I'm done with this

[angrychair]

No matter the letter after your name, If you vote for another penny of military funding I will not vote for you.

If you vote for one more penny of money for this war I will not vote for you.

No more warmongering fascists running our country. We can no longer allow endless wars to be the norm.
Peace. Science. Life.

[Deuxcents]

1. Make their voting records public and easy to find for anyone. They need shamed

[lame54]

2. Vote D over R...

Even if they both gave money

[angrychair]

5. No more trillion dollar military budgets

No more war. No more excuses.

[lame54]

7. No.more R's

[angrychair]

8. No more warmongers.

No matter the letter after their name.

[lame54]

9. The warmonger in chief...

Is in there because of non voters

[angrychair]

10. I didn't vote for him

I voted for the lady that didn't want war.

I'm drawing an unequivocal, unapologetic line and there are no exceptions.

We are drawing to many exceptions, tired of given people a pass that vote in support of pedophiles or vote for war.
Peace. Science. Life.

[wnylib]

46. I understand your polnt and mostly agree.

I think that, regarding Dems, the warmongers should be primaried and voted against.

In the general election., though, it is still to our advantage to vote D over R because enough D votes will give us the numbers in Congress to have a majority. A majority of Dems allows us to better fight against the fascists, reverse their policies and restore sanity.

[Cirsium]

17. Not true

You assume non-voters are Democrats. That is not necessarily so. Many locals here who had never voted before went out and voted for Trump. Reaching non-voters is a worthy goal. Blaming them doesn't help.

[lame54]

62. Disagree...

Have a good day

[Cirsium]

70. What has happened?

What in the world has happened to political discussion? "Have a good day?"

OK, I will.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. Republicans thank you for your service.

The reason why we're in this position to begin with is because *just* enough people wanted to punish Democrats.

Their short-sightedness helped Republicans get elected.

[betsuni]

84. Both Sides Warmongers message aimed at potential Democratic voters in 2028 to discourage participating.

The most important thing is to punish the progressive party of the two main political parties of the United States even if it's devastating for the country's people and the future of the planet. "Vengeance is mine!" quoth the angry short-sighted, enjoying that warm glow of righteousness in their purity.

[QueerDuck]

90. Yep. This is YET another post that is trying to suppress the vote and discourage people from voting for Democrats.

It just amazes me that things like that can be found on a forum that's supposed to SUPPORT Democrats. Weird.

[56miSSie]

74. Unless it's Fetterman.

[Totally Tunsie]

4. Staying for pizza?

[ok_cpu]

6. Irony is not their strong suit, is it? n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

11. agree.

not one penny.

[RetiredParatrooper]

13. The circular firing squad forms

Part of the reason we are in this position is binary thinking like this.

[angrychair]

15. Not binary thinking

I'm tired of war and death and grift.

Tired of endless death of people of color to satisfy the blood lust of billionaire warmongers.

What is binary thinking about that?

[lapfog_1]

31. don't vote for Kamala because she supported "Genocide Joe"

I remember this shit from 18 months ago.

And that is how we got a new endless war in Iran. Not to mention Genocide in Gaza.

Vote Blue no matter Who.

[RetiredParatrooper]

60. It very much is

If you opt out because of the grievances you listed in your OP, that is part of the reason the Orange MFer got elected in the first place.

Twice.

Are you suggesting we should defund the DoD?

[angrychair]

66. No

Could have phrased it better in my OP. The point is I'm not supporting endless wars and bottomless military budgets. That is a better way of saying what I mean.

I will happily vote for any Democrat that supports that position. I don't think they is a very high bar and I'm dumbfounded that people think that is too much to ask.

I'm tired of people gaslighting me that we don't have the money for things like Medicare for All or NIH funding but we always have trillions of dollars for military spending.
Do you realize we spend more on our military then the next 18 countries, combined. How about we only spend as much as the next two countries combined? Is that too much to ask?

[RetiredParatrooper]

82. I don't care for either endless war, or endless budgets

We agree there. I would much rather spend out tax dollars on MFA and infrastructure. Too much of the shit we do regarding both are Ad Hoc temporary solutions.

