What's your response to the "There's [almost] no difference between the two parties" comment?

[Bucky]

In another web forum I gave this response to a graphic referring to "Jebillary" being one candidate...

Yes, they're just identical... if you don't count where they stand on climate change, affordable healthcare, right to unionize, right to vote, avoiding war through negotiations and use of the UN, keeping religion out of government, net neutrality, fighting income inequality, and federal oversight of civil rights.

I'm not sure how effective that was, since I forgot to mention the two parties' stands on reducing interest rates on student loans.

Is there a better response? Is there something I left out that needs to be included in my list of substantive differences?

[Bucky]

1. I mean, duh, besides "marriage equality" as a issue

Anything else to mention in the future?

[ScreamingMeemie]

3. The exclusive right for women and their doctors to make decisions regarding their bodies.

But again, I wouldn't really bother.

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. I don't bother.

[guillaumeb]

4. anyone who says that there is almost no or no difference

between the GOP and the Dems is not paying attention. It is that simple.

[liberalmuse]

5. There IS a difference.

If you can't see it, you're willfuly blind, and in that case, there's no point in trying to convince you.

[Andy823]

10. Willfuly blind or

They are just spreading ring wing BS and have their own agenda, whatever that may be!

[Bucky]

21. No, that's a terrible argument... telling someone I won't try to convince them?

I don't think I'm gonna win by being insulting. I'm looking for a compelling argument, not a snarky response.

[libdem4life]

6. I have a two-word response. One starts with a B and the other with S.

[Andy823]

9. Exactly! nt

[zappaman]

18. What does Black Sabbath have to do with it?

[libdem4life]

20. LOL...they had a Party of their very own.

[Fred Sanders]

76. Well, it was a convincing two word response to a serious topic... until the poster brought Black Sabbath into it.

[madamesilverspurs]

7. It's true

for those who keep their ears plugged and their eyes shut.

[JaneyVee]

8. The 2 parties are virtual polar opposites on nearly every issue.

They can't even agree on which coffee in the break room.
*patiently waits for wall of blue links*

[gratuitous]

11. "Go home, you're drunk"

Yeah, there are some disturbing similarities, but overall, government works better when people are in charge who think government has a rule and a function in society. That lets Republicans out right from the get-go.

[PeteSelman]

12. My response is "Yes, I know".

Because the fact is, there is very little that seperates the parties on the issues that really matter.

[SidDithers]

22. Marriage equality doesn't really matter?...

Women's reproductive right don't really matter?

WTF?

Sid

[justiceischeap]

29. Yes, because social issues, healthcare, pro-Union

None of these things matter in the big scheme of things.

It certainly wasn't Democrats who nominated the Supreme Court justices who made Citizens United a reality.

[seabeyond]

34. now, i understand the people and how they are able to make the statement.

it is all those pesky issues like women and gay rights ect.... that just do not really matter, that is so important to so many of us showing us a clear difference with the parties.

thank you for letting all of us know, how very little we matter to you.

you even show us how little difference there is between the rw and liberal.

[nomorenomore08]

49. The issues on which the two parties differ the least are, in general, those which most affect

straight white men. Whereas issues like LGBT rights, reproductive rights, etc. don't affect them directly, so it's easier for them to say "They're all the same!" for purely economic reasons.

[bettyellen]

39. If you are a Hetero Xtian male perhaps. For the majority of Dems

We see the difference and know why we are Dems.
Why do you ignore core Dem values?

[onecaliberal]

80. I don't see democrats anywhere trying to control every

Uterus in the country. Trying to take away our right to our own lives. I'm sick of people acting like that's a minor thing.
A woman was put in prison for a decade in America because of a fucking miscarriage. This is as serious as it gets.

[canoeist52]

13. I tell them that's why everyone needs to vote, even if we just write-in a name.

Send both parties you message that you're not impress with either of their candidates. If we don't show up and vote, they either think we approve of all they're doing, or that we don't care. This is really what I tell them.

[Scootaloo]

14. it depends on what angle you look at them from

If you're at the top, you see two very distinct parties who really want to sell their product to you.

If you're at the bottom, all you see is two cheeks of the same ass trying to shit on you.

