The democrats are a waste

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed.
B	77	25.50%
K	160	52.98%
M	65	21.52%
Total:	229 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Cross-posting this from C-SPAM:

gradenko_2000 posted:

Let's talk about who leftists distrust � and why

Many people got really mad about this piece, some essentially accusing me of racism.

So, to clarify the argument, I'll take this suggestion from Greenpeace's Matt Browner Hamlin:

https://twitter.com/mattkbh/status/893082404797206528

If policy and allegiance is equally important to identity, then the actual white male neoliberal establishment is doubly worthless.

Let me emphasize once more that I strongly agree that problems of bigotry in this country must be attacked. There is far too much sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and so on in the United States. But leftists like myself believe that in addition to traditional civil rights policy, nothing short of a total overhaul of American capitalism will suffice to actually eradicate oppression from our society. Neoliberals like Andrew Cuomo and Joe Biden, by contrast, believe that the capitalist framework only needs minor tweaks.

What is meant by a "total overhaul of capitalism" is debated, but at a minimum it means a very heavy cutback in the wealth and power of the very rich. It means things like a massive increase in taxation, especially on the rich, to pay for huge new welfare programs; heavy new corporate regulations, especially to break up corporate oligopolies and on Wall Street swindlers; and strong economic stimulus to finally fix the Great Recession and bring down appalling unemployment rates among black Americans especially.

So let's examine these three white male neoliberals in turn. Mark Zuckerberg (who has hired Hillary Clinton's pollster) is a flatly ridiculous option for leftists. He's the fifth-richest person in the world. He personifies the opposite of what leftists want. Moreover, there is no reason to think business expertise makes for a good president (see: Trump, Donald).

Andrew Cuomo is a more serious option. He is the governor of New York, and he is an ultra-cynical political snake. He has betrayed left-wing organizations like the Working Families Party, worked behind the scenes to keep Republicans in power of the New York state Senate, and created a public transit crisis in New York City by starving the subway of funding and attention, among many other things.

Joe Biden is unquestionably the most popular politician among this group, cruising on his reputation as America's cool uncle in the Obama White House. But Biden's long record as a United States senator is quite bad in the eyes of leftists. He championed the war on drugs and crime and voted for the Iraq War. Delaware is notorious for serving as basically a corporate tax shelter, and it therefore has gobs of banks and credit card companies. Biden has close ties to both, and therefore sponsored the gruesome 2005 bankruptcy reform bill and 1999 financial deregulation.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/870285134133645312

In short, there is every reason to think that these men will serve more or less as representatives of the ruling class � just as Harris, Booker, Patrick, and any number of other Democratic politicians, of any race or gender, would if they were installed by the establishment. They would have neither the inclination nor the necessary political backing to put through the left-wing policy that would actually get the really excellent social justice goods. Like ObamaCare, any new policy they propose will almost certainly be punched through with so many compromises and handouts to existing stakeholders that it would leave tens of millions of Americans � many if not most of them minorities � out in the cold.

So as we discuss which vision is to predominate the future of the Democratic Party, remember that without a sweeping left-wing program, much bigotry and oppression will remain. White neoliberal men are the last people to trust to understand this. People like Harris and Booker are no doubt more likely to understand, but neither should they be blindly trusted. The history of Democratic Party sellout-ery is simply too long.

In response to the original article - http://theweek.com/articles/715955/why-leftists-dont-trust-kamala-harris-cory-booker-deval-patrick

# ? Aug 7, 2017 15:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 12, 2024 23:09

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

matt bruenig's website is live

quote:

Safety net. Safety net. Safety net. It is apparently the only metaphor there is to describe the welfare state, at least in American political discourse. Every liberal politician, think tank, and pundit seems to never tire of the euphemism, even as it so readily avails itself to the equally obnoxious conservative metaphor of the welfare hammock.

Despite its popularity, the safety net metaphor has always struck me as confused at best and as indicative of bad welfare politics at worst. The message of the safety net is that we all need protection when we fall, which of course is true. But the role of a good welfare state is not just to protect against fluke catastrophes and most welfare benefits are not even used for that purpose.

Old-age pensions, paid family leave, child care benefits, public health insurance, and education are not items provided to people in the depths of a life collapse. They are, in their ideal form, universal services for life events that basically everyone goes through. People intentionally have children, intentionally go to school, and intentionally live into retirement. These are positive experiences in themselves, and only become negative because of a bad welfare system.