It seems that the new way of war is smaller and leaner. The war in Ukraine has shown this. When you spend million dollar missiles knocking down $10,000 drones....

You. Will. Lose.

Every time.

[Happy Hoosier]

102. Well good luck with that.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where we sometimes have to pick a path that’s less than ideal. It’s important to think strategically and not make “better” the enemy of the perfect.

[angrychair]

118. Nope

How do we achieve those goals we say we want with endless wars and bottomless military budgets? The last military budget was over a trillion dollars. The next is expected to be at least $1.5 trillion dollars. The next after that? Maybe $2 trillion dollars.
I'm no longer allowing myself to be gaslighted by people telling me we don't have the money for Medicare for All or NIH funding or VA funding while we always seem to have money for the military and war.
Nope. If a candidate intends to vote for supplemental funding for Iran war than that candidate will not not get my vote in favor of one that will not do that.
If a candidate favors voting in favor of bottomless military budgets than that candidate doesn't get my vote. I'll vote for someone that wants less military spending, not more. We cannot keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

[rampartd]

61. binary thinking?

a 2 party system requires it.

[Skittles]

77. we

yeah OK

[Orrex]

83. It's amazing

Any time someone puts forth an opinion that's outside of the party line, we're told "this is why we're in this position."

Complain about Garland? This is why we're in this position today.

Complain about Schumer? This is why we're in this position today.

Complain about war-mongering? This is why we're in this position today.


I wish someone would post the lists of topics about which we're permitted to voice dissent. It would save a lot of hassle.

[Scrivener7]

101. What it boils down to is that we must not suggest we can do better. All those of us who do that

are baaaaad baaaaad Democrats.

Reining-in the military budget and diverting the funds to social programs while ending the "wars of presidential whim" should be a platform position that our side pushes constantly and clearly. But it is a political third rail because so much money goes to constituencies from military spending.

It's time for us to say that needs to stop and that political danger for the reps of not bringing that money home is now gone. The political danger to them now is in voting for the insane military budgets.

[Zelda_Orchid]

14. If the choice is between a Dem that supports military funding ...

and a fascist that supports military funding, supports concentration camps, supports murdering American civilians, protects pedophiles, and is corrupt the the core ... the choice is simple. Vote for the Democrat!

[angrychair]

19. Then this cycle will continue

More endless wars. More people of color dying so we can steal their oil. More grift. More money in the pocket of billionaires.

Sorry, I'm getting off that train. No longer contributing to this cycle of violence.
No more endless blood money for the war pigs.

[Zelda_Orchid]

22. And the fascists will use their propaganda machine to make you believe that.

**THAT"S** the cycle. Ending it requires ending the fascists - not the Democrats.

[angrychair]

23. If you are Democrat

Voting in support of more war and more death and more violence and more grift and more pedophiles, then that Democrat is a fascist.

I'm fully in support of Democrats that are against more military funding. We don't need anymore trillion dollar budgets or anything even close to that.

[Zelda_Orchid]

33. If you're a Democrat, you support getting rid of the fascists.

Not for upholding any arbitrary litmus test that can be money wrenched by the fascists. See 2000, 2004, 2016, 2024 ...

[angrychair]

37. What is arbitrary

About not supporting endless war and bottomless military budgets?

Do you realize this latest military budget was over a trillion dollars and they now want even more? When is it enough? If you keep doing the same thing over and over again how can you expect a different result?

I will happily vote in favor of any Democrat that is not in favor of endless war and bottomless military budgets. There is nothing arbitrary about that.

[Zelda_Orchid]

41. The Democratic Party is a coalition. With different factions uniting for the common good.

The fascists have spent the last 4 decades exploiting those differences - and making up new ones - to divide the Democratic coalition & keep the fascists in power.

STOP LETTING THEM!

"United We Stand, Divided We Fall" isn't just a catchy slogan.

We are stronger together than they are, and there's more of us than them. Refusing to support Democrats now will lead directly to a total fascist takeover, and continue the very things you're complaining about.

[angrychair]

52. I'm confused

Isn't voting for people that support endless war and bottomless military budgets also supporting the continuation of the same thing these fascists want?