[nomorenomore08]

50. Regardless, I don't see how not voting is any kind of solution. n/t

[Scootaloo]

63. If you're at the bottom, voting isn't much of one, either.

So it becomes a cost-benefit analysis. Do you take time out of your busy day, trying to keep yourself above subsistence, to wait in order to vote for one candidate or the other who will almost assuredly treat you as a non-entity?

The big failing of the Democratic party - a failing of both parties really but it's especially bad coming from the democrats - is the assumption that they can take needy sectors of the voting public for granted. I see it here on DU all the time, from our right-wing democrat posters. "Whaddya gonna do, vote republican? Haw! Haw! Haw!" The party makes little effort to engage people on the bottom rungs until the very last moment, when volunteers pull up and knock on the door with the question "have you voted today?"

It's rather sorry to complain about people staying home, when those are inevitably the same people you spit on, dismiss, and ignore throughout your entire political career, 'cause their donations, if there, trend towards double digits on a good day, rather than six.

[jwirr]

86. Speak for yourself. That is not what many us who are on the bottom see.

[Scootaloo]

87. How many people are you speaking for?

Sorry. The democrats still favor extractive economic policy.

Unless you're the one poor guy in the world who is going to cheer for the TPP? Do tell me about all the details in it that are going to benefit you and me. You held similar views on other "free trade agreements," I presume?

[jwirr]

88. I am totally against the TPP but there are a lot of immediate issues that effect those of us on the

bottom. Such as the safety net (Social Security and SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, food stamps, unemployment, veterans coverage). We see the Democratic Party protecting those issues as best they can.

I guess if you insist that we look only at TPP then yes both parties are certainly the same. Well at least some of the party. Not all Democrats are in favor of it. And I hope to make sure that my own congress persons know that I am against it. Have already made the calls.

As to how many people I speak for - I have been an advocate for developmentally disabled persons since my daughter was born in 1958. I also fought for the all the programs (except Social Security) I mentioned above when they needed it. I was too young to have a say when social security was created.

[DeSwiss]

15. What's your response to the "There's [almost] no difference between the two parties" comment?

RESPONSE: It's a bullshit question. If there weren't differences then it wouldn't be possible to play one off against the other -- and keep us so distracted with minutia that we never even see that we're being played. Or many don't see it, but that's changing too.

- So ultimately, issues like being free and allowed to pursue one's happiness are virtually IGNORED. That was also predicted.....

''Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

''When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.''

~Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America - Volume 2

[Maedhros]

54. Yes - it's a straw man.

The issue at heart is that, despite the apparent differences in the respective Party platforms, the core behavior of the government does not change when the Party in power changes. This was recently and clearly demonstrated with the transition of power from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration: the policies in place to wage the "war" on "terror" continued seamlessly from one to the next. Many of the programs initiated under Bush - civilian surveillance and drone warfare being the best examples - actually intensified under Obama. Likewise, the erosion of basic civil liberties continued apace. Our military adventures abroad multiplied, by 217% in Africa, under Obama. Secret courts, secret laws, secret government.

In exactly the ways we need the Parties to be different, they behave the same.

[seabeyond]

16. not to mention the fuggin'supreme court. it is a false statement, they are both alike.

i like your response and i am doing the same. we are hearing it a lot lately. it shows either ignorance, or insincerity to say the two parties are the same. especially if you are a woman.

[Major Hogwash]

24. Well, I like women and I'm not gay.

So, the Supreme Court does matter, but I don't think gender is as much of an issue as it once was, say just 10 short years ago.
A lot more women are becoming Marines, Senators, doctors, lawyers, and CEOs these days.
I know there is still a long ways to go, but at least we are headed in the right direction now.

[betterdemsonly]

17. There are some differences on gay rights and women's rights.

Not many on unions, foreign policy or income inequality.

Many dems voted for the Iraq War Reslolution. Dems failed to pass card check legislation, and most supported charter schools to undermine the Teachers Unions. Most also supported unconditional bank bailouts.

[zappaman]

19. "Some" lol!

Now there's an understatement.