Some benefits do genuinely track occurrences most would regard as inherently unfortunate, such as becoming disabled or becoming unemployed. But they are the exception, not the rule. And, in the case of unemployment, so many people separate from their job each year (42 percent in 2016) that it is really a much more universal experience than most realize.

Beyond its literal inaccuracy, the safety net metaphor also suffers rhetorically. It suggests that the normal state of affairs is for individuals and families to be sustained solely through market income and that those who cannot be so sustained have hit some sort of pitfall. This further suggests that there exists some conceivable state of affairs where welfare institutions are not needed because everything is running smoothly.

But this is a terrible story to tell about why welfare states are needed. It identifies the problem as being caused by bumps in the road, which conservatives often redescribe as personal failings, when the much better story of the welfare state locates the problem in the inherent defects of a capitalist economic order.

Under laissez-faire capitalism, income is only distributed to the factors of production, i.e. labor and capital. If you don�t own a whole bunch of capital or have the capacity and opportunity to work, capitalism has no use for you and would, left alone, starve you to death. The welfare state exists, not because some people just randomly fall on hard times, but rather because capitalism has no way of getting huge numbers of people (around half of the population is not working at any given time) the income and services that they need.

A better metaphor, both in terms of accuracy and rhetoric, would be the foundation. The welfare foundation provides a universal set of services on top of which people can build their lives. It is a permanent support structure, not a temporary failsafe. The precise mix of welfare benefits individuals get will of course vary depending on what stage of life they are in, but the welfare state as a whole is there for them at all times, giving them the stability to do everything else they want to do with their lives.

The safety net metaphor is so ingrained at this point that I am sure it will continue on by its own momentum for the indefinite future. And that�s fine. Suboptimal phrases are not the biggest problems in the world. But even if the phrase remains, we should nonetheless oppose its most natural meaning. The welfare state should not just be there for needy people when they fall through the cracks. It should be there for everyone all the time.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 16:35

Dirk Pitt: Sep 14, 2007; haha yes, this feels good; Toilet Rascal

https://twitter.com/sarahlerner/status/894572241865760768

# ? Aug 7, 2017 16:44

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

she's not wrong but who cares

# ? Aug 7, 2017 16:51

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

she's not wrong but who cares

It's from Paul Krugman.

Paul Krugman posted:

A far more important consideration is minimizing disruption to the 156 million people who currently get insurance through their employers, and are largely satisfied with their coverage. Moving to single-payer would mean taking away this coverage and imposing new taxes; to make it fly politically you�d have to convince most of these people both that they would save more in premiums than they pay in additional taxes, and that their new coverage would be just as good as the old.

This might in fact be true, but it would be one heck of a hard sell. Is this really where progressives want to spend their political capital?

YES!

Also the article is disingenuous as gently caress:

quote:

Look at the latest report by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, comparing health care performance among advanced nations. America is at the bottom; the top three performers are Britain, Australia, and the Netherlands. And the thing is, these three leaders have very different systems.

Britain has true socialized medicine: The government provides health care directly through the National Health Service. Australia has a single-payer system, basically Medicare for All � it�s even called Medicare. But the Dutch have what we might call Obamacare done right: individuals are required to buy coverage from regulated private insurers, with subsidies to help them afford the premiums.

So 2/3 of those systems are single payer, but he goes on to rant about how great the Dutch system is. gently caress Paul Krugman.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 16:54

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

frankly what krugman misses is we could do the dutch system and call it single payer and like 99% of people wouldn't know the difference or give a poo poo

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:00

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

frankly what krugman misses is we could do the dutch system and call it single payer and like 99% of people wouldn't know the difference or give a poo poo

My argument is that we're the loving richest country on earth, we should have the best version of healthcare. Our whole thing was breaking off from England cause we thought we could do it better than them, let's loving hold ourselves up to that ideal.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:02

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

I would think that if there's anything that we've learned from the Trump administration it is that political capital is real and actually exist, and given the huge number of priorities that the left will have if it ever gains power again, spending the entirely of it on single payer versus any other universal healthcare really seems quixotic at best

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:16

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

I would think that if there's anything that we've learned from the Trump administration it is that political capital is real and actually exist

How in the hell did you leap to that conclusion?

