'they're both the same' and that it's a statement used only to depress Democratic votes.

If tea partiers are saying it and thus presumably not bothering to vote, surely that help Dems.

Democratic administrations usually deliver on a good number of their core promises. Health care reform, tax breaks for middle class, civil rights. Look at Obama's record. Has he given progressives every dream proposal? Far from it. But what does the GOP have to run on? The can't come out and say "We're going to take away your health care!" "We're going to decimate your retirement funds!" "We're going to give ourselves even MORE of your paycheck!" So instead the campaign on evil societal issues which they have absolutely no intention of actually addressing on a national level. They only want to get into office to expand their wealth and reduce regulation on the backs of the "values voters," who then feel like both parties are the same because they never get what they wanted. They only see rich people getting richer, and since virtually every Congressman/woman is very wealthy, they must be "all the same." But on a policy level, nothing could be further from the truth.

Remember that in 2016 when you're voting for up to FOUR Supreme Court Justices. Ask yourself, "are they really all the same?"

Senators do that. Like the Republican and Democratic Senators who voted 98-0 for Scalia or 78-22 for Roberts or 58-42 for Alito.

Inasmuch as the parties are different, they're different based on specific politicians. It doesn't help me to vote for a Senator who's going to turn around and vote for a Scalia, a Roberts, or an Alito. Thankfully, I've got one of the best Dem Senators around, Sherrod Brown.

As I've said before, I vote for the BEST candidate in any race in which I vote. Most of the time, that means a Dem. The only time it's ever meant a Repub was at the county auditor level. But off and on it also means a candidate from some other party.

Democrats have always gone alone with the traditional protocol that the president gets to appoint his cabinet and the people he wants to appoint. Therefore, we've tended to be far to go-along-to-get-along. One can only hope that, after the last six years, and if we vote a blue ticket with Democratic majorities, they won't be so quick to give the GOP their way.

However, you KNOW that if there is a GOP President and a GOP Congress, they will appoint the most extreme right-wing corporatist religious nuts they can find -- justices that will make Scalia and Roberts look like pikers -- and the GOP will rubber-stamp anyone they put put up. It's a given. Then it's Game Over.

I'm not willing to take that chance.

never wind up anywhere good.

The fatal flaw in your logic is that it's a neverending slide downhill. We don't get into horrible things as fast, but we inevitably wind up there if we always accept 'lesser evils'.

Any right-wing candidate, ANY one, will only appoint even more radical, religious, corporatist justices. And they WILL be rubber-stamped by a GOP majority. I don't even see how it is open to debate. You're will to take a gamble that it won't happen, so who cares. I'm more inclined to take a safer bet that it can be stopped from happening in the first place. Because if YOU lose, we're totally fucked forever. At least for the rest of our lifetimes, and beyond, as environmental rules, women's health, religious freedom, money, money, money, money, corporate personhood, all just expand until we are no longer "America." We're God's USA, Inc. We're too damned close to that now. You seem willing to just flip it all off as "Meh, same ol' same ol'." But it is absolutely NOT. Democrats have a fundamentally different view, even if they all too often compromise with the GOP. The GOP have one view, and they'd be happy to take us down the road to a court-approve Religious Corporate Oligarchy.

The 'lesser evil' part of the equation involves continuing to to vote for 'lesser evil' candidates who continue economic policies that drive more of the country into poverty while rewarding the wealthiest. When we live short, brutish lives in overcrowded shantytowns and the wealthy own 99% of the country, because our supposed 'good' candidates have 'fundamentally different' economic viewpoints that end up in the same results for the rest of us, then yes, we're talking about 'lesser evils'.

was Bush's nominee until she withdrew, basically because she couldn't be confirmed.

I actually got a cease-and-desist against selling this one. The claim was I couldn't use a well-know brand. I claimed bullshit, it's just parody, but it was hardly worth spending legal fees to defend.

So both sides can be bipartisan when they want too.

Legislators only vote in line with the Primary Base voters. Of course both parties can be bipartisan when they want to be. But when was the last time you saw them want to be?

If Republicans/Teabaggers/Neo-Confederates really believe this to be true and if they don't vote because of it (I believe you're correct; they actually do believe this statement is true, hence the low turnout among them) then that's good for this country, for average Americans, and for the world overall.

But I've rarely heard them claim such a thing. Usually, it's Libertarians making such uninformed sweeping statements, both on the liberal as well as the conservative side of the political spectrum. Goes to show that they don't bother with nuance and facts; unable to see the larger picture beyond their own perfect little world, and they waive off facts that show a glaring difference between both Parties, choosing to generalize. It's one of the many reasons why I don't see them as credible political commentators and, in turn, waive them off callously.