Honestly, your position seems to be that Democrats support that and my position is I know they do not. There are some that do and those are the people we need to purge from our ranks in favor of people that do not support trillion dollar military budgets.
It's about not doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

[angrychair]

57. Ok

So "United we stand" even if that stance is endless war and bottomless military budgets?

Murdering brown people to steal their resources?

Sorry, I'm not doing that.

Never again. I am just one person and I have zero power but my vote. If asking a Democratic Party candidate to not support endless wars and bottomless military budgets is too much to ask then I will happily be in the wrong.

[Zelda_Orchid]

58. It's much easier to have a real conversation about military funding with someone who isn't trying to kill you.

The fascists want to kill you. The Democrats don't.

[angrychair]

64. One would argue

That supporting endless wars and bottomless military budgets is wanting to kill me.

Because if we are funding trillion+ dollar military budgets then we are not funding the NIH or CDC Dept of Education or Dept of State or NOAA or FEMA or USAID or any of the dozens of organizations that directly contribute to the health and safety of all Americans in ways no amount of military spending ever will or can do.

If a Democratic Party candidate cannot bring themselves to not support endless wars and bottomless military budgets then how exactly do we achieve any of the things we say we want to achieve when our military budgets become $1.5 trillion dollars? Then $2 trillion dollars?

No longer letting people gaslight me into believing that we cannot afford Medicare for All but we can afford a trillion dollar military budget.

[Wiz Imp]

36. Have fun living in a dictatorship

[angrychair]

38. Why?

How is being against endless wars and bottomless military budgets mean I support a dictatorship?

I'm only not voting for Democrats that do. Are you insinuating that we should support even Democrats that are?

That's a pretty wild take.

Serious question: do you support endless wars and bottomless military budgets?

[Wiz Imp]

42. 🙄

[angrychair]

44. All due respect

That isn't an answer.

[Wiz Imp]

75. 🙂

[stopdiggin]

79. and so you are STILL saying - that you fully intend to 'sit out' (withhold your vote/support)

i.e., "punish the Democrats" - again ...
If your 'either/or' 'black/white' ultimatum is not satisfied.

Or at least that is what I'm reading here.

[angrychair]

85. No, that's not what I said

I said a Democratic Party candidate that supports endless war and bottomless military budgets is not getting my vote.
Outside of president, I can only control my vote for the people in my district and my senators, state and federal.
But if one them is determined to vote to approve a supplemental budget for DOD when we just gave them over a trillion dollars then that candidate doesn't get my vote.
If they later decide to vote to approve the next proposed military budget, which I hear will likely be over $1.5 trillion dollars, then no, that candidate doesn't get my vote.
I'm not that old and there has not been a single decade of my life that didn't have some sort of significant military action or war by the US.
The military budgets have just grown out of control as Congress increasingly use defense spending as a way to direct jobs to their respective districts or states.
It has to to end. No one is going to gaslight me anymore by telling me we cannot afford to fund a Medicare for All plan or the NIH or the VA while we literally spend over a trillion dollars on the military.

[QueerDuck]

91. I share your frustration with the size of the military-industrial complex. However...

... we have to look at the math of the current two-party system. If we withhold votes from Democrats we lower the threshold for GOP candidates to win. Cutting off our nose to spite our faces, so to speak. This type of shouting-at-the-clouds temper tantrum solves nothing.

As I'm sure you realize, the GOP advocates for even higher defense spending with less oversight. They also want to gutting the NIH, VA, and social programs you mentioned. In the end, our vote for the Democrat (the "lesser" military spender) is the only way to prevent the $1.5 trillion budget from becoming a $2 trillion budget.

Indeed, it's important to prioritize Medicare for All and the NIH. But pragmatically, if we stay home or vote third party (as some foolishly advocate) we lose the committee chairs who actually oversee those departments. That type of virtue signaling is a luxury that will cost us dearly. We can't afford to willingly hand over control to the GOP because of pride and an unwillingness to think strategically rather than believing that pure rage and angry fist shaking will cure everything.

In the end, a Democratic majority is the only thing currently standing between the VA and total privatization. What you're advocating for is harmful. We can’t reform the DOD's bottomless budget if we lose the gavel to a party that wants to expand it further while cutting the very social safety nets you're fighting for.

