You support oligarchs everytime you support mainstream Democrats, including your usually blind defense of them.
You're lying about me again - and dodging the issue of you supporting Republicans at all being support for oligarchs.
The vast majority of both parties are their servants.
Many fewer Democrats than Republicans - as I said the only major group who is against the oligarchs are the progressive wing of Democrats.
I do not blindly support any such thing. There is no single party that shares all of my views and ideas and as such I will not blindly support any single party. I actually look at candidates on an individual level and THEN make my decision. I do like some of the stuff the progressives are for, other stuff not so much.
That's fine, but you sound like you don't get what the parties are about.
The party matters. It's not random who is running like you might get an anti-corporatist Republican President (the last one was Teddy Roosevelt).
Take a look, but when the person isn't, and is a servant of oligarchs like every major Republican (and minor that I know of) is, that's no longer relevant.
Now, you're fine to also look at the Democrats and see their top tier supporting the oligarchs way too much too - like Obama and Hillary.
Their second tier - Edwards, Kucinich - were not but also had a very long shot.
No one is saying vote for party regardless, vote for the candidate who has the right policies - which so happens to exclude every national Republican currently.
That party is basically hopelessly serving the oligarch agenda at this time.
Instead, try to support a better candidate than an Obama for the Democratic primary (in 2008 - and in 2012 though there's close to zero chance).
More importantly, support reforms in Congress that fix why it is that only the corporatists can get elected, so that a better candidate is viable.
Frankly, the thing that concerns me the most is a single party or group having to much power. That has been proven to consistently lead to bad shit during most of my adult life.
That's a fallacy. There is some truth to it - any group given a lot of power tends to develop problems.
But stop with the ideology and look at the facts instead. When the Democrats had super-majorities in both branches, the nation had some of its best policies.
That was NOT a problem. When the nation had Republicans dominate OR, contrary to your ideology, a split government, the policies were a lot worse.
Democratic super-majorities gave us Social Security, Wall Street regulation - ones that worked for 50 years to reign in financial abuse and prevent large bubbles and crashes for the first time in American history - you say you want that regulation but you contradict yourself by opposing the only people who pass it - they gave use civil rights at great political cost. SPLIT government has largely been in place since 1980 - and given us terrible compromised policies leading to deregulation and deficits.
To answer your question, I would take Bernie Sanders with a slightly Republican Congress over what we currently have any day of the week. You of course will disagree.
Get back to me when you support Bernie Sanders and a progressive congress. (Bernie did found the progressive caucus).
You are in love with the moderate fallacy about splitting bad policy of Republicans and good policy of progressives. Good policy can't be passed by a split with the corrupt.
I have no problem agreeing there are problems with one group getting problems, but the progressives are far better than a split with obstructionist Republicans.
Seriously, do an exercise before you reply. Make a list of the ten best government policies of the last century, then see who was in power that passed them.
Facebook
Twitter