Cenk Uygur Backstabbed by Regressive-Feminist “Justice Democrats” Group over Allegedly Sexist Jokes He Made Two Decades Ago

Cenk Uygur has been unceremoniously fired from the vaginas-only club that he helped create

As a former fan and paid subscriber of The Young Turks network, I know my way around Cenk Uygur’s sense of humor. He’s a funny guy, no doubt, even for a liberal. Like myself, he also has a taste for saying things that will outrage people (even if they’re just true, boring statements.) While he mostly tortures traditionalist Conservatives by picking apart almost all of their beliefs whilst laughing about it, Cenk has also annoyed Socialists and Libertarians with his unjustified support for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election over Jill Stein, even in the solid-blue state of California.

My decision to end my support for The Young Turks was actually at a very specific moment. Listening to their premium podcast on a roadtrip, Cenk was giving a rundown of the stories he’d be covering in that hour. He said there was one story that blew his mind, because “white people have no idea how good they have it in this country.” (Unfortunately this was stated in a premium podcast episode that I no longer can link to.) Although an obnoxious statement on its own, this claim was the centerpiece for a revelation I’d had growing in my head for a long time: Cenk Uygur is a racist.

Constantly covering white-on-black crime, the shootings of unarmed black civilians by white police officers, but never covering the very frequent shootings unarmed white civilians, and proudly repeating the nonsense claim that Black Lives Matter is a progressive social movement while All Lives Matter is absolutely racist, Cenk Uygur has been biased in one way or another for his entire career. I don’t mean political bias, which is to be expected of political commentators. I mean racially, sexually, religiously, culturally, and ethnically biased. Cenk has respect for groups he views as “oppressed,” be it women or minority communities, but when it comes to groups he views as “in power,” (white men, in his fantasy world) he regards them with suspicion and disregard.

Now, however, Cenk’s virtue-signaling has hit quite the road-bump, as he has been ousted from a group which he helped create, Justice Democrats, for some jokes he made just about two decades ago. Here is an excerpt from one of these ancient blogposts, also one of the least hard-hitting things I’ve ever read:

“Rules of Dating

There are some hard and fast rules of dating. Women, ignore these at your peril.

Rule 1: There must be some serious making out by the third date.

If I haven’t felt your tits by then, things are not about to last much longer. In fact, if you don’t get back on track by the fourth date, you’re done.

Rule 2: There must be orgasm by the fifth date.

No, ands, ifs, or buts. If I haven’t unloaded by this time, things are intolerably slow. There will be no sixth date to give you a second chance. If you haven’t delivered by now, you’re done.

Rule 3: There must be sex by the second month of dating.

There are a lot of allowable exceptions to this rule, but they all involve orgasms. I’ll let you slide if for unseen circumstances we haven’t gotten to see each other much, and you have been providing me with some excellent orgasms in the meanwhile.”

While the choice of language here by Uygur is rather unappetizing and distasteful (to my eyes, at least,) he’s simply stating his dating preferences. The irony is that the Justice Democrat feminazis and Cenk’s older self are actually advocating for telling people who to date and how to date them, despite a central message of feminism being personal choice. The blogpost is younger Cenk’s set of rules and requirements for dating him. Since dating someone is opt-in, women are (and most likely were) free to read his blog post and decide not to date him. Should young Cenk be forced to date a “prude” if he doesn’t want to, or should Cenk have the freedom to do what he wants with his own body?

The Justice Democrats group, which I have (regrettably) previously donated to, focuses on electing Democrats to Congress and the Senate who refuse corporate and super-PAC donation money. Conceptually, this allows said elected officials to rule the will of their voters, rather than the will of their donors. A noble cause indeed, shamefully ruined by regressive-feminist internal politics. Originally I halted my reoccurring donations for fear that Justice Democrats was going out of its way to choose female and/or minority candidates for the sake of forced diversity, but this story would have sealed the deal had I still been donating.

At the end of his controversial blogpost, he makes a point that isn’t too far-off:

“I might seem like an asshole for pointing this stuff out, but there is no reason to hate the messenger. These rules are out there whether you like it or not (or whether your particular boyfriend has crystallized them in his mind, every guy has an internal gauge that are roughly within these parameters), so it’s better that you know. I’m trying to help.”

It’s a shame that so many of the same people who support great economic policy like single-payer healthcare or higher taxes on the very wealthy are also miserable, offendable cunts. While Cenk’s essay is quite obnoxiously worded, there is quite a bit of truth to what he said, let alone the fact that it would be an amusing, satirical read of intentionally-provocative literature even if it wasn’t true.