[angrychair]

67. Then how can we expect anything to change?

If we keep voting for endless wars and bottomless military budgets then how do we fund the things we say we want things like Medicare for All? NIH? Dept of Education?

I mean when is it enough? Is a $1.5 trillion dollar military budget too much? $2 trillion dollars?
I mean what is the point of being a Democrat if you only pay lip service to all the things Democrats believe in but always have money for the MIC?

[themaguffin]

92. yeah, we need to force change, but it's not simple or easy and we can't afford to not vote for the Democrat

[Quiet Em]

16. Unless something has changed very recently

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration could soon ask Congress for billions more in military funding as it wages an open-ended bombing campaign in Iran, prompting skepticism among even the most national security-minded Senate Democrats.

Most Democrats are flatly ruling it out, noting that President Donald Trump didn’t seek authorization from Congress before launching the war, so lawmakers now have no duty to help him bankroll another costly military operation in the Middle East.

“Our answer should just be simply, ‘No, you’re not getting money to fund an illegal, unpopular, potentially world-altering war,’” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told HuffPost.

https://www.aol.com/articles/democrats-very-skeptical-funding-trump-171128569.html

[MorbidButterflyTat]

55. Phew! That's one Dem bullet dodged!

Next up: Not another vote for Democrats if they.....

[stopdiggin]

80. Thank you! Summarizing it quite nicely.

"I will not vote for - X, Y, Z, yada, yada ....."

"Even if the other guy is demonstrably ten time worse .. ?"

"I repeat - I will not vote .... "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[orangecrush]

18. Funny how they always seem to have juuuust enough votes

To get what they want, even with a razor thin majority.

Funny how that works.

[popsdenver]

81. Funny how Putin

always wins elections with 85+% of the votes.........you can imagine since 2015, how he has coached the Republicans on the technique.....seriously.
Just look at Putin's *Phony* "Branch" of the "Russian NRA," and using it to corruptly funnel Russian Oligarch's hundreds of millions to the main branch of the NRA in the U.S. for them to distribute to Trump, Republican Senators, Republican House members, and Republican governors across the entire U.S. in 2015.........

[SunImp]

20. Careful you'll upset the obnoxiously self righteous people

that constantly talk down to people about "Purity tests" or the lazy " "

[angrychair]

21. Exactly

But I'm not bending on this. Tired of endless wars to murder people of color to steal their resources.
I'm done. I'm getting off this merry-go-round of death.

[paleotn]

29. Then you won't be voting this year?

Gee, that seems sorta kinda like that whole Gaza bit back in Nov. 2024. How'd that work out? Oops.

[angrychair]

34. I will happily

Vote for any Democrat that is against more military funding.

Serious question:
Why would you support someone that supports war and murder and theft?

[paleotn]

47. It seems you're moving the goal posts.

I get your anger. Really I do.

No matter the letter after your name, If you vote for another penny of military funding I will not vote for you.

The DoD budget has to be renewed usually on an annual basis. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your argument. Are you saying a penny in additional funding on top of last year's budget or a penny period? There's a significant difference. If you're calling for reductions, even massive reductions, I'm with you. A significant amount of DoD spend every year is for legacy systems and infrastructure DoD doesn't even want or need. It's a Congressional make work project for their districts, Dems and Pukes. And it hampers DoD from being able to fight todays war since much of that spend is based on a couple wars ago.

But while we're cutting the fat, don't cut bone and muscle. Dangerous world out there. And just because the tools of defense are misused doesn't mean we need to throw away ALL the tools.

[angrychair]

59. My point is this

We can longer afford a unlimited military budget.
We can longer afford to be gaslighted by people that we cannot afford Medicare for all or early childhood education or support our injured veterans but have all the budget in the world for a $100 billion dollar aircraft carrier.

What we are doing now can never happen again.

[paleotn]

71. Got it. I agree.

Not unlimited when we have far more pressing needs. We don't need to be the world's police force. DoD also doesn't need to be some crazy wanker's play thing either. Do we really need 11 aircraft carriers at a billion a pop or more? 11 and counting? Oh hell no.

