hateful and extreme members the spotlight all the damn time. Democrats' recent approach has spent far more time and energy on efforts which only benefit (much less affect) some of it's most marginal populations, which has left their much larger, more moderate Democrats out in the cold.

This is not a strategy to double down on, and yet it is what they're doing. This is just plain stupid, and as a "more moderate" Democrat, feels a little demeaning.

> My vision is that of a real left-wing party, with a populist messaging on universal healthcare, high taxes on the ultra-wealthy, more redistribution, pro-union policies, etc. All those subjects poll incredibly well with Americans.

I don't think all those things poll well, though? Universal healthcare certainly does, but pro-union policies? Higher taxes on the wealthy? I don't think either of these things has clear majority support.

Personally, I'm not even convinced that unions are a net good, given how prone to exploitation they can be. I mean, just look at the recent dock worker strike, where one of the major reasons for the strike was to protest automation. Automation! Our ports need more automation, and more automation would be a net good for anyone who depends on those ports--and yet this is being obstructed by the existing unions, whose continued existence apparently depends on blocking progress. And the Democratic party supports this! Anyway, this is a whole tangent.

> There is no future for this country if we continue shifting both parties right-ward.

I whole-heartedly agree, but there is also no future for this country if the Democratic response to Republicans' victory is to just ratchet up the rhetoric and hate.

> I feel like we're both losing time. Do you have any closing words on this?

Not really anything I haven't already said, I guess. I think you're being unhelpful to the cause you claim to champion by being hateful and spiteful, but I don't think I'm going to change your mind about the effectiveness of that approach. I'm saddened that so many Democrats so readily embrace hatred when things don't go their way. I think such an approach is transparently self-defeating, yet feel like I'm relatively alone in that belief.

I'm embarrassed by current Democratic leadership, and yet as someone who disagrees with the vocal minority of the party on a lot of nuance, I'm utterly disincentivized to throw my hat into the ring. I've seen how easy it is for the current leadership to manufacture large amounts of hate for people they're opposed to, and have absolutely seen that weaponized against "insider threats".

The problem there isn't the Democratic leadership's willingness to heap hate on anyone they see as a threat--it's the regular "rank and file" like yourself who take up that hate, and gleefully and righteously spread it around. You've normalized hate, and that's just sad.