Imagine a Democratic President Who Fought As Hard for the Left As Trump Does For the Right

Donald Trump is keeping his campaign promise to build a border wall between the US and Mexico, even shutting down the government. Imagine if the Democrats were as aggressive.

11 Comments. Leave new

  • I’d love to be able to fly, too….


    PS : So long as that doesn’t mean that I have to have anything to do with those dastardly Russians, who control the country in their devious ways (which explains why they allow more and more «sanctions» to be piled on and threatened)….

  • uhhh …. they’d be just as big an asshole as Trump. Not sure that’s a good thing.

    Long ago, in a galaxy far, far, away – the dems had character and stood for the little guy. Then they noticed that the GOP got bigger bribes so they threw away their morals for money.

    The transition is already well begun, is what I’m sayin’

  • “Imagine a Democratic President Who Fought As Hard for the Left As Trump Does For the Right”

    This is as unimaginable as a square circle, or as Republican President intentionally serving the interests of the Democrats.

    Such a barking mad Democratic President, if actually allowed by Democrats to run and win, would only be a sheep in wolve’s clothing.

    Why ever would the Right Wing Democratic Party fight for the Left? Their practice is to suppress and co-opt the Left in order to stay cozy with the Right, albeit without being explicitly so.

  • alex_the_tired
    January 14, 2019 11:58 PM

    Way, way, way back when, I recall asking a teacher why the Whig Party had gone extinct. Her response went something like: “They didn’t offer the electorate anything that the electorate wanted to hear. All their ideas were outdated.”
    The Republicans (as someone put it) are stuck between Leviticus and the 15th century. The democrats, meanwhile, offer a similarly non-present batch of “solutions” (as long as no one is upset by them).
    Look at the Russia-gate scandal. It’s been going on for two years? For the life of me, it still sounds like nothing more than “Trump’s people might have gotten an offer to buy dirt on the opposition.” Bless my soul, I’m sure nothing as sordid as that has ever happened in politics ever. A candidate so desperate to win that she’s willing to accept debate questions ahead of the — sorry, I forgot, we’re only focusing on Trump’s possible transgressions, not Hillary Clinton’s proven ones (I won’t mention that she’s besties with Henry Kissinger, the war criminal).
    So that’s the first question: What, exactly, has Trump (not his campaign, not his minions, but Donald J. Trump, the preznit of these here United States) been accused of? And what actual evidence has been produced? (Not the promise of evidence eventually. What, at this moment in time, directly linked to Trump, has been uncovered? And how credible are those sources?)
    I cannot recall the democrats EVER pursuing anything with the single-mindedness that Trump has devoted to the wall. The closest I can come is how the centrist democrats rallied behind Hillary Rodham Clinton to hijack the nomination process and hamstring Bernie Sanders. Ol’ $12 an hour, be-satisfied-with-Obamacare, Henry Kissinger multimillionaire apologist Hillary Rodham Clinton, first of her name, Queen of the Andals and the First Men, was inevitable, and God Almighty help anyone who tried to say otherwise.
    The democratic leadership (I will, as a courtesy, call it leadership) simply doesn’t understand the reality of it all: the people who supported Bernie Sanders in 2016 have woken up. They aren’t coming back to the fold. Ever. The democrats are, to them, just as appealing as the Whigs, and Trump is not really any better or worse; the change in degrees is a rounding error at best.
    So that’s where it stands. Trump is supported by his hardcore 34% (and let’s not forget the percentage of people who’ll vote for the Republican regardless of who it is). Against whom? Some wishy-washy two-faced liar of a democrat who is about as inspiring as a dead puppy at a birthday party? The Bernie Sanders supporters are only going to vote for Bernie Sanders. The usual gang of dems need to understand that and step aside.

    • Alex, what do you have against Leviticus ?… 😉


    • > Look at the Russia-gate scandal. It’s been going on for two years?

      Whitewater went on for six.

      > “Trump’s people might have gotten an offer to buy dirt on the opposition.”

      At this point, trying to deny that Russia *tried* to get Trump elected is like trying to deny that the Earth is round. You can make all the statements you like, but the evidence is overwhelming.

      So, the real question is, was, and always will be – “did the President Of The United States conspire with an unfriendly foreign power to undermine our elections?

      If yes, that’s spelled “Treason” (and it’s STILL not about Hillary)

      Remember: We already *know* that DJTJR tried to peddle influence to The Dastardly Russians. (Trade influence for that dirt – it wasn’t a gift from an admirer: it was graft, bribery, emoluments, squeeze, Baksheesh, moola, doubleplusungood corruption in high places.) While that doesn’t convict daddy, it *does* comprise multiple federal felonies on Jr’s part. If you think Daddy didn’t know about it, I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona you may be interested in. I mean SERIOUSLY??