[angrychair]

73. Well the USS Ford

Cost $13 billion dollars and the toilets barely work.
It's a real life shit show.

I mean we don't need a military budget of more than the next 18 countries combined. Maybe only the next two countries combined?
I also realize that we have been using the defense budget as an artificial jobs program but we need to stop doing that.

[paleotn]

28. And rightfully so.

[SunImp]

35. Talking down to people is never a winning strategy

[Zelda_Orchid]

45. "Talking down to people" is exactly what #OP is doing, innit?

[SunImp]

53. ..

I'm done with this
No matter the letter after your name, If you vote for another penny of military funding I will not vote for you.

If you vote for one more penny of money for this war I will not vote for you.

No more warmongering fascists running our country. We can no longer allow endless wars to be the norm.
Peace. Science. Life.

Sorry, I don't see it. Op is just saying they won't vote for anyone who wants to fund any wars or spend our tax dollars on tanks instead of things like healthcare. For me I'm okay with some military spending for our country, but as for funding other nations nope

[paleotn]

48. Sometimes you simply can't help yourself.

Seems you're doing it as well. That's natural. We're all human. Well, except for Trump.

[QueerDuck]

88. I'm impressed by the confidence it takes to lecture others on 'talking down' to people while using those adjectives.

[Fullduplexxx]

104. The obnoxiously self-righteous people who are correct about purity tests

[sop]

24. Here we go again. Same old arguments just before an election. Some folks never learn.

[angrychair]

26. Not the same

We are in a war. It should not be extreme position to not want a Democrat running for public office to not support endless war and trillion dollar military budgets.

If a Democrat doesn't support killing people of color in another country to steal their resources then they have my vote.
Not sure how that's controversial.

[sop]

39. Thing is, I agree with your position of not supporting war funding, endless wars and trillion dollar military budgets.

I just don't think what you're suggesting will be productive.

[angrychair]

43. How so?

I don't think it's unrealistic.

If we keep voting for people that will support stuff like that then how, specifically, do we expect anything to change?

[sop]

50. If elections were only about stopping endless war funding and trillion dollar military budgets, I would agree with you,

but there are many other forms of change to consider.

[angrychair]

56. Those are all that matter

Because here is the thing, where is the money coming from to do those other things we need to do? Funding the VA? Funding early childhood education? Universal healthcare?
Literally anything?
Because where exactly is that money coming from to do all that stuff we as Democrats want to do but we are always fighting a losing battle against an ever increasing budget for our Dept of endless war? if we have a $1.5 trillion dollar military budget? A $2 trillion dollar military budget? When does it end?
I will happily vote for candidates that do not support endless war and bottomless military budgets.

[QueerDuck]

89. Not voting for (and sabotaging) Democrats doesn't prevent the funding. Instead, it just guarantees MORE funding...

...for the things you claim to hate. It's very short-sighted and performative virtue signaling that only serves to harm Democrats and to benefit the GOP and their agenda. It's pure fantasy to think that Democrats will stop funding the military. But the reality is that the GOP will make things even worse.

Honestly, this is just another purity test that's not helpful at all. But, you do you... go ahead and continue to advocate for NOT voting for Democrats and see what that will get you. (HINT: Not very far.)

[Fullduplexxx]

95. Yes it the same ...she has a funny laugh, but her emails . Gitmo was closed fast enough

Dadt wasnt repealed fast enough .. you're not going to send Democrats a message you're going to get Republicans elected... God damn when will dems learn

[H2O Man]

25. Recommended.

I hope there are primaries where they can be weeded out. And we need to do some weeding out those who support this. Hopefully, people have learned that support for the war in Gaza was a significant factor in the 2024 loses. I also focus on who they get donations from. But I will always vote for a Democrat in general elections.

[angrychair]

30. I hear you

But I'm getting off this merry-go-round of blood.

My position is unequivocal and unapologetic: if you support more war. More death. An endless trough of blood money to murder people of color and steal their resources, I'm not voting for that person. Period.

[paleotn]

27. Baby meet bathwater.

[angrychair]

40. Why?

I am against endless wars and bottomless military budgets.

I am only talking about Democrats that support that.
I don't think that should be a high bar or in the least controversial.