Oh wait, they are to fucking stupid to realize it.

It also demonstrates something much darker too. Certain people just aren't as equal as others.

long before i said a single word. even going into the fiscal issues.

but better than bad and weak, is not good. and it would be more accurate to say that when a democrat gets elected, voters usually don't see benefits cut, but that sure as shit is NOT universally true. Welfare cuts under Clinton ring a bell? I could post more examples, but why bother with this rather silly, strawman shit?

of privilege and entitlement.

There's plenty of terms for discriminating against people for various attributes... trying to discount someone's opinion certainly shows who is who.

I have learned a long time ago you cant change people who minimize certain other classes of people, so I wont. Enjoy your day.

There's always some politically correct group to try and minimize. I wonder if those trying to diminish those other groups also thought they were justified like you do?

Insert excuse X so I can tear down some other group... It's always about Us vs Them isn't it?

Of course it would be very hard to justify your position unless you just lumped every white male into the evil category, regardless if they were fighting bigotry and prejudice. You do understand how idiotic that position is don't you?

You either are against bias and bigotry or you embrace it. You've already chosen your side. Enjoy.

get it level, then we will talk

Have you ever noticed that "card" is never played if they agree with what you say?

You only get a vote when your parroting the authorized narrative. I guess some of us never learned that white males are inherently evil and don't get a voice. Sigh... You would think those groups who had been previously oppressed would know better than any not to pursue the exact same agenda and try and minimize others.

Who tell us lies that they are "for the common people" comes to mind and the other billionaires are bad

Bush giving Clinton awards and Clinton giving various Bushes awards

They all take money from the same special interests

They distract us with social issues that probably could be resolved by pushing it all to the state level

They build giant programs "for the common good" (or "for defense&quot that "somehow" makes the special interest rich and do a pittance for the harm at issue

Etc.

We just shouldn't be forced to refight those battles every freaking election.

But we live in a very divided country. I want something done.

If Red State people want to be Neanderthals and have Neanderthal social laws in their Red States, then the talented and intelligent people will leave those red states -- and better yet -- the idiotic Red State people in Blue States will leave for the Red States.

Yes, it would be unfortunate people will have to move around a bit, but that is why there are 50 states and guaranteed freedom of travel.

But the entrenched politicians push the intractable social issues for which there has been no resolution in my lifetime each election so they can maintain an economic hegemony over the vast majority of people. It's a scam.

It's a bit like the "Chewbacca" defense from South Park. You start hitting the professional politicians where it hurts and they create a social issue distraction.

That can be tapped by blue people tapped in red states to relocate to blue states (or to finely balanced 'purple states' to flip them blue.) Economic reverse 'gerrymandering' to put people where their politicians will actually represent them.

But I think the job availability in blue states and cities would be enough to get people moving.

Wars.

We have either bombed or outright invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria all in the last 15 years, under both Republican and Democratic leadership; these are facts that cannot be denied. For those who would still attempt to give Obama some sort of foreign policy high ground over Bush, remember this: Obama has not only bombed several more total countries than Bush did, he also escalated the war in Afghanistan after becoming president and has since incurred well over twice as many U.S. casualties there than those incurred under Bush and in far less time.

Now we're talking about nominating Hillary? The same Hillary who voted for the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, supported Obama's 21,000-troop increase in Afghanistan in 2009, supported NATO attacks on Libya in 2011, supported Israel's attacks on Gaza in the summer of 2014, and continues to support the bombing campaign against ISIS as we speak?

This is why so many feel they're all the same. The Democrats replaced a two-term Republican warmonger with a Democrat who was just as willing, if not more willing, to expend American lives and wealth abroad. And now, we are looking at the possibility of yet another warmonger as the Democratic Party's heir-apparent.

Any victories that may be had in domestic affairs will mean little if our country continues down this path of inevitable destruction (both of others and its own). Until a true peace candidate can be mustered and then elected, both parties will continue to appear exactly the same, especially to the outside world.

One of my biggest issues, and I forgot to list it.

Republicans want wars. They look for excuses to start them every time. Look how they used 911 as their new Pearl Harbor. How they used Saddam's Hussein's acts to start Gulf War I.

Democrats don't go out of their way to start them.

If the Democrats are prolonging the wars instead of ending them, then they are enablers and are just as guilty as those who started the wars to begin with. Tell me, do you elect Democrats into office just so that they can perpetuate warmongering Republican neocon policies? Do you really absolve them of any responsibility just because they didn't "start" the wars? Do you think who "started" the wars matters to the innocent people killed by Obama's carpet bombs in Libya and Iraq?