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:16

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

I would think that if there's anything that we've learned from the Trump administration it is that political capital is real and actually exist, and given the huge number of priorities that the left will have if it ever gains power again, spending the entirely of it on single payer versus any other universal healthcare really seems quixotic at best

I guess you would think that, given your long and storied history of being dead wrong about things.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:18

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

I do think that the Democrats should run on a strong principle: Financial means should have no bearing on a persons' access to healthcare. The actual process by which that gets put into action is fairly unimportant. The problem with the ACA isn't that it is not single payer, it is that it doesn't achieve the goal

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:19

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Trump's is a lesson that the only thing that matters in politics is a majority - and a will. The thing stopping the GOP isn't "political capital", it is arithmetics.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:20

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

WampaLord posted:

How in the hell did you leap to that conclusion?

Because Republicans are apparently giving up on any plan of touching healthcare

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:20

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

steinrokkan posted:

Trump's is a lesson that the only thing that matters in politics is a majority - and a will. The thing stopping the GOP isn't "political capital", it is arithmetics.

Political capital is more a function of a calendar. Republicans probably could manage to pass a healthcare bill eventually over the next two years, but would like glee be unable to get anything else of note accomplished aside from that given the time and attention it would require to reach a consensus

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:22

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

And what does it have to do with capital.

Their dice fell short of an actionable threshold, that's all. No amount of "capital building" will change the balance.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:22

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

steinrokkan posted:

And what does it have to do with capital.

Their dice fell short of an actionable threshold, that's all. No amount of "capital building" will change the balance.

Given enough time, you could get some hilarious carveouts for the holdouts that would bring them on board

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:23

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

I do think that the Democrats should run on a strong principle: Financial means should have no bearing on a persons' access to healthcare. The actual process by which that gets put into action is fairly unimportant. The problem with the ACA isn't that it is not single payer, it is that it doesn't achieve the goal

I agree with this in a short term sense, insofar as it should be more important that no one dies from lack of healthcare access, or is permanently/severely financially impacted by receiving treatment, than the ideological structure of how that healthcare is delivered.

I'd argue that in the long term the profit motive necessarily must be removed from healthcare because it creates perverse incentives, however. The opiate epidemic is a good example of the problems with moral hazards in capitalist healthcare.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:34

Kokoro Wish: Jul 23, 2007; Post? What post? Oh wow.
I had nothing to do with THAT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQSMIyBhMh4

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:46

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Given enough time, you could get some hilarious carveouts for the holdouts that would bring them on board

This isn't what's generally meant by political capital, though. There's no goodwill with the public that can be "spent" to make this happen, it's just a matter of finding the right incentives to buy off politicians who either don't care about reelection or who are convinced that they're safe either way. The healthcare reforms that the GOP wants to make are all poo poo and everyone knows that they're poo poo. There's nothing they can do to buy their way out of it that with the public.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:54

Feldegast42: Oct 29, 2011; COMMENCE THE RITE OF SHITPOSTING

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

I would think that if there's anything that we've learned from the Trump administration it is that political capital is real and actually exist, and given the huge number of priorities that the left will have if it ever gains power again, spending the entirely of it on single payer versus any other universal healthcare really seems quixotic at best

Yeah if we blow all our presidency points on single payer we won't have the currency to mobilize our military and we will be sitting ducks for when the Canadians invade

# ? Aug 7, 2017 17:59

Feldegast42: Oct 29, 2011; COMMENCE THE RITE OF SHITPOSTING

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Because Republicans are apparently giving up on any plan of touching healthcare

15 minutes after McCain succumbs to his brain tumor AHCA will pass the Senate.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:02

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Lightning Knight posted:

I agree with this in a short term sense, insofar as it should be more important that no one dies from lack of healthcare access, or is permanently/severely financially impacted by receiving treatment, than the ideological structure of how that healthcare is delivered.

I'd argue that in the long term the profit motive necessarily must be removed from healthcare because it creates perverse incentives, however. The opiate epidemic is a good example of the problems with moral hazards in capitalist healthcare.

a) non-single payer uhc insurance plans can be required to be non-profit
b) single payer doesn't solve perverse incentives as it doesn't remove profit from health care, only health insurance

# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:04

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Feldegast42 posted:

15 minutes after McCain succumbs to his brain tumor AHCA will pass the Senate.

actually debatable; the reason they tried to pass it first thing is everyone wants to maximize the amount of time between passing this hopelessly unpopular bill and 2018 reelection campaigning.

expect a lot more people to get cold feet on motions to proceed if they try this poo poo again next year, everyone is loving terrified of a redo

# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:20

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

if they still control all branches after 2018 elections you can expect it coming down the pipe real fuckin' hot in 2019, but nobody wants to have to run on that stinker next year.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:22