Serious question: do you support endless wars and bottomless military budgets?

[paleotn]

49. See 47 above. Your argument may not have been clear. At least to me.

[angrychair]

68. Admittedly

I could have worded it better in the OP because I've figured out a better way to say in as the conversations have progressed "no endless wars or bottomless military budgets" is much more clear.

[Fullduplexxx]

106. I know it's fucking disgusting every fucking election we get these people

[leftstreet]

32. DURec

[LetMyPeopleVote]

51. I agree

[Celerity]

113. so do I

[Quiet Em]

63. Everyone should keep an eye on their own Senators.

Republicans will need seven Democrats.

My Senators, Gillibrand and Schumer, are against any funding for the con's war that nobody asked for and nobody wants.

[Scrivener7]

65. Wow. The people in this thread who are arguing with you are actually insisting that we mustn't have

a moral stance against funding and participating in this asinine war.

That's ... a big part of the problem, I'd say.

[NH Ethylene]

69. We are faced with 2 candidates

Each has stances on a large variety of issues. We learn about the candidates and choose the one who is the best, or at least the least objectionable. And of course that is always the Dem.

Single issue voting is partly what gave us a second term of Trump. People who cared passionately about the genocide in Gaza were angry at Harris for not taking a stand against Israel for these actions. Many did not realize that Trump would be far less sympathetic to Palestinians than Harris, nor were they politically savvy enough to realize Harris had to maintain that support for Israel or she would be skewered as antisemitic during the election. We all wound up with Trump and they were bitterly betrayed.

We need to understand there is a lot of nuance in politics. A female candidate, for example, has to sound tough on enemies or she will be considered weak. That doesn't mean she will bomb 8 countries in her first year!

So we have to make a choice based on many factors, many issues, many impressions. And we make the best choice we can. Trump made 'no new wars' a part of his campaign. Based on your criteria, he would be the one to vote for, and yet doing so unleashes chaos, crime, fascism and lies.

[angrychair]

72. One, I would never vote for a Republican

Two, I voted for Kamala Harris.
Three, I think asking a Democratic Party candidate to not support endless wars and bottomless military budgets is not controversial or too much of an ask.

[MichMan]

76. If the Democratic candidate also voted for military funding, you would vote for a third party candidate instead?

"No matter the letter after your name, If you vote for another penny of military funding I will not vote for you."

Like the Green Party ?

[Scrivener7]

97. Did angrychair ever say anything remotely resembling that? If so, please link to it.

[MichMan]

111. I don't see any other way to interpret their own words

"No matter the letter after your name, If you vote for another penny of military funding I will not vote for you.

If you vote for one more penny of money for this war I will not vote for you."

If both the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate on the ballot had both voted for any military funding, the OP stated they would not vote for either. At that point angrychair has 2 options; not vote at all, or vote for someone else. That would seem to leave a third party candidate as the only option, since it is extremely unlikely that person would have ever been in an elected position to vote for anything before.

In fact, the same issue would arise if an incumbent Democrat was running in the US House or Senate against a Republican challenger, who for example, came from a state legislative position, and thus had never voted for military funding before. If the Democrat had in fact voted for military funding, would angrychair vote for the Republican, a third party candidate like Green Party or Libertarian, or just not vote at all?

[stopdiggin]

78. "another penny of military funding .." (that would include paying service members ..?)

Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2026, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)

the position is that the country is to have no military .. ? any sort .. ?

Not sure if I can subscribe ......

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[sheshe2]

86. I am kinda confused here with your post.

You have only 2 Senators to vote for and 1 rep for your district. So, if they have voted for military funding in the past or run on military funding you will not vote for them? Okay, so if they haven't in the past or do not run on the issue, which I have never seen anyone do, then you will vote for them, correct?

Perhaps, if we have free and fair elections in the future, we can hold them accountable and NOT VOTE DEM! Though once again who campaigns on increasing the defense budget? I have never seen that brought up before, perhaps I missed it.

As for the defense budget, it is bloated but it is not used for waging WAR alone! It is for our homelands defense. This country's defense and the target tsf has put on our back. Our enemies will attack. Another 9 11 will most certainly happen with his warmongering. I want us prepared for that.

