Both parties definitely don’t lead to the same outcome. One party supports cutting welfare for the poor and the other party doesn’t.
This statement is inherently contradictory. So one party is for cutting welfare. If they win, welfare gets cut. If the other pary wins, welfare stays the same, or gets cut only a little (good ol across the aisle compromise). Next cycle the other party wins, welfare gets cut. Same outcome.
Now, if the other party was for increased welfare, or for stopping fracking, or for naturalizing more undocumented immigrants, or for reducing military spending, then you’d have a point. But in selling the democratic party as the alternative to vote for, you can’t even bring yourself to say they stand for something positive. Best we get is that they’re not actively harmful on purpose.
The “other party” doesn’t necessarily need to win next cycle.
But they do. They invariably do, if you look at history. And so, if your choice is between deterioration and stagnation, the net result over time is deterioration.
The only reason Democrats can afford to not increase welfare is because of Republican voters.
Could you elucidate on this point a bit? I could see how democratic politicians are beholden to their corporate donors first, and democratic voters second. But to imply that they somehow answer to people who don’t vote for them (republican voters) is a perspective I haven’t really ever heard before.
This statement is inherently contradictory. So one party is for cutting welfare. If they win, welfare gets cut. If the other pary wins, welfare stays the same, or gets cut only a little (good ol across the aisle compromise). Next cycle the other party wins, welfare gets cut. Same outcome.
Now, if the other party was for increased welfare, or for stopping fracking, or for naturalizing more undocumented immigrants, or for reducing military spending, then you’d have a point. But in selling the democratic party as the alternative to vote for, you can’t even bring yourself to say they stand for something positive. Best we get is that they’re not actively harmful on purpose.
The “other party” doesn’t necessarily need to win next cycle.
The only reason Democrats can afford to not increase welfare is because of Republican voters.
But they do. They invariably do, if you look at history. And so, if your choice is between deterioration and stagnation, the net result over time is deterioration.
Could you elucidate on this point a bit? I could see how democratic politicians are beholden to their corporate donors first, and democratic voters second. But to imply that they somehow answer to people who don’t vote for them (republican voters) is a perspective I haven’t really ever heard before.
He thinks giving people who run on decreasing welfare a mandate will stop them from decreasing welfare.
The “other party” doesn’t necessarily need to win next cycle.
The only reason Democrats can afford to not increase welfare is because of Republican voters.