What should we give up next in an effort to save the Democratic Party?

[whereisjustice]

Being a Democrat today isn’t easy. It means accepting the following core values aggressively defended by the Democratic National Committee. This isn’t an exhaustive list of core values, but it hits the lowlights of the new Democratic Party. Clearly, we’ve regressed a bit over time when it comes to looking out for the little guy.

Value 1. Citizen surveillance without probable cause including permanent retention and analysis of your internet activity, credit card transactions, medical records, recorded phone calls. “Tough on Terror”.

Value 2. Trade agreements sending millions of jobs to Asia while importing as many as a million H1B workers from Asia. Trillions of dollars of technology training are supporting the middle class of Mexico, India and communist China, all with horrible human rights and worker abuses. Meanwhile, poverty is near record highs and wages in the US have barely budged since 1970s. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2837426/ibms-chip-business-sale-gets-national-security-scrutiny.html “Promoting Free Markets”.

Value 3. Fracking, deep water drilling and drilling in environmentally sensitive areas while letting the industry regulate itself much like the banking industry regulates itself. “Solving the Energy Crisis”.

Value 4. Corporate welfare as THE primary consideration in the formation of public policy. Wealthy CEOs, such as Bill Gates, have exceptional qualifications in the areas of public education. Individuals who have spent their lives looking out for their own best interests are the best individuals to develop public policy. “Economic Development”.

Value 5. Protest is unacceptable. Protests such as Occupy Wall Street, Iraq War, Wisconsin and Ferguson, are rude and make wealthy people very uncomfortable. However, it is OK to use images of 1960’s era MLK marches for the purposes of soliciting money. “Moderate”.

Value 6. Justice has 20/20 vision. Corporations, the wealthy and the politically connected class may choose to pay a fine to avoid the inconvenience of a criminal prosecution. Individuals from lower classes should bear the full weight of justice for their crimes. Privatization of our penal system is the best way to handle prison overcrowding. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-brilliant-life-and-tragic-death-of-aaron-swartz-20130215?page=4 “Tough on Crime”.

Value 7. Torture, lying to Congress or lying to citizens by government officials or agencies can be dismissed as patriotic folks just doing their jobs too well. “Defending Patriotism”.

Value 8. Israel. Taxpayer supported slaughter as a means to control dissent from a minority population under siege is the best way to insure our long term interests in the Middle East. “Foreign Policy”.

So what will Democrats give up next in our post-constitutional reality? Repeal free speech? Accept that religion, like a corporation, has an equal part in our government? Immunize police and their proxies from common and civil law? Eliminate right to fair trial?

The real reality is, it doesn't matter who or what gets thrown overboard in an effort to maintain altitude. The party is sinking. And, look out below. It’s always the least able (or willing) to defend themselves that end up getting hurt.

[Scuba]

1. Well, apparently public education is no longer part of the Party ethos.

Can you say Arne Duncan?

[deurbano]

18. I was looking for that, too. It's somewhat addressed under #4,

though the anti-teacher/anti-union component is not explicitly spelled out.

[Doctor_J]

69. ALL public services.

Might as well go for it all

[djean111]

2. Oh, I believe that entire list will be embraced with fervor. Soon.

Not only that, but I would not be surprised if posting about anyone except Hillary, as a candidate, and/or posting objections to anything on that list - will be considered as infractions against the TOS, by some.
They will smear being against anything on that list as wanting ponies and unicorns.

[JHB]

3. Neoliberalism

I'm on board with giving THAT up.

[orpupilofnature57]

27. + 1000 !!!

[vi5]

4. Public education.....Support for organized labor/unions....reasonable gun control......

Opposition to the death penalty.

Those have also already been thrown out the window.

Apparently the only thing the Democratic party actually believes any more is "We're not as crazy as Republicans." and think that is actually the only core value they need.

[nashville_brook]

5. i think all this falls under the heading of "triangulation"

which is a favorite Clintonian tactic. it also endorses the Republican view that all politics is a game, and that there's no real values to be upheld. in other words, it's the slow road to hell.

[orpupilofnature57]

29. +1000 !!!!