Me, I vote for a Democrat every single time.

[betsuni]

87. Evidently Democrats chomping at the bit for "endless wars and bottomless military budgets" and

can't wait to vote for the next topless military budgets are thick on the ground. I haven't noticed anyone running on, "I'm a warmonger, vote for me!" but since when has not knowing something stopped anyone from bashing the whole party for what a few people may or may not be doing, their evil both sides intentions assumed.

[sheshe2]

110. Yup, first I heard of it.

I guess I need to pay closer attention!

[QueerDuck]

107. "Defund the Military" makes as much political sense as "Defund the Police"...

... it's TRULY BIZARRE that any person thinks that this is a winning message to pursue. It's an irrational plan.

[sheshe2]

109. You are right.

Thank you.

[TBF]

93. I understand your frustration - and luckily its the primary season

this is the time. Do you check out Indivisible and the candidates they are elevating?

They will occasionally take up support for candidates who are actually more left and try to primary some of the worst candidates. No party is going to be perfect, and unfortunately in this country we have only two to choose from.

We had so many people come out to vote in the Texas democratic primary, and it was really amazing to see. Not that I love the split between dems (or the bickering on social media), but having a choice did promote a lot of enthusiasm. It was nice to see that again. The primaries are where you really get to look at a range of candidates and hopefully get a chance to vote for someone who has your perspective.

[Fullduplexxx]

94. Just like those who wouldnt vote for her because of her emails

[Scrivener7]

96. Really? Do you think it's just like that?

[Fullduplexxx]

98. Yes it is.

[Scrivener7]

99. We'll have to agree to each think the other is bat shit crazy.

[Fullduplexxx]

103. Well then enjoy the rest of trump's 2nd term and his 3rd term.

[Scrivener7]

105. Which is a deliberate misinterpretation. Read angrychairs other posts in this thread.

[MichMan]

114. Just going by their words as written. If that's not what they intended, they should edit it.

If a poster needs to explain a four sentence OP multiple times in subsequent posts, then that means it was very poorly written in the first place. That is what the edit button is for. If one decides to let it stand as is, that's on them.

[Scrivener7]

100. Angrychair, I appreciate your post, and I'm sorry to see the finger-waggers have arrived to distort its message.

I completely agree that we need to rein-in military spending and remove this ability of Presidents to wage wars at their whims, and we need to communicate to our reps that what is happening in our name is unacceptable.

While your passionate OP may not have completely conveyed what you meant, your explanations through the thread make your meaning clear. And even before your explanations, I think the reasonable among us knew exactly what you were saying. The others? I think they knew too. And what's more, I think they agree. But they seem to have some weird need to believe themselves the purest Democrats, especially when someone suggests we can do better.

Your message needs to become a loud and constant part of the Democratic message going forward. It has not been. It needs to be! We need to communicate to our reps that if they don't consistently walk this walk going forward, we will not vote for them in primaries.

[SocialDemocrat61]

108. Finger wagers?

They are just people who disagree with an opinion. No need to give them a demeaning name.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

117. It's sad, really.

"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." — Jean-Jacques Rousseau

"When the debate is lost, insults become the loser's tool." — Socrates

"Using insult instead of argument is the sign of a small mind." — Anonymous

"I know you are, but what am I?" --- Pee-Wee Herman.

[Clouds Passing]

112. DONE. WITH. WAR.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

116. Let's get real

Your demand for no more war and not "...another penny of military funding..." doesn't take reality into account.

Never mind the common knowledge that not voting Democratic results in MAGAt Republican victories, but how about the millions of people all over the country and the world whose lives depend upon the military budget?

"It pays the salaries, training, and health care of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new items. The budget funds six branches of the US military: the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Air Force, and Space Force."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20military%20budget%20of%20the,Air%20Force%2C%20and%20Space%20Force.

"As of December 2025, the US military consisted of 2.81 million people worldwide, including 2.10 million military personnel and 715,212 civilians."

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-are-in-the-us-military-a-demographic-overview/

Also retirees:

Total Retirees: Around 2.3 million (all branches, retirees, and survivors).

I'm personally related to several.

A simple internet search can provide more reality if that's not enough.