ASS BACKWARD

I hate to refer specifically to the comments of a writer I actually like – whose writing about why nobody On The Internet owes people their time helped me a great deal when this stuff was getting less fun for me – but there's a Twitter thread that captures a lot of what's wrong with liberal/centrist politics right now. She's hardly the only person to make arguments like this. It's just recent, and got a lot of circulation due to her high profile.

To summarize briefly if you don't care to wade through the entire thing:

1. Pete Buttigieg is good and we should like him even though his stances on the issues are bad
2. Bernie Sanders is bad ("cancelled") even though his stances on the issues are good

As best I can tell, Mayor Pete is likable so it's OK if he takes crappy positions aimed at appeasing the white suburban 50-plus Democratic base alone. Bernie is mean, or was mean to Hillary, or has supporters on the internet who are mean, or something, so it doesn't matter that he is about the only elected official standing up for something the writer of that tweet claims is important (felon re-enfranchisement).

This isn't about liking or disliking either Buttigieg or Sanders. That's not relevant right now. What makes this worth reading is that this is just stupendously dumb logic. It is so completely and obviously backwards that I will just assume anyone who agrees with this line of thought realizes it is illogical and just doesn't care.

The issue of letting the incarcerated vote (in the 48 states that do not currently allow it) isn't even a policy proposal; it's a question that came up during a media appearance. It is an absolute slam-dunk for any Democrat seeking to demonstrate that they as individuals and the party as a whole takes criminal justice reform seriously. Instead, most of them did what they always do and back down to appease uneasy white suburban voters. Two years from now they'll be asking, "Gosh why didn't black and hispanic voters turn out to vote for Mayor Pete? We tried everything!" To someone like this author, a Philips Exeter alum, it might seem self-evident why Pete deserves the benefit of the doubt. To the rest of us worried about the future, he just sounds like a guy who doesn't know what he stands for and reads West Wing monologues.

Issues are important to a lot of people. Not the symbolism of having a president who is Cool and Smart but won't actually advocate for anything. If that's the goal, nominate Beto or some model from the fashion runway. Nominate a celebrity everyone likes. If the candidates' positions don't matter, then go all-in with that theory. When the only thing that matters is that the elected official has a D next to his or her name, you get Rahm Emanuel and Andrew Cuomo. You have to be pretty goddamn comfortable in life, and thus unaffected by their worship of the status quo, to think that's the best we can do.

I get that a lot of voters, perhaps even a majority of voters, make decisions based on subjective Likability stuff that is nonsense. But there are a ton of candidates available, some of whom qualify as Charismatic or Likable and some of whom qualify as people who actually support useful and creative policy ideas. It is way, way too early in the process to decide that there's no chance to get a candidate who has both, so we need to simply accept another smiling empty suit and resign ourselves to platitudes.

Lastly, the phrase "There is no perfect candidate" is quickly becoming the "It's not a democracy, it's a republic" of people who support shit candidates. It is beyond obvious that no candidate is perfect; that's not an argument in favor of supporting a bad one when there are so many options available. If the car is rusted out you don't shrug your shoulders and say, "Well no car is perfect I guess!" You look at one of the other cars on the lot. If the rust bucket really does turn out to be the absolute best option available, somehow, then buy it. But be very wary of anyone telling you to suck it up and buy it because that's not merely as good as it gets, but it's as good as things ever CAN get.

55 thoughts on “ASS BACKWARD”

  • Whenever I start to doubt Achen & Bartels in Democracy for Realists when they observe that voters align according to social affinity ("Is this candidate like me?"), all I have to do is read a couple of Facebook threads to see the old white guys who like Bernie, the white women and younger white guys who like Bernie, and the obvious uniform personality trait seems to be fancying that they're just too smart, too noble, to indulge in party politics. The kind of twits who can be relied upon to intone, "I vote for the person, not the party." So an old white guy who hits all the "independent" virtue buttons is their man. Man. Not woman. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren soldiers on with actual policy ideas and stances…but she's one of those stinky Democrats. Plus, she's smart, always a downer if you're female.