[Cha]

23. You got the numero uno issue right up there in the front of the line.. The Environment.

"It's the Environment, stupid!"

Those who say they can't tell the difference are being obtuse or disingenuous.

[ashtonelijah]

25. As a gay man in a red state that refused Medicaid expansion...

As a gay man in a very red state (Mississippi) that refused Medicaid expansion...

I say that anyone who says that, or says there's no difference between Hillary and Jeb, must really be riding high on a lot of privilege. Straight, white left wingers from blue states are often the people caught saying things like this. It's total b.s.

If you're an LGBT person in Mississippi--a state controlled, dominated, and decimated by the GOP--this statement should absolutely outrage you.

[stevenleser]

46. You beat me to it. See my #45 below. nt

[LynneSin]

57. And this is why I will always vote Democrat

And I probably live in a state where I could 'vote my conscious' and go third party and my state would still vote for the Democrat (I'm in Delaware).

But I also know that I am a 30 minute drive from Pennsylvania, which is a key swing state in Presidential elections. I have worked every single Presidential election in Philadelphia because I know it's important to have high voter turn out in that city. If we get the voters to the polls that day then there is no way the state can go red and the Republicans know it.

So for people like you who might not have much of a voice in their state I will continue to fight

[get the red out]

26. Reproductive rights

Marriage equality
Corporations as people
Hatred of any help for the poor out of reps
Racism
Obamacare
LegitImate rape
Climate change
Science in education
Sex education

[A HERETIC I AM]

27. The other day I repsonded to a post on FB that said "You had to be an idiot to vote for Obama"

I said, "That's where you're wrong. All the idiots voted for McCain/Whatsername and Romney/Dickhead. While it is true that not all Republicans are stupid, most stupid people are Republican"


He didn't like that and neither did any of his compatriots!

FWIW, The "substantive differences as I see them;
Republicans
Unflinching support for the NRA to the detriment of public safety
Unflinching support for the nations Police Departments to the detriment of public safety
Unflinching support for the Military to the detriment of the public good
Unflinching support for "Profit above all else" to the detriment of the public good
Unflinching support for lowering the highest marginal tax rate to the detriment of public good
Unflinching support for antagonistic foreign policy to the detriment of international relations
Unflinching support for the Religiously motivated voter to the detriment of the public good and specifically, Women's Health
Unflinching support for an outdated and mean spirited, anti worker law to the detriment of the middle class (The Taft-Hartley Act)

I could go on all morning

The Democratic party just doesn't seem so hell bent on screwing over the average citizen.

[aikoaiko]

28. "Bless your heart, Naderite."

I remember when Nadar made that pitch in 2000.

[maxrandb]

32. Just one

TAKE A FUCKING LOOK AROUND AT WHAT THE REPUBLICAN PRICKS ARE DOING AT THE STATE AND NATIONAL LEVEL!!!!!!!!!

God I hate that fucking "there's really no difference" bullshit. Excuse my use of my colorful Navy language, but like we used to say sometimes about stupid shit in the Navy; "What a fucking 'goatrope'....it makes me so fucking pissed, I can't see straight"

Yeah, like this country would be no fucking different today if Gore had been "selected" by the Supremes!!!????

[blm]

33. My reply: Utter Horsesh!t!

.

[progree]

35. Obama raised taxes on the wealthy (top 2 brackets). When did any Repug do that?

Kick and Rec on very important OP (bizarrely strange it only got 5 recs)

Back to taxes. First, on ordinary income ... Obama raised the top tax bracket marginal rate from 35% (under Bush) back to 39.6% that it was under Clinton. He also added a 0.9% Medicare surcharge on the top 2 brackets; bringing the total top marginal rate to 39.6 + 0.9 = 40.5%.

On unearned income (other than long term capital gains), there's a 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) on the top 2 brackets, bringing the total top marginal rate to 39.6 + 3.8 = 43.4% (again it was 35% under Bush)

On long term capital gains, the top bracket is 20% + the 3.8% NIIT tax bringing it to a total of 23.8%. It was 15% under Bush. So the move from a 15% tax rate to a 23.8% tax rate is a 59% increase (23.8/15.0 = 1.59)

(Other conditions apply on when and how the NIIT tax is imposed, so the above is somewhat simplified)


More Details:

The 39.6% tax bracket begins at $413,200 Single/ $464,850 MJF Taxable Income in 2015. 39.6% is the marginal rate that these people pay on ORDINARY income above these limits. Ordinary income includes things like salaries, but not long term capital gains.

