To me he is an articulate Dutch, nothing more.
I agree that sometimes you have to take a stand. Absolutely. Where I disagree is that this stand must be team A or team B. Not liking one team says nothing, absolutely nothing, about ones feelings for team B.
I openly disparage and ridicule them both. To me trying to assign who the bigger group of assholes and degenerates is wasted effort. Do we really care that one mountain of **** is 5 miles high and the other is 20 miles high? Either way we drown in ****.
Yes, I hope the Ds take the House. Mainly to slow down the Rs. I wanted the Rs to take a house under Obama for the same reason. I have zero faith in either party. And loudly call for expanded parties and push people to break the R and D mold.
Is that itself not a stand. Enough ******** already.
Oh and don’t confirm Kavanaugh. He’s not the right person.
This, in spades. It is hilarious how many people here (an in our country really) have this fallacy that if you aren't for one side you must be 100% for the other. And it is intellectually lazy to keep saying "oh not another 'both sides suck' comment". Both sides do suck. There is a middle in this country, and frankly the vast majority of people actually fall somewhere to the right of the left and to the left of the right. The best thing we could have happen in our political world would be the rise of a third viable party.
I cannot stand Trump. He has proven himself to be a misogynist, racist, self-serving, unstable blow-hard. Sorry, but that truth, does not make a claim that the democrats then are the exact opposite, without fault and perfect in every way, to be true. It is truly a lesser of 2 evils right now. And the in-fighting is worse than it has ever been in our country. It is painfully obvious, for those who can slip the blinders long enough to look, that both sides are only about the power. Not that the power dynamic hasn't always been an issue, but how often in the last 20 years have you heard about politicians voting against party lines because it is what their constituency would want, or because it is for the betterment of the country, or because they realize that to help people we need some compromise? Hardly ever, imo. There was a time not too long ago (if 30 years isn't too long, feels short when you are getting old), when this happened with some regularity, and the government not so arguably ran far better than it does now. How many times in the history of our country has a congress failed to pass a budget? It is becoming more and more common for the disagreements to extend out the time to pass budgetary bills.
So stop the act that, since the republicans right now are largely assholes and degenerates (Jazz Fanz company excepted of course, and not really representative of the entirety of the republican party), it does not immediately mean that all democrats need to be sainted for their purity and moral superiority. They are all power-hungry. And the partisanship right now is incredibly damaging to the US as a whole.
So it is not only possible, but reasonable and logical, to be unhappy with both sides. If your kids are playing in the mud, will you punish the one who is the dirtiest and reward the one who might be less dirty at the moment?
But yes, right now we need some parity in congress to balance out the crap. A ****-scale if you will, balanced by cow pies on one side and dog turds on the other. Because the worst possible scenarios play out when only the ******* or the ******* run the entire show.