    Or, viewed from the other direction, party members who've worked and contributed to at least keep the Democratic party afloat in the 30 years since Reagan Republicans became the cool kids, see someone like Sanders as showing up late to the party and demanding to be crowned king of the prom. So I can understand some resentment there, especially if you're a member of the upper middle class, smug in your own high-mindedness and political virtue and activism and ability to contribute handsome sums. Those rabble!

    In other words, it's hard for me to not think, "Y'know, fuck all of you. Vote Democratic no matter who gets the nomination, because if Trump and the Republican Senate are allowed to stay in power, the rest of us just might start making plans to release the plague rats that will kill you right along with the FOX zombies and MAGA hat tools.

  • Art Jannicelli says:

    Mo & Democommie,

    Warren, like Sanders has been a resistance leader. However, anyone paying attention since 2016, knows she is not ready to be President. Twitler trolled her very effectively in the last 2 year's, and she has been her own worst enemy. Why even take the DNA test? She played into his hand, then when you got results that prove Twitler right why not just keep quiet you even took the test? Now she looks foolish, a cheat (applying as a Native American), and a liar. She is my first pick to Bernie's VP at this point, have her work under a political master for 4 years, then she could be ready.

    In short, party loyalists just assume Sanders supporters have no good reason why they do not support party faithful candidates… Because you can't hear them over shouting them down with what you believe they believe rather than listening.

    What the DNC & loyalists refuse to recognize is they need independents to win. Independents have no party loyalty, so *gasp* they could vote for Twitler… (Which I think is epically stupid)

    It is the job of the DNC to create a deeper platform than, "Here's a well spoken, attractive person, giving platitudes, promising to defend the status quo, while stating 'Trump Bad"… In the hopes that some GOP voters might see the DNC candidate as just conservative enough… That they would hold their nose and vote for them…

    The good news is AOC, Sanders, and Warren have a ready built platform, an energized voting and donating bade of Democrats & independents ready to sweep the DNC out of the dog house and into power… If the DNC is ready to gnaw off the Wall st/1% hand they've grown addicted to feeding from, and also run a completely above the board fair & open primary.

    Regardless if the DNC actually was or was not the reason Bernie did not win the nomination… They gave off an unforgivable stench of arrogance, that it was their primary to run as unfairly as they wanted to independents, then we're shocked when they stayed home.

    The presidency is the Democrats to lose… And at this point they seem determined to do it again.

  • To quote a favorite blogger…if we have four more years of Obama, we are doomed. All he could talk about is working with the Republicans while largely believing in politics to the right of Nixon.

    That is what you would get with Mayor Pete.

  • It’s would be amusing, if it weren’t also so dangerous, that educated leftists don’t appear to understand that for the vast, K-12 public school “educated” modern Democratic unwashed, today as with Obama in 2008, what matters—all that matters—is the most emotionally satisfying and hand mirror-ready feelgood social justice, identity politics, and diversity-optics public gesture.

    Pete Buttgage is openly gay. Absent that, all else being equal, he’s hoping to once poll over 1%. That’s it. End of story.

  • Emerson Dameron says:

    If I were a wealthy famous person with a significant Twitter following, my daily concerns might be less about dying in poverty and more about preserving my sense of personal integrity while getting dogpiled by thousands of Chapo Trap House fanboys. The celebrity vote may not be worth much as a barometer.

  • I hate to be foily this early in the morning, but Buttigieg strikes me as kind of a manufactured MIC candidate. Sure, he's smart (on paper, or wikipedia), but who goes to Afghanistan as a Naval Intelligence officer at 32?

    And I'm afraid I'm getting on toward that demographic that the DNC is attempting to attract (old, white, red state) with their "hip new faces"/ empty suits (O'Rourke, Mayor Pete), but they're forgetting that I still remember how that shit worked out in 2009, or hell, 1993 for that matter.