Matt Zerella: Oct 7, 2002; Norris'es are back baby. It's good again. Awoouu (fox Howl)

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

I would think that if there's anything that we've learned from the Trump administration it is that political capital is real and actually exist, and given the huge number of priorities that the left will have if it ever gains power again, spending the entirely of it on single payer versus any other universal healthcare really seems quixotic at best

This is a really really bad post. Like embarrassingly bad.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:24

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

matt bruenig's website is live

This is what I'm talking about when I rant about the need to develop the leftist ecosystem of leftward institutions, leftward cultures, and leftward artifacts. For all the discussion on universal healthcare, how many well articulated plans do we have to advocate? We need more institutions like PPP pushing the policy dialog.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:29

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Majorian posted:

All probably true, but there's a converse to that standard line of hedging that you mention. There's a good chance that politicians like Harris could be pressured into taking stronger left-populist stances, given the right mix of pressure and political incentives from an organized left. Part of what made Obama's presidency such a dud, was that there really wasn't much focused, directed left-wing pressure on him, to any meaningful degree. If lefties can keep getting organized, and maintain their energy, though, I think pols like Harris could be smart enough to ride that wave into power, regardless of whether or not they actually believe in left-wing principles in their hearts.

Obviously, that's not something one can or should assume, and as I've said, I think the left can do better for 2020. But down the line, who knows. Harris may turn out to be somebody we can at least do business with, even if she's never a true believer.

I think you're being too optimistic. While it's not literally impossible that someone like Obama or Harris could be pressured to do something left-wing, they're still not even remotely left-wing themselves and I see no reason not to attack them in favor of someone better.

Also, one of the biggest threats in my mind is a Democrat using leftist-sounding rhetoric and pushing for policy that sounds good to relatively uninformed voters (which is the vast majority of voters, including leftist ones). Or even worse, making some plausible-sounding excuse for not being able to pass (or at least aggressively push for) good policy. While people would come around to the deception eventually (since they'd notice the status quo hasn't really changed much), it would be another 4-8+ years wasted.

It doesn't really make sense to attack (insert almost any other mainstream Democrat) and not attack someone like Harris.

edit: To put it another way, someone like Tulsi Gabbard is probably a more reliable vector for left-wing politics than Harris, and that's pretty pathetic.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:39

Matt Zerella: Oct 7, 2002; Norris'es are back baby. It's good again. Awoouu (fox Howl)

Ytlaya posted:

Also, one of the biggest threats in my mind is a Democrat using leftist-sounding rhetoric and pushing for policy that sounds good to relatively uninformed voters (which is the vast majority of voters, including leftist ones). Or even worse, making some plausible-sounding excuse for not being able to pass (or at least aggressively push for) good policy. While people would come around to the deception eventually (since they'd notice the status quo hasn't really changed much), it would be another 4-8+ years wasted.

Yes, I agree. Another Obama would be bad for the Democrats.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:41

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Ardennes posted:

Btw, Obama didn't really run as hard left, it was vaguer center-left populism but he certainly played up the hope for something more to the full hilt. His second election was more muted, and seemed to generally rely on coasting on his popularity and the fact that Romney was ridiculously easy to pigeon hole.

I think the issue is most voters, including a large portion of (if not most) leftists, don't really know how to distinguish between the sort of rhetoric Obama espoused and actual leftist policy. Like, your average voter is going to assume (barring any preconceptions about the politician in question) that a politician saying "income inequality in our country is unacceptable" is going to be good on that issue. They won't think to actually check the specific policy being pushed by that candidate, and even if they do they won't necessary know how to judge the policy (since a lot of Democratic policy sounds good on paper, and often is technically a good thing, despite not coming close to addressing the problem in question).

# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:49

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

Dirk Pitt posted:

https://twitter.com/sarahlerner/status/894572241865760768

God drat I hate Kreugman so loving much. I swear to God if the Democrats try to use this logic weasel out of single payer I will vote Trump myself out of raw spite just to see these fuckers cry about it.

No Paul, were not buying it anymore. We're not going to accept another bullshit half measure that's just going to be compromised into oblivion anyway. The party needs to get behind full single payer now or gently caress off and let someone else take over.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 18:56

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Trabisnikof posted:

This is what I'm talking about when I rant about the need to develop the leftist ecosystem of leftward institutions, leftward cultures, and leftward artifacts. For all the discussion on universal healthcare, how many well articulated plans do we have to advocate? We need more institutions like PPP pushing the policy dialog.

the answer to "where's the bill" should be "reintroduce kennedy-griffiths" probably - we've lost so much of our own history

# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:11

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Huzanko posted:

You're real dumb and people like you are, too.