If you have a shred of integrity in this regard, you will not ignore or minimize or excuse the blood on the hands of the Democratic leadership. There may have been a time when Democrats didn't want wars, but that is not what the facts are showing us today.

P.S. Guess who supported and voted for going into Afghanistan post-9/11? Democrats. Guess who who has continuously supported extending the war in Afghanistan? Democrats. Guess who voted for the Iraq war? Over half of Senate Democrats, including Hillary Clinton AND your very own Joe Biden.

Do not defend the warmongering of the Democrats; the facts will get you every time.

Obama stopped both wars the Neocons had started.

And started no new ones.

He could not have stopped them on Day One. And he agreed with Afghanistan. One is not a "warmonger" for thinking any one given war is necessary.

The Bush Administration had already agreed to end U.S. troop presence prior to Obama's election, a fact Obama readily acknowledges himself. Furthermore, Obama has re-started the war in Iraq under the guise of fighting ISIS, refusing to rule out further increases in military engagement in Iraq and Syria.

You are obviously correct that he could not have have stopped the wars on "Day One", but that fact in no way excuses his increasing our military presence in Afghanistan following his election as president. Can you give one good reason why Obama is still waging war in Afghanistan? Bin Laden was killed almost four years ago. The fact that Obama has since agreed and continues to agree with the war in Afghanistan is exactly the problem.

In review, Obama did not actually end the war in Iraq, despite campaigning on that premise in 2012; that had already been set in motion by the previous administration. Obama also has not ended the war in Afghanistan; on the contrary, he greatly increased our military presence there in 2009. Lastly, Obama has started new wars by putting fresh troops in Iraq to fight ISIS while authorizing airstrikes in seven different countries.

I believe I have more than qualified my assertion that Obama is a warmonger; I would love to hear why you think any of his wars are "necessary". I have repeatedly used facts and evidence to back up my position, while you have used exactly none; it is you who is living in imaginary-land, my friend.

Or Syria, or any of the others.

You're defining war to include all drone strikes.

That's conjecture. Not fact.

I think it's pretty reasonable to say that bombing another country constitutes war. Do you defend such actions?

You wish to force me to use your definition of war, but I will use the one from the Constitution and our laws.

I never said anything about what McCain would have done. I only said you can't prove anything about a McCain presidency that never happened. Why even bring up McCain? I would imagine that McCain would have been a huge warmonger as well, but what does that have to do with Obama's war crimes?

Tell me, what exactly is your definition of war? I think you're being awfully disingenuous. You still haven't told me whether you approve of Obama's bombings of several other countries. The record shows that Barack Obama has been one of the most militarily-aggressive presidents in decades. I have yet to see any evidence proving otherwise.

they aren't bright enough to comprehend how wrong they are.

The DEMs are lucky the GOP is over the top batshit insane.

The GOP has a shrinking base of crazy but dedicated voters. And they know it. These people will vote GOP no matter what happens. Its their religion.

So to win, the GOP needs to reduce the number of Democrats who vote.

Their strategy includes:

(1) Direct suppression thru changing the voting rules.
(2) Doing everything they can to make sure government can't work even when it should.
(3) Making sure that anything good that happens includes some poison pill. Something nasty that part of the left will hate.

If Democrats started to vote in larger numbers, we could thwart this strategy. But we spend all our time fighting with each other about which D candidate is sufficiently progressive. And that fighting does nothing to increase our turn out. It might even reduce it in some cases.

If you watch politics on TV, you'll see a RW pundit explaining why the D candidate sucks, screaming SOCIALIST. Then, the left wing pundit will call the same candidate a CORPRATIST. And that R candidate ... he's "bold and refreshing" (and the fact that he's a nutjob goes unstated).

They know they've failed, so they institute policies to support their failure.

the infighting over which Dem is more progressive, etc. IOW, DU doesn't represent what goes on out there in Votingland. However, the constant din of RW TV and radio DOES influence what ALL voters think, just because it is so pervasive and invasive.