  • The DNC is in an uncomfortable position, the major donors are unlikely to support a progressive candidate, anyone the donors like, looks like Trump's new doormat. Not looking forwards to four more years of half-assed fascism, and Pence might be able to do it right if Trump's impeached or dies… oh, well.

  • Art, there are very few actual independents. Almost all are reliable partisans who want to sound cool but routinely vote with their prior party leaning.

  • A daguerreotype of Jair Bolsonaro for a "get out the vote" iPhone App might be a viable option at the rate that this country seems to be going.

  • What's interesting is that I am the 13th comment and the ones above me have yet to mention policy, at all.

    How do I "know" that Warren isn't ready to be president? I like her policies more than anyone else's so far. But I shouldn't vote for her because I "know". How about last year in the dem primary — I liked Bernie's policies, especially as regards student loans, way better than HRCs. But somehow everyone "knows" I did it because either I 'want nothing more than to think of myself as independent' or because I'm sexist, which I was told at the time. Never mind that I'm a hardcore Warren supporter this cycle, who seems to be the one most crushed by sexism this time around.

    Once upon a time the Democratic party was the party of good ideas on fixing problems. I vote that way, because it's important to me. It makes me feel alone lately. If a person thinks Buttigeig is the guy because they don't like felon voting, or think that student loan payments are fine the way they are now, or think socialism sucks and he's more economically conservative, great. But I haven't heard much of that. Just the stuff like above.

  • Say what you want about Buttigieg, but at least he is talking about the biggest picture stuff: leadership, and true governmental reform. Get rid of electoral college. More supreme court justices. Making the next president focus on the institution of democracy and freedoms in its many forms (freedom to marry who you want, freedom from worrying about health costs, freedom from poverty, etc.).

    The rest of the issues are lipstick on a pig — lets get the "big" stuff taken care of and get democracy back. And voting rights in prison? Is that what we need a debate on right now? Seriously???? That's not the type of crap this country should even be worried about. After Trump the position shouldn't be business as usual, it should be lets make sure this crap never happens again.

  • Honestly this post and thread makes you guys look hysterical. First, the idea that any reform from any candidate has a chance of passing the Senate is such a sad pipe dream. Republicans will control the Senate come 2021. Second, this ideology purity test from the left is reminiscent of 2016 and the true conservative nonsense.

  • c u n d gulag says:

    While Mayor Pete "talks real purtty (sic) like," and Bernie has good ideas and loyal fans, but it's SPW* who is offering solutions!
    She's not just listing ideas and problems all liberals already know about, and have been talking about for years.

    For the life of me, I can't understand why she's not "leading the pack?"
    Never mind.
    I DO know.
    She's a woman.
    And our MSM always finds a way to diminish women.
    Subtly, or obviously.
    And she's VERY smart, another factor against her in this era of "a confederacy of dunces" – NOW, with added bigots.and misogynists!
    Oy…

    *h/t to the GREAT Mr. Piece for tagging her with the acronym, SPW – Senator Professor Warren

  • @c u n d Gulag: I'm mostly with you. SPW has spent a great deal of time thinking about the big problems that face us and coming up with policies that address those problems. And she is absolutely great at relating to the common citizen. But she did allow herself to be trolled on Twitter and as such, created a more uphill climb than she would have faced based on her gender and her liberalism (let's acknowledge that she is as progressive as Bernie.)

    Also, I like Pete Buttigieg. He is very smart, is also very thoughtful, he speaks in plain English rather than in politi-speak and he is pragmatic in a way that appeals to midwesterners (who the Dems will need to win back the White House). Also, (credit to Seth Meyers and his writers) he is fluent in 8 languages which is 8 more than the current occupant of the White House.