Sadly, Cenk bucked almost all of his politically incorrect humor in exchange for the privilege of begging approval from wealthy feminists and donors. Read his pathetic response to the ousting from Justice Democrats:

“If someone said that today, I would heavily criticize them on the show and rightfully so, and I have. I’ve criticized myself over the years,” he added. “I had not yet matured and I was still a conservative who thought that stuff was politically incorrect and edgy. When you read it now, it looks really, honestly, ugly. And it’s very uncomfortable to read.”

Funny, I wasn’t uncomfortable reading it all, even though I didn’t quite agree with his demands. If a woman ever wrote such things about her dating preferences, I wouldn’t be offended either. This is basic dating culture: people have preferences and desires. To criticize his former writing is to criticize reality, which he hypocritically (but accurately) accuses Conservatives of doing in regards to climate change.

Poor Cenk. I do hope things work out well for him. He’s only wrong half the time, anyways.



Apple Has a Creepy Fetish for Black Men Dating White Women

Is this their not-so-subtle way of trying to sell iPhones to the Android dominated minority communities?


Apple makes great stuff. They really do. I’m writing this on a MacBook Pro, with an iPhone nearby. My iPad Pro will be here in two weeks. I have an Apple Watch and AirPods. Connected to my TV is an Apple TV.  Apple’s hardware and software teams are absolutely incredible, and despite a reputation for it, I don’t think that their products are overpriced. They far outlast the competition and have much higher resale values down the road when you decide you want to upgrade.

Apple’s marketing team is far less incredible. (Unless we’re taking about their lighting techniques, which are second to none.)

We all know that Silicone Vally and California are a toxic hell stew of feminism, liberalism, and fake “progressive” politics. Misgendering someone is worse than murdering them, especially if it’s intentionally. Judging people based on their immutable characteristics such as ethnicity or sex is wrong, unless they’re Caucasian or male (or worse, both.) While some old-school liberals are fighting for better healthcare, higher wages, or a better economy, the new liberal “progressives” don’t care about any of that. What gets them off is an unending slew of Apple ads featuring black men dating white women. Never any other combination. No white men with black women, and hardly any black women at all, in fact, unless they have really short hair and are the extremely athletic type. You can totally forget about Indian or Asian men in any capacity. Apple is all black men, all the time in their ads. I’d love to see what their marketing team looks like. Probably a swimmingly diverse group of people, including a small pocket of scrawny white guys who pay black guys to fuck their white girlfriends while they watch and film it- on their iPhones.

Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 12.44.35 PM

Because of constant “alt-right Nazi” smears by the left, I have to reiterate the obvious: Apple should include a very diverse variety of people in their ads. Not just white people use Apple products. I want to see white couples, black couples, hispanic couples, some black men dating asian women, maybe an asian man dating two Dominican women, using strong iMessage encryption (better yet: Telegram) to keep them from finding out about each other. Whatever. But when about 60+% of Apple’s marketing is black males with white women, it makes you wonder if there isn’t some very deliberate psychological trickery going on. The only theory that I can think of is that really, black people mostly do use Android, and black men also find the concept of dating white women very amusing, so Apple positions those ads to tickle black men into spending their money in Cupertino. Hey, if it works, I’m really not that upset about it. It’s more the combination of that silly marketing strategy with the fact that California liberals really do hate white males, unless they’re gay like Tim Cook.

Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 12.46.47 PM
Look black people! You can wear our fancy stuff too, not just Fit-bits!

Apple has also carefully banned Gab (a free-speech Twitter competitor) from their App Store on iOS, which means it must be great. Sign up for Gab and follow Mad Indies!


Enjoy the following screenshots, taken mostly from apple.com/mac and apple.com/iphone-8

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Wearing a Hijab in the United States Is Just as Ridiculous as Flying the Confederate Flag

The hijab has always been a way to control women.

