If there’s one thing the Republicans (and their friends the Russians) want, it’s for us Democrats to be divided and fighting each other. It makes their job so much easier.
They’ll once more do all they can to encourage it, by posting articles in their newspapers and magazines full of lies and accusations, and posting blatantly false memes they know we’ll share.
We cannot play their game this time. The stakes are too high.
Sure, I have my preference. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to trash the others.
We’re at war to save our country from incompetence and corruption, and even the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican right now.
So here’s what you need to do: Discuss campaign strategy without using personal attacks.
Like this:
“I think Kirsten Gillibrand will have a harder time getting the support of people like me because of her support of [issue].”
“Bernie Sanders will have difficulty getting the Democratic nomination because he refuses to understand that you need to work within the party to get its support.”
“I think we need to nominate someone from a red state and not another Masssachusetts or California liberal, and that’s why I’m supporting [candidate].”
This is not a sport, where you pick a team you support and call all the other ones losers. This is politics, and this time, we have a lot of good candidates. I have my preference and I can tell you why I think she has the best chance of winning, and I can do that without trashing her opponents.
I ask all my liberal friends to do the same. Please. This election is too important for us to hand it to people who want to destroy all that we stand for.
You may be aware that I supported Bernie Sanders last time, because I thought he had a better chance of winning than Hillary.
Bernie accomplished some great goals nonetheless: He proved that (a) you can raise money for a campaign without using corporate donations and PACs; (b) you can use the word “socialism” without killing your campaign; (c) you can talk about issues that the media calls “leftist” which are actually moderate and supported by a majority of people.
He’s allowed our other candidates to be able to do these things, as he has shown the way. I thank him for that.
I supported him last time but not this time. It’s not the same election.
I think we need a younger, newer candidate to excite the voting populace, and Bernie’s not it. We have a lot of great candidates this time. We don’t need him.
And it doesn’t help matters that he only wants to be a member of the Democratic party when he can get something out of us. One of the problems with Bernie (and some of his supporters) is that he doesn’t understand that politics is about, well, politics. It’s about making alliances and getting people on your side to get things accomplished. You need to make friends and allies and you do that by helping each other.
You want the support of other Democrats? Support them back. Don’t just show up at the last minute and wonder why none of the insiders are helping you.
However, if he gets the nomination (which is very unlikely), I’ll still vote for him over any Republican.
Please note: I think it is very important that we do not attack other Democrats this year. However, I think we can rationally discuss each candidate’s pluses and minuses (such as their chances and what will help and hurt them on the campaign trail) without trashing them. And I also think all of the candidates can be made fun of in ways that are not harmful.
#428 in a series
Translation:
Why is a graduated income tax — you know, what we’ve had for basically everyone’s life — is so hard for conservatives to understand? I mean, they pay taxes, too, right?
“If I earn $10 million, they want to take 70% of everything I earn!” they scream. No, we want 70% of any amount OVER ten million a year. It’s not that difficult of a concept, whereas the percentage changes with different income levels. If you’ve ever paid taxes before in your life, you should be aware of it.
Here’s how it works:
The current proposal raises the rate for the extremely very wealthy, asking for 70% for income above $10 million — which would affect a very small number of Americans. And that’s even less than what the very rich paid in the 50s and 60s. You know, those terrible days when we built interstate highways, provided free college education, and went to the Moon.
Further, Democratic proposals want to reduce the amount paid for those under $50,000 (which is the majority of Americans) which can easily be done if we raise it on the very wealthy. This will help the economy tremendously, because when we non-rich people have money, we spend it on things we need!
Oh, wait. I see now. The Republicans claiming that Democrats want 70% of your income are lying to make people hate this idea. Silly me. Should have used Occam’s Razor to begin with.
Stop treating your children like property. Stop treating them like slaves.
Sure, you need to discipline them and sure they don’t have the freedom of an adult, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t people who suffer and feel pain.
It is wrong to hit your wife; it is wrong to hit your husband; it is wrong to hit your friends; it is wrong to hit strangers; it is wrong to hit your pets; it is wrong to hit anyone — yet some parents think it is perfectly fine to beat their children. (And no, the argument that “I was beaten and I turned out okay” doesn’t work. You’re not okay, because you think it is fine to hit children.)
Some parents have complained that there are now laws prohibiting them from smoking in the same car when children are present, despite the clear and obvious danger this poses to young lungs. These same parents don’t whine when they can’t smoke in an airplane or bus, but the car is their property and they apparently think their children are, too.
Other parents refuse to vaccinate their children because of their own ridiculous beliefs, not taking into consideration that the children who are affected might choose way differently if they were adults and had the scientific information available to them. Why this isn’t seen as dangerous as telling them to play in the traffic is beyond me.
Often, religion is used to justify child abuse (and no, I’m not just talking about obvious illegal sex abuse we’ve seen in the Catholic church). Parents use religion to justify beating their children because the Bible says it is okay. (It also says slavery is okay.) Some religions refuse medical treatment for children because they think Jeebus will heal them or something. (Fortunately, this is illegal.) And don’t get me started on circumcision.
If you’re getting upset at what I am writing, please stop and consider why that is. Think about how angry you get when you read about someone abusing their pets and ask if you’re being a hypocrite for not treating your children with the same respect as a dog. Start seeing children as people — small, helpless people who need us to make the kinds of good decisions for them that they are not yet capable of making. People who deserve not to be beaten and physically attacked, no matter how much you think they need it.
ventrellaquest.com 