    As pointed out above, the odds of any president to get their legislative agenda through a Senate that will not have a Democratic supermajority is essentially zero so to me what is important is a return to norms and also an attempt to wrest some power from small, unpopulated states and give it back the the nation's majority. Adding SCOTUS justices (and maybe term limiting them and all other Federal judges), increasing the size of Congress (435 is not fixed in stone), statehood for DC and Puerto Rico might all be steps in the right direction.

  • @Benny Lava, satrap, CundGulag & Rosies Dad:

    I have no children, so no matter WHAT happens I won't be eatingthem.

    @ Jim M:

    "Once upon a time the Democratic party was the party of good ideas on fixing problems."

    Once upon a time they had the cushion of racist assholes who would support anything that put money into their favorite pork barrel and vote for ANY democrat over ANY republican, 'cuz LTWOST*..

    That group started leaving in 1964 and are now all comfy in their batshitburnin'stoopitKKKrazzeepantz Party-O-God.

    * Losin' The War Of Southrun Tretchree

  • SPW as President would be great, but even Biden would be an improvement over the current denizen, and he wouldn't be asking random young women to view the Presidential Vienna sausage.

  • Richard Yinger says:

    Any one care to explain why Dems need a senate supermajority while the Repugs seem to be kicking ass with 50 plus 1?

  • In 2016 I was called a sexist, purity pony, and Bernie bro for daring to point out the glaring catastraphic errors in the Hillary campaign. This cycle, I don’t care anymore. I’ll vote for whoever the nominee is, but I’m not going back inside the shrieking bedlam.

    I’m a registered Democrat by the way, not an independent.

    The inability to distinguish friend from foe is going to be what dooms the Democratic Party. +1 to Art and Richard.

  • Richard Yinger:

    Because the Republicans are shameless and eager in their obedience to the plutocrats and Dominionists. The "centrist" Democrats are basically on board with much of the same program, and they are cringeworthy and hesitant and tentative when they deign to throw us a few crumbs.

  • "She seems yet another of the slew out to kneecap Bernie and gaslight his supporters."

    You seem another of the slew out to kneecap SPW and gaslight her supporters.

    Funny how that shit works, ain't it.

  • "The presidency is the Democrats to lose… And at this point they seem determined to do it again." – Art

    "Ladies and gentleman, Senator and former Vice President Joe Biden of Delaware!!!"

    *we all fall down*

  • Prairie Bear says:

    To summarize briefly if you don't care to wade through the entire thing:

    1. Pete Buttigieg is good and we should like him even though his stances on the issues are bad
    2. Bernie Sanders is bad ("cancelled") even though his stances on the issues are good

    I did click over and looked at the thread, and as far as I can tell, she didn't even concede that his policies are good, just flat out "Except Bernie. His ass is cancelled. I do know that." Not a single word on why. I could be wrong, because Twitter is a mess for me to navigate and maybe I missed it.

    Anyway, somewhat tangential to this post but I think relevant, is the way the idea of not saying anything bad about any of the Dem primary candidates has become so explicit. I even saw this in one of those ugly memes with the screaming solid background in some hideous neon color with contrasting block print. There were a few lines referencing examples of possible flaws in candidates and then the last line was "SHUT UP ALREADY!"

    That used to be a GOP thing. Ronald Reagan called it The 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." Trump gleefully blew that to smithereens. I don't think Democrats should be adopting it. If nothing else, do they think the other side can't find out about the records, personal flaws, etc. of Democratic candidates, and that they won't use them negatively in the general election campaign?

  • "… and that they won't use them negatively in the general election campaign?"

    This.

    I think that the reason the dems have been getting their asses handed to them is that they are trying to hard to SEEM to be playing fair.

    Fuck it, I'm gonna vote for whichever, notfuckingcrazy person or marginally less assholeish person emerges from the fray to get on the D ticket. It's about all I can do at this point.

  • "Fuck it, I'm gonna vote for whichever, notfuckingcrazy person or marginally less assholeish person emerges from the fray to get on the D ticket. "

    That about sums it up. First you have to put the fire out before you start talking about how you're going to remodel the house.