[n2doc]

6. 9. Eternal War

The US is obligated to interfere in middle eastern civil wars because a couple of folks might come over here and attack us. We must preemptively kill anyone we think is a threat, based on whatever information we gather, no matter how sketchy.

[grahamhgreen]

41. Is killing the country.

[woo me with science]

81. +1

[LWolf]

7. Perhaps the best way to "save" the Democratic Party

is to allow it to fail as long as it is promoting and defending "core values" that are indefensible.

[JTFrog]

8. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election

season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Just in case you needed a refresher of the Terms of Service: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

I'll be happy to return to this thread in a couple weeks and take it seriously.

[whereisjustice]

11. lol, I can add a Season of Censorship to the list of proposals. I'm assuming you'd want

that regulated by a secret surveillance court? Perhaps DNC could create a secret list you could share with Democratic Party Affiliated websites to prevent dissent from marked individuals at times the surveillance court decides are inconvenient?

But even silent protest wasn't enough to keep RayMcGovern from being beaten at a Hillary Clinton speech.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/18/ex_cia_analyst_ray_mcgovern_beaten

Your over the top reaction is exactly why the Democratic Party is suffering from a lack of engagement from the lesser classes.

[JTFrog]

12. Yea, it's all my fault.

So, I'll let you get on with your bashing.

[hughee99]

13. The only time your elected officials want to hear from you is when they don't need you.

That way, it makes it so much easier to completely ignore you. When election time comes around, you can say supportive things or just shut up and vote for them.

If you want them to listen to you all year round, make sure you show up with a big check when you see them.

[AnAzulTexas]

15. Point proven

[hifiguy]

43. Emma Goldman hit it on the head

"If voting could change anything it would be made illegal."

More true now than ever before.

[LiberalElite]

59. BTW your original OP was alerted on -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=inbox&view=1652440

I was juror #3.

[whereisjustice]

63. Thanks very much. People can argue whether the values I've listed

are helping or hurting our country, but they cannot deny the fact that these are the values we are living under and these values remain unopposed by the DNC.

Like global warming, our political decay is accelerating, man made and becoming less and less correctable each passing year.

[branford]

68. You are definitely entitled to advocate your beliefs as expressed in your OP,

and I see no reason why anyone would have altered, but not only do I believe your brand and method of advocacy will hurt our party and causes (as I indicated in post #48 in this thread), I take issue with your contention that "these are the values we are living under and these values remain unopposed by the DNC."

Many of you statements are so hyperbolic as to be wildly inaccurate (e.g., protest is unacceptable) and some are the opposite of the Democratic platform and majority opinion in the USA (e.g., Israel). More importantly, the Democratic platform clearly opposes many of the general social, political and cultural matters you find offensive. You appear to really take issue with the fact that our elected Democratic representatives do not deal with such concerns in a manner or priority you find acceptable, or are willing to compromise in order to actually get elected and prevent Republicans and others from totally controlling the agenda to everyone's detriment.

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

[A Simple Game]

26. Some put Country before party, some put party Before Country.

It says a lot about a person don't you think?

[JTFrog]

33. Yes,

I am the evil. I already admitted it was all my fault.

Happy?

[A Simple Game]

34. No I'm not happy because people that put party before Country do a large disservice to the

American people whether they are Republicans or Democrats.

Why do Senators and Representative think they can get away with catering to the 1%? Because they know 95% of those affiliated with their party will vote for them no matter what. They don't have to answer to anyone but the moneyed class.

[Scootaloo]

38. You think the ToS applies still?

Tell you what. when Elad, skinner, and EarlG get their heads out of their bank accounts, and start dealing with the misogynists, transphobes, black-haters and Muslim-baiters populating their fine website, then I'll worry about people who dare to criticize Democrats for the shitty policy carried by democrats.

[bravenak]

66. Sad, but yeah.

I'm more worried about the bigots than people who are concerned about policy they find dubious.

[JaneyVee]

9. I don't get it. The Dem party has many reps against all of those things.

Its the Republican party that embraces them all.