Unions enforce the bedrock idea that we should cooporate with eachother to get a more fair share - or, hell, maybe even all - of the pie.

If you don't support unions, you're just another anti-democratic piece of poo poo.

I also think basic literacy is important for the health of a democracy, so I suspect there is much we disagree on.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:27

Huzanko: Aug 4, 2015; by FactsAreUseless

WampaLord posted:

It's from Paul Krugman.

YES!

Also the article is disingenuous as gently caress:

So 2/3 of those systems are single payer, but he goes on to rant about how great the Dutch system is. gently caress Paul Krugman.

Kraul Pugman

# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:28

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Sneakster posted:

Some center-left suit saying unions are good because they still get donations from them, while saying BlueCross Blushield has my interests in mind and should be a key player in in bribing politicians who own stock in them for managing healthcare, is still, in the most basic sense, my enemy. Short of the eradication of a class based society, there is never going to be an environment in which capital doesn't have organized representation, and the idea that unions are an anachronism but capitalism itself isn't is a contradiction that should be an air raid siren about the motives and intent of anyone who would even appear sympathetic to such a claim.

Capitalism is an anachronism.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:31

Sneakster: Jul 13, 2017; by R. Guyovich

Kilroy posted:

Capitalism is an anachronism.

There won't be prisons after the revolution. Only graves.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:36

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Ytlaya posted:

I think the issue is most voters, including a large portion of (if not most) leftists, don't really know how to distinguish between the sort of rhetoric Obama espoused and actual leftist policy. Like, your average voter is going to assume (barring any preconceptions about the politician in question) that a politician saying "income inequality in our country is unacceptable" is going to be good on that issue. They won't think to actually check the specific policy being pushed by that candidate, and even if they do they won't necessary know how to judge the policy (since a lot of Democratic policy sounds good on paper, and often is technically a good thing, despite not coming close to addressing the problem in question).

Then there is also the issue that the average American democrat is entirely provincial. Supporting a coup in Honduras, blocking efforts to increase minimum wage in Haiti, supporting the bombing of Yemen, or deporting record numbers of people only matter in so far as they can be used to boost the democrats' hawkish credentials.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:43

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Sneakster posted:

There won't be prisons after the revolution. Only graves.

Says the guy who's on record as saying he's happy to leave the US behind in favor of some other neoliberal wet dream of it means he can advance to the upper middle class.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:44

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

The thing is, even if Krugman is technically correct about there being options other than single payer, his solution is "incremental changes to Obamacare", when a reasonable solution would be something along the lines of "making all health insurance* companies non-profits while also implementing a variety of price controls, etc." Incremental changes to Obamacare could take decades to result in meaningful change. Like, we'd be talking maybe one incremental change for each Democratic presidency, ignoring the possibility of Republican changes/repeals, and god only knows how long it would take for that to result in something remotely approaching actual UHC.

I think stuff like the above really reveals something important about the perspective of people like Paul Krugman. I'm sure he genuinely wants to achieve some of these goals, but he doesn't really care how long it takes. To him, there's no difference between it taking 5 years and 50 years to achieve UHC, since he'll be fine regardless. Liberals (or at least the ones who dictate the direction of the Democratic Party) generally feel no pressure to accomplish goals in a timely manner, since they're not actually the ones being harmed by the status quo.

*and ideally also other healthcare-related industries

# ? Aug 7, 2017 19:47

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Because Republicans are apparently giving up on any plan of touching healthcare

How would that change if he had oodles of 'political capital', though? The suicide caucus would still refuse any plan without their amendments, and the medicaid-voter republicans would still refuse any plan from the suicide caucus.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 20:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 12, 2024 23:09

Sneakster: Jul 13, 2017; by R. Guyovich

Kilroy posted:

Says the guy who's on record as saying he's happy to leave the US behind in favor of some other neoliberal wet dream of it means he can advance to the upper middle class.

I mean the Reagan revolution. Time to quit with the purity tests and elect an electable democrat who won't pander to whiners, gets tough on crime, helps the middle class, disciplines the the poor, and helps struggling home owners, reigns in the budget and I can't keep writing this while swallowing my own vomit.

I was being silly

There will be no revolution. The future of the democratic party is nothing but the finest light skinned attorney or investment banker the DNC can find in the cornfields of Manhattan.

# ? Aug 7, 2017 20:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

«‹›483 »