LogFAQs > #970398697

hungrymike posted...

Are you guys seriously so partisan that you can't understand it's both Republicans and Democrats and that the national debt is a problem?

Yeah, sorry, but I lived with a 'both sides are the problem' guy for two years, and he didn't have shit to suggest for solutions. Unless you count the fact that he said he'd vote for Russel Brand (not a US citizen, and a complete dolt at that) for president.

Democrats are demonstrably far better than Republicans. If over 60 Democrats actually held the House and Senate, nobody would have to deal with bills threatening the lives of women (abortion, hello), gay people (we're allowed to not serve you!) and there'd be far better, if nowhere near ideal taxation of the rich. I'd prefer to see far more principled Leftists in the House and Congress, but at present, around a third of the US population believes in an openly Fascist party. Call Democrats Fascist all you want, they don't hold a fucking candle to the Republicans, and equating them is laughable. Mock Hillary Clinton all you want, but her election would've prevented a Conservative controlled Supreme Court, and millions of women wouldn't be screwed. Sure, Clinton is a neolib goon. Would've beat the alternative. Never would've gotten Jill Stein or Bernie in anyhow. I would prefer Bernie obviously - not Stein who can't even articulate a cogent defense of sitting down for a meal with Mike Flynn and some Putin goons.

It isn't 'partisan' to observe that the outcome under Democrats is far preferable to the outcome under Republicans. If it is actually partisan from your perspective to despise the people that will take away far more rights, then boo-hoo, people are partisan for literally not wanting to be screwed over more.

Also, everyone likes to claim that Democrats had the ability to 'do anything' during Obama's first term. Ah yes, the supermajority that lasted for 72 days.