You can see the tax rate tables by searching for "2015 Tax Rate Schedules" at http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/ch02.html

People with Taxable Income above these limits pay the nominal 20% capital gains tax rate on their long term capital gains (http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html ). Plus the 3.8% NIIT surcharge for a total of a 23.8% rate on their capital gains.

The above changes (except for the 0.9% Medicare surcharge and the 3.8% NIIT surcharge) were the result of The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/American-Taxpayer-Relief-Act.cfm

To help pay for the Affordable Care Act, a "Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT)" 3.8% surcharge was added to: the lesser of: net investment income, or Modified Adjusted Gross Income amounts that exceed $200,000 Single / $250,000 Married Filing Jointly. It’s a bit confusing, but on studying, it clearly applies to people making several hundred thousand dollars or more in capital gains, even if they have no ordinary income. FFI: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Net-Investment-Income-Tax-FAQs

[moondust]

36. Inclusion vs. exclusion.

Among others, generally speaking.

Commonweal vs. unbridled private greed/human & environmental predation/profits over people/fuck The People.

Diplomacy vs. endless wars for profit using other people's kids as fodder.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. It's immature and generally spoken by people who don't know much about policy

At a certain level of zoom (or zoom out, really), it may even be true, but life happens at a much higher magnification. Big swath historical narrative is an abstraction - policy, like life, is micro-level. It's not that people who sing that song can't see the forest for the trees; it's rather the opposite: they can't see the trees for the forest.

[Hekate]

38. "Please go away, you ignorant dipshit."

[Art_from_Ark]

40. That'll convince them, all right

[Hekate]

41. After living through the BushCheney era, after almost 13 years at DU, sometimes....

....my patience with bullshit wears thin.

The rest of the time I am a saint, as is well known.

[Lil Missy]

42. I don't respond, and I never take anything they have to say seriously after that.

[pampango]

43. That Paul Krugman does not know what he is talking about when he disagrees with that assertion.

... each party is quite unified on major policy issues — and these unified positions are very far from each other. The huge, substantive gulf between the parties will be reflected in the policy positions of whomever they nominate, and will almost surely be reflected in the actual policies adopted by whoever wins.

How did the parties get this far apart? Political scientists suggest that it has a lot to do with income inequality. As the wealthy grow richer compared with everyone else, their policy preferences have moved to the right — and they have pulled the Republican Party ever further in their direction. Meanwhile, the influence of big money on Democrats has at least eroded a bit, now that Wall Street, furious over regulations and modest tax hikes, has deserted the party en masse. The result is a level of political polarization not seen since the Civil War.

On one side, suppose that Ms. Clinton is indeed the Democratic nominee. If so, you can be sure that she’ll be accused, early and often, of insincerity, of not being the populist progressive she claims to be.

On the other side, suppose that the Republican nominee is a supposed moderate like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. In either case we’d be sure to hear many assertions from political pundits that the candidate doesn’t believe a lot of what he says. But in their cases this alleged insincerity would be presented as a virtue, not a vice — sure, Mr. Bush is saying crazy things about health care and climate change, but he doesn’t really mean it, and he’d be reasonable once in office. Just like his brother.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html

Of course, Krugman largely discussed the difference in the parties on economic issues.

We all know how different the parties are on social issues.

[MineralMan]

44. I simply ignore anyone who is so uninformed as to say that.

The differences are clear. Anyone who says the two parties are the same is either pushing a position or ignorant of the facts.

[stevenleser]

45. I don't see many women, LGBT or people of color making that argument. Let's start there.

If you are suggesting that the two parties are the same, chances are you are a straight white male and don't care enough that the GOP oppresses women, LGBT and people of color.