      Recent events: we find that Manafort was giving polling data to a Russian operative (and lied about it); that Trump keeps even his own staff out of meetings with Putin; that the FBI started a probe over whether Trump was compromised after he fired Comey. (which again, had nothing to do with Hillary) and that Trump has hired SEVENTEEN lawyers to defend himself against charges which he claims to be false.

      [Obligatory ‘river in Egypt’ comment]

      • alex_the_tired
        January 15, 2019 11:35 AM

        0. I’m not denying that Russia wanted Trump in office. Hell, Reagan wanted Thatcher in office in England. The CIA’s wanted all sorts of people running the various countries in Central and South America. To imagine that this sort of political back-and-forth doesn’t happen every election cycle is too grotesque to even contemplate. I’m not arguing about that. I’m saying that I still haven’t seen anything that categorically proves that Donald Trump, the Prez, was so stupid as to let himself be caught in such a deal without putting at least one layer of plausible-deniability insulation in the middle.
        1. Whitewater. The McDougals were convicted (Susan got pardoned by Bill Clinton after she refused to testify against him). Gov. Tucker, (Bill Clinton’s successor) was also convicted. As I recall, Bill and Hill (friend of war criminal Henry Kissinger), were never prosecuted.
        That’s the thing I’m talking about. I know there’s lots of evidence that sure points toward Donald Trump. But I don’t see anything that a clever team of lawyers can’t obfuscate. I strongly suspect Trump Jr. will be left to carry the can, and then Papa will pardon him. It’s a play right out of the Clinton book, and Trump will be the first one to say so as he paints the democrats, somehow, as the “real monsters” in this.
        2. It isn’t about what dad knew. It’s what can be proven to be what dad knew. Multiple administrations have exploited this loophole. So have corporations.
        My conclusion stands: The dems will not succeed in getting anything to stick to Donald Trump, president. He will immediately turn the whole thing around and mention “Crooked Hillary” doing the same thing during Whitewater. The small-fry that the dems stick anything on? If their last names are Trump, Donald’s gonna pardon ’em. And his supporters will cheer and cheer while Nancy and Chuck fumble through another muppet presentation of them pretending to sort of be outraged. Or something.

      • > The McDougals were convicted …

        Mueller has filed 192 criminal counts, charged 36 people and 7 have plead guilty. So, if that’s the criterion then Trump wins.

        > It isn’t about what dad knew. It’s what can be proven to be what dad knew.

        I’m afraid we must agree to disagree on this one. I am very interested in whether he’s guilty, but I’m willing to bet that even if it’s proven he won’t serve time. Nixon was pardoned after all, but he merely conspired with domestic agents – Trump may be guilty of far worse crimes.

        While I’m perfectly willing to admit that this isn’t the first incidence of corruption in high places, I contend that those are irrelevant to to the question of whether this is yet another indecent.

        Reagan probably conspired with terrorists to help his election. I spell that “treason” as well, but I’m not willing to let him off the hook just ‘cuz Bush is a war criminal. I’d like to see them both tried and convicted.

  • Democrats count on winning votes based only a negative identity.

    Democrats are NOT Trump.

    Democrats are NOT Republicans.

    Democrats are NOT dastardly Russians.

    Democrats are confident that they don’t need to make or keep promises about anything because of who they claim they are NOT, based on the identity politics of who they are and who they are NOT.

    And besides, running on what they really are FOR would cause them to lose votes to the Left.

    • ay-yup. Unfortunately that’s been the trend on both sides for years. “Vote for me ‘cuz the other guy’s a bum”

      Okay, fine now give me a reason to vote for YOU.

  • This comic is quite unique. Most “leftist” (or what passes for it) political cartoonists are busily lampooning Trump’s grand-standing as ineffectual and thus comical. To be fair, most Democratic leaning voters and most Independents do see it that way. Easier to pretend Trump voters are just (insert deplorable basket item here).

    The deeper question is what would happen if someone like Sanders would be more combative, probably adversarial to the point of threatening violence (as is forced redistribution, etc.). To be fair, Sanders in particular does overstep some of the unwritten boundaries – especially in calling for popular mobilization and naming names in the exact way that Obama carefully did not.

    Personally I would rather support a politician who can to some degree be relied on to support radical change but may not openly call for radical measures. Corbyn and Sanders seem to fit the bill – the inverse of Trump who intuitively puts rhetoric over substance.

    Though I guess it would be funny if a politician could break into the mainstream who would actually behave like the violent leftist the media constantly tries to portray us as 😉

You must be logged in to post a comment.