[whereisjustice]

17. Yet, here we are. Perhaps you can convince Sanders to run as a Democrat?

[dlwickham]

19. Sanders is too far left for the majority of Americans

might as well hand the election to the republicans

[whereisjustice]

32. Some here keep repeating that over and over hoping that eventually enough people will

believe it to eliminate any challenge to Hillary Clinton, who you won't hear challenging any of the values I've written about.

She not only supports them, she's helped develop them.

[Autumn]

36. Strange. I post a lot from Bernie on my FB, he gets likes from my republican friends

When Bernie tells the truth people in both parties like it.

[BrotherIvan]

47. ^^This!^^

Trouble is, once he starts running, their pastors/priests will tell them that Bernie is the debil. He could do so much for every person in this country, but propaganda from right (and center right as we see) is going to be an uphill battle. But I have my comfortable shoes on and would wear out the soles for Senator Sanders.

[Scootaloo]

39. Yet by any sane measure, he's center of the fucking road

Keys you in to the insanity of American politics, and just how far right the party we must loyally and unquestioningly support really is, to realize this, doesn't it?

[hifiguy]

44. You got that right, Scoots.

[hifiguy]

64. Keep saying it and someday you may convince yourself

it's actually true. Pluralities to strong majorities back most of Bernie's priorities.

http://ourfuture.org/report/american-majority-project-polling

http://mediamatters.org/research/progmaj/

No more Third Way Horseshit.

[woo me with science]

77. [phone]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. "Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[world wide wally]

14. The sad truth is that by running spineless candidates like we seem to be doing this time around,

We won't have to give up anything. Republicans will take care of all that for us.
I have not heard Mark Udall in Colorado talk about one single thing Obama has done good, or one thing Republicants have done to screw up the country, but he does attack the Prez in his ads.
And this after Colorado voted for Obama twice.
Don't worry, Democratic politicians won't have to worry about how to sound more Repubulican at all.

[JoeyT]

16. Correction:

Protest is unacceptable.

Protest against US policy is unacceptable. The same people that shriek like banshees whenever Code Pink is mentioned, claiming that they're totally against war but Code Pink goes too far and their methods are questionable will fall all over themselves to fawn over Pussy Riot.

If Pussy Riot was an American protest group, not only would they not be praised, they'd be accused of racism on a regular basis.

[RiverLover]

20. Best post I've ever read here. It's depressing, but iit's true & it needs to change.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. I have this idea I call "Soylent Blue".

Not as bad as Soylent Red, for sure.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. I have this idea I call "Soylent Blue".

Not as bad as Soylent Red, for sure.

[20score]

23. Three things to add to that list, if you don't mind. And they're connected.

1. Freedom of the press.
2. Privacy (And without that, the entire idea of freedom.)
3. Reality.

Those three things are connected to your # 1, and # 3 is connected to your entire list. Those who spend so much of their time attacking the messengers to deny the mountains of evidence proving the surveillance we are under, have denied reality to the same degree as a creationist. All of the other things on your list can only be accepted be ideologues who deny reality, and in the process do harm to the majority of the country. (Not to mention the party they are pretending to defend.)

[20score]

25. And BTW, where are the authoritarians/'war on reality' people?

They're usually out in force on a post like this.

[BrotherIvan]

35. Because it doesn't contain specific keywords that activate swarms

[20score]

37. Thanks! I think you're right.

[BrotherIvan]

46. It's pretty obvious that policy is not an attractor

One has arrived to hall monitor the discussion, but the bat signal has not been activated yet. Glad I'm not the only one who noticed.

[Separation]

67. They are here,

Just lurking for the time being, the OP was already alerted on.

[dotymed]

24. How about "whistle blowing?"

If a citizen tells the truth about ethical or illegal acts by our government/corporations, they are subject to prosecution, sometimes they end up "suicided."

[earthside]

28. As a positive step ...

... let's give-up Hillary.

[Fuddnik]

30. First, give up your money.

Everything else goes back into effect November 5th.

[Fearless]

31. We give up nothing and reinforce our values

That is the only way we inspire people to vote.

[Maedhros]

40. NO HALF MEASURES!

I say we implement a straight-up Wealth Test for voting.

[whereisjustice]

52. there will be a day when someone proposes that only corporations should have right to vote. It's

not clear to me which party would propose it first.