You also would have to forget that one of the first prominent people to make the argument that "both parties are the same" is Ralph Nader and in that election he made the argument that Gore was the same as Bush and far too many people bought that. Pretty much everyone sees how stupid that was now. Let's not make the same mistake and regret years from now characterizing Hillary the same as whatever Republican she is up against.

[NCTraveler]

47. It's difficult to approach that level of ignorance.

Your reply is excellent and simple.

[progree]

48. The estate tax, which only a few multi-millionaire/billionaire heirs pay...

President Barack Obama promoted his tax proposals Wednesday while criticizing congressional Republicans who are pushing to repeal the estate tax. The House is expected to pass a bill this week to repeal what some lawmakers call the "death tax," ... But Obama wants to increase the estate tax and has threatened to veto the legislation.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-highlight-family-friendly-tax-proposals-070736353--politics.html

[Thinkingabout]

51. Which two parties are you thinking?

[wheniwasincongress]

52. Its something I might have said

as a teen who didn't know anything about politics or follow it. So I assume when someone says it I assume they don't follow politics

(if it's clear they have some understanding of politics, such as if they post on this site, I would assume they are very jaded and/or frankly, are a straight white guy. But someone in line at the store or a comment left on a youtube page, I assume they know zilch about politics. Like they're those people interviewed on national television for nighttime talk show segments who can't identify who Joe Biden is "I've heard the name...&quot

[Motown_Johnny]

53. Was there a difference between Al Gore and G.W. Bush?

The same BS was used to depress the (D) vote back then too.

Pure bull shit.

[Purveyor]

55. "Jebillary"? LOL, I hadn't heard that one but I love it! eom

[progree]

59. I found this Jeblary picture on Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152758162780911&set=p.10152758162780911&type=1

Sorry I can't get the image itself to embed here.

[LynneSin]

56. I don't know I always wanted to see what it was like to live during a Theocracy

Maybe those Jim Crow laws weren't so crazy and as a woman I guess it wasn't so bad being subservient to a man making half the money he makes while doing the same job.

So you know, I guess there is no difference between the two candidates.




This is the thing, the GOP of today scares me far more than the GOP of 1999. I'm not sure how we survived 8 years of George W. Bush but even HE looks like a better choice than the candidates out there right now including George's own brother Jeb. What's worse is since 2000 there has been an major purge of Republicans that weren't so heinous, moderates replace with much more rabid right-wingers who want to do 'God's bidding' to bring about some sort of Holy war. And since we've had 2 rounds of GOP-Favored Gerrymandering since 2000 which pretty much ensured we will never win back the US House or control most of the State Congress for decades to come, we can ill afford to lose the White House anytime soon especially with the Supreme Court in balance.

[demosincebirth]

58. No difference, huh? Check out our Supreme Court.

[eridani]

60. I use a couple of voting record graphs

One is House 2005 and the other is Senate 2005 (Jim Jeffords accounted for the high Republican point)

[lovemydog]

61. My response is that on some major issues they are the same

like huge tax breaks for big oil (on the basis that it's for research and development or some such hogwash), listening to big lobbyists (particularly the insurance lobby), refusing to tax capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income, refusing to lower military spending as a percentage of gross national product even in so-called peace time, refusing to nationalize big banks, refusing to take all profit out of health care and make it free and available to all, and being far too deferential toward big capitalism as the only answer to struggles of the 99% while implicitly and explicitly condoning socialism for the top 1%. The few exceptions to these policies are the progressive caucus, the black caucus and various people like Barbara Lee, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.

On other issues they are very different, like civil rights, expanding opportunity, providing a safety net, reducing the cost of higher education, protecting & expanding the right to vote, using full-scale war as the last resort rather than the first, climate change, affordable health care and immigration, somewhat progressive taxation, protection of the environment, paid day care for working families, being somewhat less hostile to unions, free or low cost community college, and being responsive to voters who aren't mean spirited and / or gullible.

I'd like to see the democratic party stand opposed to the republican party on all or many more of the issues mentioned in the first paragraph.

[Bonobo]

62. +1 nt

[daredtowork]

64. Hillary sabotages it when she brings up needing "less regulation"

if she continues to insert rightwing themes into her speeches with the hope that she can spin those concepts in a "populist" way, she will continue to reinforce that the is part of the Wall Street beholden "Beltway Blob".