IMO, the fault there belongs to high-up Dem strategists who, over the years, have refused to strongly refute and destroy idiotic religious and RW viewpoints by every means possible, including TV and radio; have allowed hackable voting machines to essentially go unchallenged; and have thrown money and time at actively preventing progressive Dems from winning elections (I forget the 2 states this happened in) and even refusing to support a regular Dem challenger (VA). Maybe there's eleventy-eleven dimensional chess going on here, but to most people it is just another slap in the face, because things aren't getting any better by playing eleventy-eleven dimensional chess, so why don't we try to be straightforward and honest like Bernie Sanders? THAT'S why 50% don't vote. When we can't get a straight answer about TPP from Ms Clinton, do you really think most people will say to themselves, "oh, OK, she has to think about it for a while" or are they gonna say, "what? She's been a senator, she's even had a hand in making the TPP, and she doesn't know what she thinks about it?? I don't believe that -- I think she knows exactly how she views it, but she doesn't want to tell me.....now why would that be? Hmmm, maybe because the TPP is gonna SUCK for us regular people out here!"

And they would be right.

The media behaves exactly as I described, and that's what the average Democrat hears.

They hear Republicans trashing Democrats, and Democrats trashing Democrats.

Might as well stop listening and stay home.

I will say it's been my personal experience, as someone who's profession and assets has put me in a place to rub elbows with mega-wealthy Democrats and Republicans for over 30 years, that the fabulously rich of both parties have much more in common with each other than not. I would even say the issues with which they disagree are virtually negligible.

The biggest difference between me and those at this site who read and recognize this to be true is that I have no problem with this being the case.

The List – compiled by DU's own woo me with science.

Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
TISA corporate overlord agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks? Both parties support it.
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Privatization of the TVA? Both parties support it.
Immunity for telecoms? Both parties support it.
"Looking forward" and letting war criminals off the hook? Both parties support it.
Deciding torturers are patriots? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.
Trillion dollar increase in nuclear weapons. Both parties support it.
New war in Iraq. Both parties support it.
New war in Syria. Both parties support it.
Carpet bombing of captive population in Gaza. Both parties support it.

-----

The differences on some social issues, which are in reality human rights issues, are there, but those consist of a tiny sliver of the pie. The agreement on the plutocratic agenda is unanimous, right down the line.

You make some great memes, but few are backed up by actual facts.

I can't prove a negative.

You say "both parties" as if both Democrats and Republicans agree on all of these things. They don't. Some do, sure, just as you occasionally agree with a point raised by a Republican. But to say "both parties" agree with your laundry list is absurd. It fits your meme, but it's still absurd.

Before you can start calling bullshit, you need to do likewise.

He didn't prove anything. He posted the meme. No support for any of it, just a list of stuff.

He didn't "support" anything. That's all I asked. Support the memes listed. They are so vague and without substance that they might as well have been culled off of a freeper sight, or worse, CU.

than it is possible to re-list.

documenting the truth of ALL of this.

kinda, logic 101.

now. take my post from there. if you cannot figure that out? i cant help you.

And would you care to point out any factual errors in that list?

Eternal war, uncounted trillions for the military, the comprehensive surveillance/police state, free reign to the plutocrats so that they can crash the economy while being reimbursed by the people, the destruction of the social safety net, and that is just a start - DO tell me what the differences are between the parties on these issues. I am keen to hear.

same"

Unfortunately, on all of the core issues relating to the survival of the human species, they are the same.

But anyone who would say that, and yes I've heard it said, is either ignorant or pretty damned disingenuous.

They differ on fringe issues.

However, their core policies supporting oligarchy and hegemony are the same.

What is ironic is the flipping stock market Performs better under Democrats because their policies are more stimulative.

I personally believe the stock market is (kind of) up because dollars are being printed like mad and so the price of stocks are thus inflated, since the dollar buys less of them. (In short the stock is really staying flat, but the dollar is worth less, so it takes more to buy a given stock.)

Or you can have my libertarian friends' argument (which don't really buy, but it sounds plausible): There is also the element that more regulation helps really big companies against smaller ones (especially upstarts) because giant companies can pay for staff to monitor and comply with regulations while little business might not even know about a given regulation, and thus get closed/fined. Big companies are on the stock market and so favor more regulation.

Full Disclosure: NOT an economist and only kind of understand this stuff.

But it makes sense.

I can tell that the economy is not really that great, so a soaring stock market does not make sense.

There is clearly something out of kilter somewhere.

That's my understanding as a layperson.

They may whine about how "liberal" their own candidates are, but they get out and vote for the Republicans. And you're right, in that they don't get much of what they want. Shows how rabid they are.

By dragging the opponent down to your level, you have a better chance of beating them because you are familiar with that level.

I mostly hear that rhetoric when the other person in the conversation is in too deep and doesn't understand what is happening. There are a lot of voters who don't have a clue.

But dayum', talk about teh gays and abortions and the War on Christmas™ and you'll fill the Grange Hall.

One brand is health food, the other is junk food. The brands are definitely different, but the owners of them are identical - and they have no brand loyalty.