[CrispyQ]

71. I wonder too, when that will happen.

They will get one vote per share of stock.

[MattSh]

42. A. Our Sanity.

When we give that up, all those other values, past, present, and future will hopefully be forgotten...

[hifiguy]

45. Brilliant post.

That's it in a nutshell.

[branford]

48. I almost always find these types of threads irritating and self-defeating.

They are nothing more than an attempt to institute a "purity test" on who is "real" Democrat, with the original poster trying to set the terms based on their own priorities and goals. Using hyperbolic language or even the inclusion of some popular ideas do not make the posts any less coercive or counterproductive.

First, I would like to remind everyone that this is "Democratic Underground," not Liberal Underground, Socialist Underground, etc. It is intended to support our entire political party and candidates.

Second, the Democratic Platform is very broad and welcoming, and encompasses a wide coalition of interests and concerns that, at times, are contradictory, at odds, or are competing for the same pool of resources (e.g., industrial labor unions and environmental groups).

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Third, voters are human, and virtually no one except unusually committed activists will agree with everything the Party advocates. If you intentionally alienate or disparage those who would otherwise support the vast majority of issues important to the Party over one or few areas of disagreement, do not be surprised if they then vote for other candidates or choose not to vote at all. If Democrats are not elected, then our entire platform is at risk.

Fourth, similar to the point above, we only have the candidates that we can recruit or who can win, not the ones each of us may desire in our perfect world. In many areas of the county, cultural and other differences render some issues that many (but certainly not all) Democrats support, very unpopular with local voters. For instance, gun rights are supported by many Democrats, particularly in more conservative and rural areas, to the consternation of many Democrats in more liberal and politically safe districts. This does not make these Democrats "bad," only representative of their voters.

In order to advance the Democratic agenda, Democrats must be elected to office, even if these Democrats may have what are perceived to be political shortcomings to some here on DU. Simply, you might agree with everything about Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, but candidates like them stand virtually no chance in places like Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, West Virginia and other states and districts. Complaining about "Blue Dogs" might be emotionally satisfying, but how did you feel after they were routed in 2010, and we lost control of the House and seats in the Senate. We stand to suffer the same problem in a couple of weeks. How does that advance any aspect of the Democratic platform?

Fifth, some items in the OP do not even reflect the actual national platform of our Party or the position of many our members, and if it did, it would seriously jeopardize Democratic control and funding sources in vast swaths of the country.

By way of example, the OP's blatantly anti-Israel "Value 8" bears no resemblance to the actual and historical Democratic Platform (see link above), primarily because many, if not an actual majority, of Democrats (and many independents who vote Democratic) would not only disagree with the OP, but actually find the allegations offensive. If "Value 8" were inserted into the Democratic platform, it would likely result in a political civil war in deep blue areas like NY, NJ, MA and CA, and do incalculable damage to Democratic candidates in purple and red states.

I do not have to prove to anyone that I'm a Democrat, I respect other Democrats even when we disagree on some issues, and I will continue to support the Democratic candidates that have the best chance of advancing the overall Democratic agenda, even if that mean I have to sometimes comprise on an issue or two.

We do not live in a perfect world, and I have no intention of making the perfect the enemy of the good. I see no value in always insisting on "ideal" Democratic candidates who will be nothing more than political martyrs with no chance of being elected.

[whereisjustice]

50. Living under these values is far more irritating than reading about them.

Thank you for perfectly illustrating all of my points.

Talk all you want about the "new reality" but the party is sinking lower and lower every year, it is following the money and distancing itself from the issues that determine the quality of life for 300,000,000 people.

The Democratic Party could be as effective as the Republican Party in communicating values that benefit working people. However, as we see with Hillary Clinton, it prefers to wait to see which way the wind is blowing before "adjusting" on popular issues like gay marriage. In DNC calculations, gay marriage has no real impact on the earnings of a Wall Street CEO or our policy of offshoring jobs. So, after carefully studying polls and focus groups, it can finally get behind the trend without too much risk of upsetting the upper class.

And as if more irony is needed, look no further than the apologies lobbed by the party apparatus to defend cowardly Democratic candidates running away from Obama and ACA. I may not approve of President Obama's political performance, but Democrats running away from him like a he's a left wing extremist damages the party.