I also get the same vibe from her emphasis on "hard work" because I believe it's meant to distinguish her audience from those who aren't working - the lazy, shiftless people on welfare (who will be subconsciously identified as black, btw).

The accusation that "there's no difference between the two parties" was there before Hillary announced her candidacy. It was in her ball court to define that difference. Instead, she punted when she started populist'splaining "less regulation".

The Blob will out.

[progree]

66. Oh, FFS. Would you get with the program? At least she didn't say "them job-killing regulations"

and I haven't heard her say "them thar job-killing taxes" (with a fake Southern accent), so hey, she's OK. No, she's Great!

As for getting with the program. Are you aware of the (ironically named) "The Left Column" section of the home page (just below the "Trending Now" and "Greatest Threads" sections on the left side of the home page?) Well you should. It is how we at DU define "The Left". Here are all the items on it:

#1. Hillary Clinton Praises 'Progressive Champion' Elizabeth Warren (in Time 100 Most Influential)
#2. George W. Bush: Jeb has a problem: 'Me'
#3. Dealing with trolls will make young women sympathetic to Hillary Clinton (from The Guardian)
#4. Meet the e-voting machine so easy to hack, it will take your breath away
#5. “I don't really care,” Reid said, when asked about the GOP field. “I think they're all losers."
#6. Feminists Are Cheering on Hillary’s Presidential Bid
#7. Hillary Clinton Wants The Supreme Court To Strike Down Marriage Bans
#8. Hillary Clinton signals break with past in Iowa call to end 'uncontrolled money'
#9. Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson- "America needs Hillary"
#10. Robert Reich: I’ve known Hillary since she was 19 years old, and have no doubt where her heart is.

As you can see, we have a coronation going on at DU. Of the 10 items, only 3 items -- #2., #4., and #5 -- are not some version of "isn't Hillary just the greatest? (gush )". At least not from the titles, I'm afraid to read those three stories as I'm afraid they might turn out to be versions of "only Hillary can save us from" stories.

The primaries are over around here.... so support OUR candidate. NOW!

64. Hillary sabotages it when she brings up needing "less regulation"
if she continues to insert rightwing themes into her speeches with the hope that she can spin those concepts in a "populist" way, she will continue to reinforce that the is part of the Wall Street beholden "Beltway Blob".

[daredtowork]

67. WTF???!!! Are those articles curated or criteria-based?

Someone just took the diversity of this community and pasted "Hillary" all over the front page.

Yesterday I was told DU would not be getting sponsorship money from Hillary's campaign. But how can people trust that if the front page is twisted toward a favorite candidate?

[progree]

69. Maybe the "Left Column" is dedicated to Hillary's wonderfulness because it's the first week

of her campaign. Maybe.

67. Are those articles curated or criteria-based?

[daredtowork]

71. Then there should be a Primaries section - she shouldn't hijack the Left section.nt

[Scurrilous]

65. From Gawker Comments:

Blackwater Guards Sentenced to Decades in Prison for Shooting Civilians

http://gawker.com/blackwater-guards-sentenced-to-decades-in-prison-for-sh-1697907021


sui_generis

"...seemed to explain why it took so long for the men to be prosecuted. In them, officials expressed concerns that the Bush administration Justice Department was reluctant to charge Blackwater contractors. "It's hard for me to say we should wait for the Democrats," wrote one State Department investigator, "but this is one such time I have to."

Awww, but wait — all the kewl kidz keep telling me both parties are the same, tho ...?

Does this mean they're NOT totally identical, and that I may have to allow some nuance or fine detail into my worldview?

TVs_Frank

I fucking hate those people.

Well said Frank!!

[kentuck]

68. There's a lot of differences in the two Parties...

..but there is a lot that is alike, also.

[Zorra]

70. Purgatory is far better than hell?

[liberal_at_heart]

72. I would say I agree that economically there is little difference between the two parties.

[progree]

73. Wisconsin Republicans introduce bill to require photo IDs for food stamp recipients

I hear the Democratic version is only slightly less strict.