  • Prairie Bear says:

    Also, Ed, this is not really the place for it, but for obvious reasons I can't tell you about this any other way. This from your tweets in the right hand column:

    A friend was banned for sarcastically replying to a homophobe …[etc]

    You blocked me on Twitter for what I thought was pretty much nothing. The only reason I can think it might have happened is I used the term "a$$-r@***g" in replying to a tweet you made referring to Jerry $@ndu$ky.

    Getting blocked from your Twitter feed obviously isn't ruining my life or anything, but I wouldn't mind sometimes being able to look at your tweet feeds. Just thought I'd mention it since your'e calling Twitter out.

  • lets get the "big" stuff taken care of and get democracy back. And voting rights in prison? Is that what we need a debate on right now?

    Do you really not see the hilarious lack of understanding that calling for getting democracy back while ignoring voting rights shows?

  • @Ian R
    And I see the text entry box lied about blockquote tags being allowed, for my response to @Jim M

  • intone definition: 1. to say something slowly and seriously in a voice that does not rise or fall much: 2. to say something slowly and seriously in a voice that does not rise or fall much: . … February 13, 2019. Read More. New Words. landmarkation noun. February 11, 2019. More new words. Get our free widgets. Add the power of Cambridge …

  • Buttigieg has "learned to work with red-state conservatives", which is the Midwest-nice way of saying he's learned to suck up to rich people, punch down on minorities and keep his sexytimes to himself.

    Check out some of the existing reportage on his adventures with the police department and some local developers.

  • I am sick and tired of the thuglican lite branch of the party continueing to rant and rave about how everyone has to support the D nominee no matter who they are when history has shown those are the ones who desert the party anytime someone to the left of nixon gets nominated for anything.
    They did for Nixon (v. mcgovern) they did it for addled ronnie (v. mondale) they did it for Lierman (v. Lamont) and they have done it election after election for candinate after candinate.
    It is time for these so called d's to either return to the thuglican party they endorse in all but name ( like so called d's such as lipinski and cuellar) or sit down and STFU.
    We do not need another defeatist liberal to further destroy the party again.
    Even last time, where I did vote for hillary (holding my nose), when the first thing she did after the convention was to go and kiss the ring of a war criminal (kissinger) to prove her thuglican tendencies. Remember she did start as a goldwater girl.
    So no more lectures from mayor pete how the d voters should be nice to his knuckle dragging trogolytes in the midwest who joyously loot the treasury for all the welfare ( farm subsidies, irrigation projects etc) and just don't say anything to offend the racist right, is there any other kind?
    Or biden rambleing on about how it was nicer in the senate when d's just sold out their constituents on all the thuglican issues of war, protecting credit card co.'s over people, completely botching his job as head of judiciary committee etc. But at least he could have drink with those who were trashing the country.
    No those points were, and continue to be, inane dodges of people who are willing to sell out anything to keep their place at the table.
    So no thuglicrat's looking to nurture thuglicans in a d administration.
    I want some one who will put the president of Earth First at the EPA, place Warren, or her choice at the SEC and Treasury and continue down the list.
    I want an AG who puts the nra, blackwater, the federalist society, the mercers and bannons associates on the subversive/ terrorist watch list while stripping any judges who have ever been a member of those subversive orgs of their positions while conducting a full financial and criminal cavity search of thier history's.
    No comprimise with the defeatist "moderates" whose history of selling out, accomadation and refusing to hold white collar criminals responsible for their crimes.
    No one who comes in and allows a blanket amnesty for thuglican criminals in the name of "moving forward not looking back" while ignoreing the truth that the past does dictate to the future.
    No the d's have been running scared and nurturing these vipers to their bosom long enough.
    Time to take out the trash

  • wa ki–

    Mao and Pol Pot are personal heroes of mine as well. Extremism in defense from thugs, hoarders and saboteurs is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of social justice is no virtue.