Listen to our Democratic representatives and candidates. Which ones are aggressively challenging the values I have listed? Near ZERO. Senate Democrats have been pushing to double the number of H1Bs, TPP is worming its way along. My recent favorite is blaming Republicans for blocking the Surgeon general when it is actually Democrats who don't like his views on the causal relationship between liberal gun laws and gun violence.

If candidates did oppose these measures, they would be immediately dismissed from the conservative wing at DNC as "left wing radicals", all ponies and rainbows.

So, what are you going to do to flush these destructive values from the DNC,? That's a better solution than denying some and apologizing for the rest.

[branford]

55. I think you missed one of my central points.

Not every Democrat agrees with you or your intractable interpretation of the Democratic platform (or deviation from the platform), and it doesn't make them any less of a Democratic candidate or member of our party. Voters nationwide agree even less.

No candidate can advance any part of our agenda if they cannot get elected. This is most certainly not a "new realty." It is a constant and unyielding fact in a representative democracy. As I stated, the perfect is not the enemy of the good.

2010 is a perfect example. In 2008, we elected a Democratic president, House and filibuster-proof Senate. We passed fairly moderate health care reform, and just two years later, as Obama stated, we suffered a "shellacking," and it still haunts our candidates in 2014. Moreover, whether you like it or not, Obama is currently unpopular and the Republicans are poised to retake the Senate. I've seen nothing to indicate that if elected Democrats moved farther and more vocally to the left, that it would improve their electoral prospects in any way, except in the few areas where they are already politically comfortable.

You may not like some of the more conservative elected Democrats, such as Landrieu, Begich or Pryor, but they are the lesser of the two evils between them or Republican. The candidates you would support stand no chance in these and other areas.

It appears to me that your issue is not really with Democratic politicians, but rather dissatisfaction with the majority of American voters, including those of our party.

[reACTIONary]

51. +1000 - You Rock !!!! (nt)

[PowerToThePeople]

49. I have decided that my long term goal is to give up

my U.S. citizenship. Hopefully I will get to a northern European Socialist-Democracy style nation and be able to make a home. If I can do that and become stable, maybe they will allow me citizenship there. At that time I will dump the USA like a bad habit.

There are no redeeming qualities left here at this current stage in history, imho. Obviously there are the diamonds in the rough such as Sanders, but they are too few in numbers to make any real changes. There is honestly no chance for anything positive to happen here with how far we have fallen down the rabbit hole of fascist oligarchy. Even on this "left leaning" board there are so many right wing authoritarian thugs, I can barely stand to visit.

[reACTIONary]

53. Have fun, and remember,...

...comrade, the only reason that northern European socialist democracy exists is because of the protective nuclear umbrella provided by the USA on behalf of the freeworld.

[hifiguy]

54. If I were twenty years younger I would do the same.

There or New Zealand/Australia.

[branford]

58. New Zealand and Australia elected leaders to the right of many US Democrats.

Canada has done the same, and even northern Europe is the not the liberal, near-Socialist paradise than some imagine, particularly in the last decade or so.

I guess the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence . . .

[tularetom]

57. Problem is that most of the countries you would like to move to

Don't want you unless you have money.

But if you have money, why not stay here?

It truly is a global economy. The corporations have won.

[whereisjustice]

61. Germany is looking for smart technology oriented people, they have

programs in place to help immigrants. I have heard rumblings that Europe may be seeking to take advantage of US decline in wages, wealth and quality of life with programs under development to attract a well educated and under employed US work force.

My family's well being is more important than the excessive lifestyle of our gilded CEO class citizens. So, if you are young and have some skills, I would not rule it out. These programs usually have a limited window. Canada had some programs to encourage this but made it more difficult after they became overwhelmed. If our political process won't advocate for our quality of life in the US, then who can blame anyone for their pursuit of happiness?

[baldguy]

56. How about giving up losing?

How about giving up doing everything to alienate the majority of people who agree with us?

How about giving up using RW talking points & policy positions to attack & defeat good Democrats?