[font color = "gray", size=1]{sarcasm thingy}[/font]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141070697

[LittleBlue]

74. They don't differ much on issues that affect the 1%

It's easy for them to differ on issues like abortion or gay rights because it doesn't affect the 1%. If their daughter needs an abortion, they will fly to France to get one and spend a few weeks in Monaco recovering. Gay marriage doesn't touch their wealth.

Point is, the 1% love these divisions on issues that will not touch their wealth. As long as we're not talking about why 99% of income growth goes to the 1%. As long as we don't talk about this: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/19/world/wealth-inequality/

JUST HOW MUCH AMMO SHOULD BE IN THE CLIP OF THAT ASSAULT RIFLE ??? Blarrfgh

Let me know when we have a national discussion about how we're sliding back to feudal levels of wealth inequality

[treestar]

75. that whole meme is trolling to discourage voting

usually accompanied by "they are all in it together to help Wall Street and themselves get everything" type of nonsense.

[99Forever]

77. On issues that are important to me...

.... The difference isn't nearly enough. Especially economics and support for working people.

[Thinkingabout]

78. If there are those who says there is not any difference in the two parties, if they are speaking

about the DNC and GOP, maybe it would be good for a little research to determine the basics of each party. I am not sure those proclaiming there is not any difference are true are probably something other than Democrats. Trolling for Rove and gang seems possible.

[hifiguy]

79. On "social issues" there is a difference.

On economic and other issues, you can't squeeze a molecule between them:

Thanks to DUer woo me with science for this damning list of agreements between the "two parties"

The List – compiled by woo me with science of DU.

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.

Carpet bombing of captive population in Gaza. Both parties support it.

___________________

The facts are what they are.

[hobbit709]

81. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

Especially when some ostensibly Democrats talk like Republicans.
For instance on social security.

[kairos12]

82. Democrats can spell.

[rock]

83. "Then you won't mind voting for Hillary, will ya?"

[ismnotwasm]

84. Bullshit

I don't get into deep discussions because it's usually libertarians--and you can't have a reasonable discussion with libertarians.


Socialists, another group, at least are generally reasonable and fun to talk to.

Apathetic non-voters- they might get "oh Bullshit"

[BainsBane]

85. It tells me they don't care about the lives or rights of the vast majority of Americans

Here are some of the issues that don't count, according to these people.

Reproductive rights
Equal pay for equal work
Marriage equality
voting rights
Social Security
Unemployment
Assistance for the poor
Assistance for the disabled
Higher education
K-12 Education
Global Climate Change
The Environment
Federally funded research: NIH, NSF, NEH, and NEA
Family planning at home and abroad
Disaster preparedness (remember Katrina?)
Some regulation of Wall Street vs. Complete deregulation
Job training and infrastructure projects vs. even greater tax cuts for the rich
Prosecution of Hate Crimes
Civil rights and enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment
Women's rights as human rights

Those are the issues and people that don't matter to them. They are privileged enough that the above issues don't affect their lives, and a GOP administration might even give them a nice tax cut. The basic civil rights and survival of the poor and the majority of Americans don't matter to them. They are largely restorationist, people who resent the fact that the body politic includes "women and minorities" (who are actually the overwhelmingly majority of the nation). They call themselves leftist but they are in fact reactionary, seeking to turn the clock back to the time when the rest of us were silenced, were excluded from politics and concerns of politicians. Some of them refer to LGBT rights as effecting "only a very small percentage of people." What they call "leftism" is nothing of the sort and has far more in common with the GOP, which is why they are happy enough to have that party run things. Since they have made clear my life and the lives of my friends, neighbors, and most of the rest of the country is inconsequential to them, I cannot respect them. They are desperate to cling to their privilege. It's bad enough a black man has been President for eight years but now a woman? It's too much for them to bear. I think about them like I do Republicans. They have the right to their views and even their self-delusion in calling themselves leftist. Their rights, however, do not extend to compelling me indulge their colossal sense of entitlement.

[cascadiance]

89. Let's pick apart some of those reasons though...

... and apply them to recent efforts from Obama and other Democrats on what would actually happen with what they are pushing..