  • Ian R

    Actually that’s EXACTLY what I am talking about. Voting rights for the incarcerated is just not the shit we should be worried about. If society has deemed you unfit to go outside and be in society I think voting is the least of your issues. Maybe in an alternate universe where Trump isn’t president we can handle those type of nuisanced issues, but we have problems with:

    Why doesn’t the president with the most votes win?
    Why does our government seem to shut down every few years?
    What happened to Merrick Garland?
    Hey, I remember blue slips and filibusters for judges?
    Steve King still has a job?
    Why does it take an ID to vote?

    The general workings of democracy need an overhaul. Most people agree that government doesn’t work. So I’m for any candidate who wants to spend time on the dirty work to retool Washington.

  • Oh calling out the those quislings who are nuetering the d's is "scorched earth" or asking that those who are trashing the constitition on their judicial seats be held legally responsible for betraying their oath is the actions of pol pot and mao.
    Gee with that attitude why not just give the D nomination to Miss lindsy after all his performances on the judiciary committee has shown that he will nevr hold a thuglican responsible for anything. sounds like the sort of nice "moderate" that will not upset the status quo.
    Speaking of moderate d's betrayal even this lat week we had a good example from the Maryland house of how the "moderates" will torpedo any one who is a progressive that offend their fragile fees fees.
    After a caucaus of the d's super majority decided by vote to nominate progressive as speaker the so called "moderates" threatened to surrender the house to the thuglicans in exchange for their support of a "moderate" d over the progressive the d's had choosen in caucaus.
    Now that is scorched earth.
    Surrendering on universal health coverage in the name of tiny incremental improvements is an example of scorching the d voters.
    Refusing to hold bankers responsible for illegal actions and then endorseing bail outs for those same bankers stock options and bonuses is throwing taxpayers into the pyre of scorched earth.
    Allowing unqualified ideologicalhacks ( thomas, alito, etc) on to the supreme court as a gesture of accomadation is adding civil rights as fuel to "moderates" scorched earth.
    Refusing to take real action on global warming because it would do damage to the profits of fossil fuel companies is literally a scorched earth policy.
    So please explain how your idea of coddleing the deplorables, rewarding theives and protecting dishonest jurists is comparable to pol pot or Mao?

  • @wa ki – I have been there since Iran-Contra.
    I agree, time to take out the trash.

    For 40+ years the #GOPCrimeSyndicate has been plundering the public trough, trying to wreck anything like a social safety net (because any government program that isn't a scam to enrich the already wealthy is an IMMORAL theft of THEIR money through taxation), pushing team #IGotMineFU 'tax cuts for the wealthy serves the public interest/grows the economy/floats yer boats' nonsense, cultivating a base of rabidly racist, misogynist, xenophobic nihilists who believe they already live in the brutal abusive autocracy championed on FoxNews. The rest of us are screaming in horror as we witness the right-wing hellscape being born, midwifed into reality by every shitty million-dollar-hairdo media spokesperson for the plutocracy, and now a gush of status quo defending Ds whose 'moderateness' is promoted as 'attractive to voters'.

    – Moderate means 'accept GOP framing of issues'.
    – Moderate means 'accept GOP priorities'.
    – Moderate means 'put forth traditional conservative ideas as policy proposals'.
    – Moderate means 'never hold the GOP/Plutocrats responsible for being blood thirsty wreckers and reavers'.
    – Moderate means 'never getting around to advancing desperately needed progressive change'.
    – Moderate means 'business as usual'.
    – Moderate means 'do nothing'.

    'Moderate D' is a category that holds no attraction for me.

    @Demo – I don't want scorched earth with a new Mao or Pol Pot rising up and burn this country to the ground. I want my country to get a grip, shake off these criminals, strip away their power, punish them where appropriate and then take real measures to guarantee election integrity and rule of law.