Most proponents of the Confederate Flag will tell you that it symbolizes “state’s rights.” To some degree, they’re correct. The biggest reason (among many reasons) that the United States Civil War began was the secession of the southern states from the Union. There was a lot of northern propaganda floating around about how much good ol’ Honest Abe ‘Incoln hated slavery, but these claims are entirely false as Lincoln himself was a racist (a real one, not the new definition of racist: “disagrees with Black Lives Matter.”) It’s disputed whether or not he owned slaves himself, but it is certain that many services provided to him and his cabinet in the White House were done by slaves. There’s also this little gem of a quote:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.” -Abraham Lincoln

If we dig a little farther into the “state’s rights” claim, we can infer that the Confederacy certainly did want to protect state’s rights… to own slaves. Now, if you’ve read the Mad Indies before, you know that I’m no fan of identity politics or liberal outrage. Back in the day when racism was a real issue, mostly only blacks and various other minorities were slaves. Because of this, the defense of American slavery is specifically racist. If the main purpose of the Confederacy was to protect the state’s rights to own slaves, then absent any serious mental gymnastics, the Confederacy and its flag are racist. This doesn’t mean that everyone sporting Confederate flag gear are vile racists; just that the flag itself largely represents a defense of slavery and racism.

How very progressive

Some of the more recent aggressors against women in the modern world are the Taliban and Islamic State. These vile hoards of indoctrinated mythology lovers have imposed a number of inequalities on women, including a mandate to wear a burqa in public at all times.

From a Wikipedia entry about the Taliban treatment of women:

“The stated aim of the Taliban, in respect to their contentious and non-contentious treatment of women, was to create a “secure environment where the chastity and dignity of women may once again be sacrosanct””

“Afghan women were forced to wear the burqa at all times in public, because, according to one Taliban spokesman, “the face of a woman is a source of corruption” for men not related to them.”

“In a systematic segregation sometimes referred to as gender apartheid, women were not allowed to work, they were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur’an.”


Just as many Americans have made non-racist cases for flying the Confederate flag, many Muslims and feminists have made non-sexist cases for a woman wearing a hijab. The most reasonable argument is that hijabs can actually be quite fashionable.

A slight display of hair makes this headscarf about fashion rather than oppression.

Really, there’s probably a better case for the hijab than there is for the Confederate flag, as long as the hijab is being worn for secular reasons. The problem is that the conversation is usually surrounding women’s rights or Muslims’ rights or some other virtue-signaling nonsense. Firstly, to say that respecting the hijab is about “religious freedom” or feminism or some other claim is to argue a complete straw-man fallacyAll real libertarian Americans will support a person’s right to wear whatever they want. I passionately believe that Muslims should have the right to attend their mosques and wear whatever they want, in the exact same way that I believe Americans should have the right to fly the Confederate flag. In terms of freedom and liberty, whether I find those people to be ridiculous is besides the point- they have the right to wear what they want, fly whatever flag they want, and attend any religious organizations that they want without fear of prosecution. That’s America.

But- The men who invented the Confederacy in order to control slaves are no worse than the pedophiles and rapists who invented Islam to control women. To sport any representation of these vile beliefs is to support oppression and control over the powerless- whether intentionally or not. As for those who may believe I am being racist or insensitive by criticizing Islam and women who wear its adornments, feel free to read my article about how Islam is a religion, not a race, and should be criticized until it is dead.


Wear Whatever You Want This Halloween

Liberals getting offended by otherwise fairly uncreative costumes is part of the treat


From Wikipedia:

Cultural appropriation is the adoption of the elements of one culture by members of another culture. Cultural appropriation, often framed as cultural misappropriation, is sometimes portrayed as harmful and is claimed to be a violation of the collective intellectual property rights of the originating culture.

Isn’t it funny how the same people who hate capitalism and private ownership believe that sharing cultural ideas is offensive and unacceptable? 

For the past few halloweens, liberals and feminists have been complaining about the halloween costumes that people choose to wear for fun one day of the year. Whether it’s a secular girl sporting a head scarf, a boy wearing fake gold chains, or even a white guy with a banjo, it’s terribly offensive and you should have gone as a gender studies major, or something.

At some point, we all start to have trouble believing that the type of social justice present in 2017 is a natural progression from ending slavery or the civil rights era. Is stopping white girls from wearing burqas on Halloween really the next step in liberty and justice for all?

In reality, much of the Left suffers from the same dogmatic fallacies that the religious right does. Just as one may be blindly Christian or patriotic and support any and all actions taken by our military and police, many millennial Americans blindly obey and follow the arbitrary list of offensive things invented by expert media distractors like CNN or the Washington Post. This is to divert attention from a cohesive and united effort against the oligarchy and replace it with identity politics and division.

Never before has something as mundane as a Native American Halloween costume been considered offensive, even by Native Americans. Only recently were costumes mimicking the traditions of various cultures capriciously determined to be unacceptable. Seriously, there will be feminist protests against Halloween on college campuses around the nation this 31st. If it wasn’t so disastrous to have the only political side that cares about the environment making idiots of themselves, it would almost be hilarious.