1) Climate change -
o TPP that Obama is pushing would destroy our efforts to fight climate change, by encouraging more fossil fuel usage to transport more goods and labor globally to help with the race to the bottom. It would also race to the bottom to areas with less environmental regulations on carbon pollution, etc. too which also would hurt climate change.

2) Affordable health care -
o Obama avoided negotiating for single payer or even a public option and kept in place so much of what rewards the insurance companies continuing to keep our health care system too costly. Why didn't he negotiate harder for that? Obamacare was a good step in the right direction, but it could have been done better.

3) right to unionize -
o TPP that Obama is pushing will basically destroy labor organization around the world by allowing companies more freedom to go to base their manufacturing operations in countries and export globally products made with labor standards that are in the toilet.

4) right to vote -
o We need a constitutional amendment to give us all the right to vote to help be the basis to stop this voter disenfranchisement. And we also need consitutional amendment to shut down "corporate personhood" and "money is free speech" to stop the buying of our government too, before voting will count again. Still waiting for high level democratic leadership on this.

5) avoiding war through negotiations and use of the UN
o We're better than Republicans, but we're not negotiating things with continued drone strikes that even go after our own citizens without due process, and are conducting global efforts on spying on masses of people without good reason to do so as even FISA court oversight is a joke now.

6) keeping religion out of government
o Haven't done much to put in laws things that will prevent things like Hobby Lobby decisions from happening from our corrupt supreme court, which our Democratic members didn't question enough candidates like Roberts positions on corporate personhood to be made public before allowing him to be appointed as its head.

7) Net neutrality
o Why did Obama select Ted Wheeler who was a corrupt lobbyist for Comcast to head up the FCC, which has made this so much of an issue to start with, before he was able to probably convince Wheeler behind the scenes to step back from the earlier BS that was being pushed. If Obama had made a better choice than Wheeler, net neutrality would never have been an issue to begin with.

8) fighting income inequality
o The bigger income inequality is if we allow things like the TPP To get passed, which will force all of our jobs in terms of income levels to be in the toilet, not just women or minorities. Race to the bottom to achieve "equality" is the message that's being pushed on to us.

9) federal oversight of civil rights
o We should do less in efforts to arm our police like military, and to have them target people just trying to protest like Occupy protestors were doing, and more about how to fix our grand jury system and other areas that have been corrupt to allow such abuse to happen. Still not enough from Democrats, though arguably they are doing a better job in trying to fix this than Republicans.

And things like prosecuting banksters and other corporate criminals for crimes that have brought our country to its knees simply is NOT being done by this administration's justice department. Now the Republicans of *today* would likely be no better, but even Reagan's administration was better at prosecuting banksters in his day when he put in prison many behind the Savings and Loan crisis then. Why can't Obama and his DOJ of today do that?

You see why we're frustrated with the double speak we're getting from both parties today about how they want to do somethings but actually deliver things that don't measure up to what they say they'll do?

[progree]

90. Estate tax - RepubliCONs voted for repeal

Hi,

Republicans in Congress are trying to pass an unnecessary tax giveaway to America's wealthiest citizens.

The estate tax, which the U.S. has had for more than a century, currently affects Americans with estates worth at least $5.4 million, or $10.8 million for a couple—only 1 out of every 500 taxpayers. And yet, it's been a target of right-wing lawmakers, working on behalf of their wealthy donors.

Congress has shrunk the estate tax in recent years—and now the Senate and House, in advisory votes largely along party lines, have voted to repeal it entirely. When the Republicans press this issue again, Senate Democrats will need to be ready to beat back the repeal and block this latest Republican giveaway to the superrich.

Good grief, Congress. With all this going on, are you really going to give another tax break to those who need it least?

That's why I signed a petition to Senate Democrats, which says:

"If Senate and House Republicans have their way, they will eliminate the estate tax, which affects only the wealthiest 0.2% of taxpayers. Repealing the estate tax would hurt our economy and be fundamentally unfair. Senate Democrats: Stand with us—and stay united against the repeal."

Will you sign the petition too? Click here to add your name:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stand-with-ben-jerryby-1?source=s.fwd&r_by=390161

Thanks!
________________________________________