[woo me with science]

60. K&R. Worth logging in to rec.

[woo me with science]

62. We are like mere dogs trying to understand the internet.

The implementation of a corporate authoritarian state is clearly a necessary incremental step in the long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long. long, long journey toward a liberal, compassionate future.

They can't tell us people with limited smartness why, though. It's a secret.

[whereisjustice]

65. that photo is perfect. eom

[Babel_17]

70. Recommended though, sadly, our party has long supported some bad Foreign Policies

Recommended though, sadly, our party has long supported some bad Foreign Policies. Maybe with the best of intentions, or maybe with a lot of prodding from corporations, but that isn't new.

Though the crap that went on under Reagan, thankfully many Dem's were not party to it.

[woo me with science]

72. kick

[LondonReign2]

73. Well, I learned on DU today that principles are irrelevent

and those suggesting they are important probably haven't won any elections.

So sayeth our "reality-based pragmatist" conservodems.

[branford]

75. Are you implying that moderate or right of enter Democrats are not "real" Democrats?

If that became the position of the Democratic Party, the number of Democratic elected officials, federal and state, would decline dramatically and our entire agenda would be at serious risk.

The Democratic Party platform is simply not as left-wing as some suggest or would greatly prefer, and provides for compromise and accommodation of competing and divergent interests. More importantly, some candidates and probably a majority of voters do not agree with the entirety of any party platform, irrespective of whether it is from the Democrats or Republicans.

Of course, you may vote and advocate as you wish, but neither you nor the OP gets to decide who deserves to be in the Democratic Party.

Lastly, as I stated previously, I assume you were happy when many of the Blue Dog "conservodems" lost their elections in 2010, and the Democrats lost control of the House. Would you kindly explain how losing control of Congress helped our Party or any of the liberal and progressive causes that we champion. Will the loss of "conservodem" Senators next week in the midterm election, with the resultant loss of control of the Senate (and ability to confirm executive appointments and judges), similarly satisfy your demands for purity and principle?

[LondonReign2]

78. Correct. Right-of-center are, by definition, not Democrats

You can call yourselves whatever you want, but if you are right-of-center you by definition agree more with the Republicans than with Democrats. In that case you should be over on Republican boards advocating that their party move to the left rather than be on Democratic boards advocating the party continues lurching to the right.

--->"satisfy your demands for purity and principle?"
LOL. It's the second time today I've seen our so-called right of center Dems here poo poo the idea that we need principles. Says it all really.

[branford]

79. I'm fairly liberal, but I don't believe party members more conservative than myself

are not "real" Democrats. I also realize that candidates that agree with all my liberal positions are practically unelectable in vast swaths of the country. I'd rather have a Democrat in office who agrees with me on some things and supports Democratic leadership, than Republicans who I agree with far less and whose leadership is entirely counterproductive for the country. As I've stated repeatedly, I'm not so smug and arrogant as to not realize than in politics, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

What you demand is some "pure" ultra left-wing (for America) party that does not really exist, is often inconsistent with the actual Democratic Platforn, and if somehow enforced, will result in a minority political party with some only regional power, at best, and ultimately jeopardize all party accomplishments.

You also didn't address my last point in my prior post. The election losses of the "conservative" Democrats cost us the House in 2010, and might result in the loss of the Senate next week. How these pure liberal Democrats, now completely in the minority of Congress, advance any part of a more liberal political agenda or support our Democratic president?

Whether you like it or not, only more conservative Democrats are electable in much of the country, their views are still mostly consistent with the Democratic Party Platform, and most importantly, you share far more in common with them than any Republican. If you think shrinking our party even more helps advance an agenda that we likely both share, you would be badly mistaken.

[derby378]

74. Simple - just erase any mention of an "assault weapon" ban from the platform...

...and in the next election cycle, you should see a jump in at least 5 points coming out of the starting gate.

You can still push the need for an improved background check system as hard as you like, though. The old system is showing cracks. It desperately needs repair.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

76. I say we give up the people who want us to give up.

They don't want to hold Democratic values? Invite them to quit calling themselves Democrats. Once the Party starts actually holding to its values again, those who've left the party to the left will return. Hold on to the party beliefs, and there will be no need to worry about 'Naders'.

[woo me with science]

80. kick