I bet he’s not terribly offended by the situation.

Isn’t it funny how the same people who are out to destroy “privilege” want white Americans to know that only non-whites have the privilege to wear certain cultural costumes?

Kudos to the above posters for including a PSA not to dress up as a white hillbilly. Albeit in reality, mostly just white males will be reprimanded for wearing cultural costumes. Enemy No1 of the authoritarian Left are white men, seconded only by white women. If you had the audacity to be born with light skin, be careful this Halloween. The feminists are out to shame you and call your employers with photos of your Mexican fiesta mariachi poncho outfit as hard evidence of your undying support for Hitler and slavery.

Nazi dog

Those who call for the unnecessary harassment of trick-or-treaters are doing something far more offensive than what they claim to be fighting against. Just remember that “women should be able to wear whatever they want” without being shamed or called out- unless feminists deem it unacceptable.

Trick or treat, y’all.

Kneeling for the Anthem Doesn’t Make You a Traitor; It Just Makes You Look Stupid

Seriously, all you’re doing is pissing off patriots and making your side look immature

Look, minorities face certain problems more frequently than whites in the United States. This is statistically true, and assumably true. The concept that there are zero racist cops, zero racist business owners, or zero racist whatevers is completely false and a fabrication designed to advance some ideal worldview held by the non-racist right. The fact of the matter is that as an African American, Mexican American, or any American with non-white characteristics, one will find themselves at the receiving end of discomfort and discrimination from time to time. This reportedly ranges anywhere from pedestrians crossing the street to avoid walking by a minority all the way up to police shootings disproportionately involving non-whites.

We’ve recently seen the trend of kneeling during the national anthem popularized by NFL player Colin Kaepernick.

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

Now, aside from the equally childish kicking and screaming coming from Trump and most conservatives, there are some very valid issues with Kaepernick’s statement.

  • “…a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

I’m white and automatically ignorant to everything, but I really thought that referring to non-whites as “colored” was supposed to be offensive or something. Is this like how they can say the N word and we can’t? Anyways. There isn’t any ascertainable legislation that specifically targets black people. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Due to universities and corporate America increasingly favoring artificially installed diversity over merit and ideological diversity, there’s never been a better time in the history of the United States to be non-white. In just about every professional facet of life, Affirmative Action gives an unfair boost to Americans who identify as minority status, while giving a more impactful unfair handicap to Americans who identify as white or Asian. Not to mention that the entire political left has joined hands in praising all minorities and their cultures while simultaneously criticizing white culture and naming anyone who disagrees with them as literal Nazis.

  • “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag…”

What? You might dislike or even hate some things about your country. I have lists for miles of things that I dislike about the United States. I don’t like that we lack universal healthcare. I don’t like that most of our Presidents are self-enriching corporate sellouts. I don’t like that our EPA isn’t nearly powerful or determined enough to save the planet. What I do like is that we have a long-standing form of government that is based on Democracy and patriotism. I like that we inhabit some of the best land in the world, with natural waterways and oceans of defense against hostile countries. I like that we have a population that has repeatedly fought for the rights and wellbeing of civil rights. Most of all, I like that we the people have always found a way to come together, even in the face of tremendous ideological differences. Hell, I even like that we have ideological differences in the first place. The problem is that by showing disrespect for the anthem and our flag, you’re showing disrespect for the very concept of the country, not just the parts that you disagree with.

All of this looks terrible for the Left. While police reform and social equality are noble causes, so-called “social justice warriors” like Colin Kaepernick and the rest of the screeching feminists have found just about every destructive way to bring themselves attention. As usual, the perception of Kaepernick’s actions falls largely along party lines, with Liberals being awe-struck and Conservatives calling him an anti-American traitor. In reality, also as usual, the proper conclusion can be taken from somewhere in the middle. Kneeling for our anthem, burning our flag, and calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist actually doesn’t make you a traitor. It just makes you look very, very stupid. And you’re doing your side a major disservice.


Broke Republicans Are the Ultimate Cuckservatives

Voting for corporations to make more cash while you starve is economic cuckold

Many right-wing men are pretty obsessed with the word “cuck” these days. As defined by Urban Dictionary, “cuck” means:

Cuck is a man who’s a little bitch. Contrary to the beliefs of the liberal leaning crowd trying to explain something popularized by the conservatives, cuck is used by many races for someone who is spineless and IS derived from cuckold.