    IMO the plutocrats could have kept running their all perfectly legal 'all for me, crumbs for thee' game ala the 80s, 90s, and oughts indefinitely with 'moderate Ds' looking the other way and putting up token resistance for another 30-40-ish years at least but they just got greedier and more depraved and sought to change the game to direct mafia rule and 'ALL for ME!' (you can all starve to death).

    Moderate Ds won't do shit to fix this.

  • @ Blozar:

    I'm not looking for the democrats to shit for me. I just would like to get rid of the people who are doing things TO me.

    @ Wa Ki:

    Whatever. Have fun.

  • All of us should follow the path of democommie. We can live happily and perfectly content as impotent milksops–just like the Democratic party. Or,to put it bluntly, to live as if we are eunuchs in a whorehouse.

  • "All of us should follow the path of democommie. We can live happily and perfectly content as impotent milksops–just like the Democratic party."

    Don't see many of your comments here, so telling you to go fuck yourself is okay with me.

    You go right ahead and be a purity pony, dumbfuck.

  • Hey democommiie, you never left high school, eh? Go ahead,vote for proven misogynist,racist and absolute imbecile "Uncle' Joe Biden. So where does that get you? It will earn you the appellation you wantonly throw out and consequently deserve. End of story you ignorant simpleton. I will no longer argue with such a simpleton.

  • Back to the original subject.

    Here's an interesting piece….

    An excerpt:
    "The new political reality we face in today’s America is one in which it’s no longer possible to pretend that history has a motor driving it in whatever direction will give the salary class whatever it happens to want. That means, in turn, that members of the salary class who want something may just have to bargain for it, and provide members of other classes with some of the things they want, even when this inconveniences the salary class. It also means, as some of my readers may have noticed, that some of the underprivileged groups who’ve been told to wait patiently for crumbs to fall from the table of the salary class are beginning to speak up for themselves and demand that their needs be taken into account now, thank you very much"

    More.. https://www.ecosophia.net/present-at-the-death/

    Also worth reading..

    https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/richard-kline-progressively-losing.html

  • What I find amazing is that this whole discussion of whether progressives will hold their collective noses and vote for a thuglican lite such as biden, klobacher etc is, as the title of this article states, ass backwards.
    Historically progressives have done this. Even the last presidential race it wasn't bernie/demented donnie voters it was obama/ demnted donnie voters who put us in this nightmare.
    But in the Lamont/lierman senate race it was "moderates" who deserted the democratic candinate for lierman. During rahms targeted destruction of the democratic party when he was head of the dccc, and obama's chief of staff, it was thuglicans who had just changed party affliation asa response of rahms bribes with dccc money. Going back to nixon the "moderates" have always shown they would rather have a thuglican then a progressive.
    So please stop with the false arguement of how to get progressives to vote for quislings when the real issue is how to get "moderates" not to betray the country by chooseing to support thuglicans rather then a progressive d.
    Progressives have never been the issue.
    Moderates have always turned tail and ran whenever they were asked to support a d candinate that wasn't willing to be submissive to thuglican liars.
    Chop off all funds, mailing lists etc for ny d candinate that does not vote in support of d agenda at least 60% of the time. That means lipinski (d ill) and cuellar (d texas) would get their "beards" ripped from them and be exposed as the thuglicans they really are.

  • Truth;

    Sorry,honey, I always feel bad for people who choose such inapt nyms.

    I don't think I've ever actually espoused any support for Biden.

    Who's your guy, the Berner? He's gonna be nearly 80 in 2021.And then, there's this:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexism.html

    I don't give a flying fuck who gets the nomination, I'll be pulling the lever for whatever "D" is on the ballot–unless it's some local prog I actually know enough about to consider them AND they have some chance of winning.

    My blog looks like 1996? How fucking old are you? I was 47 in 1996 and blogs, btw, didn't fucking exist in any meaningful way back then.

    You sound like a pissed off child. Go fuck yourself.

Comments are closed.