Her cuck boyfriend watched as a man flirted and felt up his girl in front of him.

She cheated on him and told him it would never happen again, he’s such a cuck to believe that.

As humans, we often project our fears onto others. Apparently swaths of right-leaning white men are fearful that black men will take on their nice white nonexistent girlfriends and wives. The idea is that it would be embarrassing to powerlessly witness another man having what should be yours.

The problem is that such an injustice is the entire premise of Capitalism. We live in an extremely fragile society where the slightest of natural disasters can topple basic services that we take for granted, such as cellular service and a timely response from 911 call centers. We saw this with Hurricane Harvey over the weekend and continuing into the week.

Economically speaking, keeping a country alive and thriving is a delicate balancing act in which you have to create public prosperity for those who have worked hard in life while also ensuring that those who’ve been dealt a bad hand don’t live in poverty. The United States, along with most other countries on Earth, are only good at one of those things. To painfully simplify the economic spectrum, you have communism on the far left, and capitalism on the far right.

Raw communism hardly works because everyone is essentially paid the same thing, no matter their effort or position. This inevitably leads to a lack of effort in society, as there are no promotions and no raises to strive for. Worse, you work for the government and not much innovation happens.

Raw capitalism, a form of anarchism, hardly works because the government provides nothing. Roads, bridges, healthcare, education, police, and the military would all belong to corporations instead of a democratically controlled government. Rather than votes and consensus creating laws, corporations would create them. Every road would have a toll, since road-making companies would need to make a profit.

Socialism is a strange term, as it really refers to having a mix of communism and capitalism. Modernly, “socialism” is a failed target of corporatists who are trying to equate it with communism and make it some sort of bogeyman to avoid at all costs (literally). Things that are “socialized” are called such because they are for the good of society. We socialize our roads, early education, police, and military, for a few examples. We definitely don’t want corporations controlling what police do, we want laws and regulations that were written for the good of society by democratically elected officials controlling what police do. In order to balance society, you need to balance communism and capitalism. This is just as fragile as coordinating emergency services (which are also socialized) during a disaster. It isn’t easy and takes a lot of debate and effort, as we see in the United States and around the world.

When the rich have too much power, our country gets dragged too far towards capitalism. Increasingly, corporations are finding ways to puppet master our schools and police. This problem is evident when we see officers brutalizing peaceful Standing Rock protestors at the behest of oil companies and banks invested in the Dakota Access Pipeline.

You don’t have to be Islamic to be a terrorist.

So-called “capitalists” almost always believe in some degree of socialism. Although common core is the subject of much criticism, including from myself, many Republican parents would dislike if they had to pay out of pocket for their children’s K-12 schooling. We pay taxes, and we expect that our children’s education will be mostly paid for by that. Patriotic corporations and employers are also happy to pay the taxes in order to achieve this so that they can hire competent and educated young people in the future. This is socialism and capitalism working together to create a strong economy and society, as they should.

Republican politicians and many centrist Democratic politicians don’t believe in these things. We increasingly see conservatives such as Betsy DeVos wanting to privatize education, and Donald Trump wanting to privatize our roads and bridges. These things would harm poor people greatly, as they would now have to spend part of their already abysmal wages on paying tolls to get to their job, as well as spend savings on educating their child (if they could even afford that.) We also know that these right-wing Republicans and Democrats largely oppose a higher minimum wage, tax-paid (not free, as many call it) college, and single-payer healthcare. These corporatist positions make the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and middle class disappear. Logically, no poor person would vote for the likes of a Paul Ryan, Donald Trump, Chuck Schumer, or Nancy Pelosi, as these are politicians who are committed to enriching the rich. But for some reason, they do. While there are a handful of Democrats who look out for the poor and advocate for more social programs, such as Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, or Ro Khanna, no modern Republican advocates for anything resembling a fair and just economy.

Broke Republican voters, who already have almost no money, will get up out of their house to go pull the lever for a politician that will pass legalization to make broke Republicans even broker. Of course, the money that could have been yours under a better system doesn’t just evaporate. It goes to the top 1%. Someone has your money, it just isn’t you. To me, that sounds a lot like powerlessly witnessing another man having what should be yours.

And that is why broke Republicans are the ultimate cuckservatives.

(Don’t forget that Republicans keep winning because you keep voting for Democrats.)

The Pathetic and Desperate Fallacy That Jill Stein Should Want Democrats to Succeed

Closeted misogynists and right-wingers who call themselves “Democrats” are furious about being out-lefted by the Greens in 2016

Let’s say that you’re a fan of the Buffalo Sabres, like I am. They’re you’re favorite team. Now let’s say that they’re playing the Nashville Predators, and losing 5-4. Rather than being a good sport and accepting that the Predators are performing better in this specific game, you are furious that Nashville would dare to try and beat the Sabres. Clearly, the Predators should lay down on the ice and allow Buffalo to win. Wouldn’t hockey be so much more fun that way?

This is the idiotic Democratic logic behind their bullshit accusations that Jill Stein or the Green Party are, well, you name it: Russian spies, secret conservatives, Trump supporters, Wi-Fi haters, or even anti-vaxxers. The theme here is the same as your hypothetical shitty Sabres fan: Poor-sport Democrats are angry that the Greens don’t bend over for corporate stooges and right-wingers like the Obamas, the Clintons, and the Joe Manchins of the world.

Democracy Now recently interviewed Jill Stein where she dispelled the notion that she conspired with Putin once at a dinner table.

Jill Stein, seated close to Vladimir Putin, without a Russian translator and thus unable to conspire with him to overthrow the United States

In a Democrat’s mind, anything that is not a Democrat is a racist, misogynist, religious, conservative Russian Spy who will jizz Conservative judges all over the Supreme Court. These small-brained morsels don’t understand the concept of a political spectrum which ranges from right to left, with the “right” believing in social darwinism and tradition and the “left” believing in community and progress.

Currently, the Democrats are falsely believed to be left-wing, but they are not. Repeatedly, Democratic house members vote for less healthcare, less taxes on the rich, more war, and even an anti-free speech bill that would make it a felony to boycott Israel. Of course, Conservatives and Republicans vote to do the same things and worse – this piece is not a defense of the Republicans or the right-wing in any shape or form.

Many Americans who oppose war and support progressive concepts like universal healthcare and universal basic income find themselves without candidates to vote for or a party to belong to, and don’t be fooled: Anyone who votes for Democrats is pro-war.

Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA [to the Iraq War] in October 2002.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea

Democrats are also increasingly opposed to women’s rights.

Joe Manchin, Democrat from West Virginia, helping gullible young women oppress themselves


As I’ve mentioned in many of my podcasts and previous articles, there is a way to oppose war: The Green PartyAlthough I could just link to their platform PDF, I will also quote the summary of their values so that more people can see what a left-wing political party’s ideology is supposed to look like.

Green Party’s Ten Key Values

1. Grassroots Democracy

All human beings must be allowed a say in decisions that affect their lives; no one should be subject to the will of another. We work to improve public participation in every aspect of government and seek to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We also work to create new types of political organizations that expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in decision-making.

2. Social Justice And Equal Opportunity

As a matter of right, all persons must have the opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, any discrimination by race, class, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, religion, or physical or mental ability that denies fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

3. Ecological Wisdom

Human societies must function with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society that utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture that replenishes the soil, move to an energy-efficient economy, and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

4. Non-Violence

It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in danger. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

5. Decentralization

Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. We seek a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system controlled by and mostly benefiting the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all.

6. Community-Based Economics

We support redesigning our work structures to encourage employee ownership and workplace democracy. We support developing new economic activities and institutions that allow us to use technology in ways that are humane, freeing, ecological, and responsive and accountable to communities. We support establishing a form of basic economic security open to all. We call for moving beyond the narrow ‘job ethic’ to new definitions of ‘work,’ ‘jobs’ and ‘income’ in a cooperative and democratic economy. We support restructuring our patterns of income distribution to reflect the wealth created by those outside the formal monetary economy – those who take responsibility for parenting, housekeeping, home gardens, community volunteer work, and the like. We support restricting the size and concentrated power of corporations without discouraging superior efficiency or technological innovation.

7. Feminism And Gender Equity (Read my article on how we can fight for equal rights without identifying as “feminist.”)

We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as gender equity, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We recognize that the processes for determining our decisions and actions are just as important as achieving the outcomes we want.

8. Respect For Diversity

We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across the human spectrum. We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We encourage respect for all life forms, and increased attention to the preservation of biodiversity.

9. Personal And Global Responsibility

We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal wellbeing and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

10. Future Focus And Sustainability

Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or ‘unmaking’ all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions. We must make the quality of all lives, rather than open-ended economic growth, the focus of future thinking and policy.

Read my article on why Jill Stein and Jimmy Dore are not secretly conservative.

Read my article on how we can fight for equal rights without identifying as “feminist.”