And it drives me nuts, too, when people say " both sides are corrupt.". Wtf?

Saying they are both the same is simply a cowardly, dishonest copout.

They do have a few nasty things in common, and everyone makes mistakes, but there are huge differences in how they see the future of the country.

Overall, the right wing cares about what you can for "me".

The left asks what you can do for all of us. Remember JFK's words?

They can bugger off with that.....

Things that Democrats would not be doing if they had the power:

Escalating towards nuclear war with NK.
Pulling out of Paris Climate Agreement.
Reducing National Monuments.
Defunding renewable energy.
Defunding CHIP.
Not helping Puerto Rico sufficiently.
Threatening and deporting DACA.
Building a wall on the southern border.
Attacking our allies and praising Russia.
Ignoring the Russia's cyber attack on our democracy.
Trying to revive the war on cannabis.
Backing expansion of private prisons.
Sabotaging the ACA.
Pushing an obscene tax bill which trigger cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Preparing to decimate the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.
A State Department in shambles.
Privatization schemes against public education.
Expanding the private prison system.
Attacking the BLM movement.
Praising White Supremacists.
Renewing attacks on our LGBT brothers and sisters.
Destroying Net Neutrality.
Decimating clean water and clean air standards.
Banning certain words from useage at the Center for Disease Control.



To name a few.

Most of the things you cited can be reversed in a new administration or with a new Congress - difficult, but possible. But the court appointments don't end with this administration - those judges serve for life and their rulings affect all of us and future generations.

Judicial nominations alone were reason to vote for Hillary.

Most important.
Thanks

Court decisions, especially those of the Supreme Court, can affect our lives, in many cases, WAY more than legislation.

If we lose a liberal Justice or Kennedy, as the usual swing vote, before the Traitor-in-Chief's reign of terror is over, we could be screwed for fuckin' DECADES regardless of who's President.

which is the maturity level of the moron in chief,...
"Every party has a pooper and that's what we call you, party pooper, that's you!". The entire GOP is a party of "poopers".

to teach them some sick lesson or something.

Plenty of DUers will bravely stand on principle for their pet issues while lower income red state liberals are dying from lack of health care. It's easy to stand strong for single payer when you or your child don't have a life threatening medical condition that requires expensive treatment you can't afford.

Republican politicians have let their own families and staff suffer because they personally oppose the ACA and Medicaid expansion. The fact that the PPACA has opponents on the right and the left is proof that it is the only plan that could have been passed through Congress at the time, and would never pass now.

I just walk away. Stupidity probably isn't contagious, but why take a chance?

At least you can kill a zombie...

"but why take a chance?"

Faith is cute.

that supported dipshit,trump.

Sucking off the blue state tit.

So why don't we have a public option / single payer already? And it's not a done deal even if we ever have all three levers of power (again). The health industries have deep, loaded pockets. Roadblock signs are cheap.

Why wasn't our gregarious gem of a POTUS able to find "comfortable shoes"? I remember waiting and WAITING for him to join the throngs in Madison a few years ago. Certainly he could have hired the services of a cobbler.

I'm not an (R) or an (I) - I'm a (D) according to my voter registration, but (P) might be closer to the truth - maybe even an (S). Either way, I vote how I vote because I'm able to think and access things within the confines of my own cranium.

Democracy means the other guys get a vote too.

It's that simple.

Even when we have all three branches in hand, there's still a chance those branches won't work in unison - as WE wish and they professed they would. Your clarification is beyond great. Damn! To learn that tidbit SO late in life.

And of course you understand about the filibuster and all of those things as well that affect us even when we have all branches.

Oh and of course individual Democrats have their own opinions and may not support every single part of the platform.

Democracy is messy.

Of course, if your entire intent is just to engage in demagoguery,all of these things don't really matter to you. But I am sure that doesn't apply to you, right?

And we have a better chance of getting a public option with Democrats. Geez!

the final bill came back from conference committee.

that is the heart of the insurance industry.

I see it now (thanks to you). The president-to-be made unequivocal guarantees that America's wars would STOP the day he took office - and that the ridiculousness of the thieves known as the health care industry would be history in short order - and that labor would see him on picket lines - all those hinged on Teddy's health.

How is it that a THREAT of a Filibuster is the same the act itself??? Geez, I could get killed in an accident if I go to get that quart of milk. Better to just stay here, where I can avoid injury!

Why do you keep distorting the President's record?

And Ted Kennedy's death didn't have anything to do with that. But it did prevent the Dems from having the 60 votes they needed to pass a bill with a public option.

I strongly suggest you throw in the towel, lick your wounds, and learn how the government actually works before coming back here.

Some people are under the impression that Obama was more progressive than he was, regarding certain issues. I followed the campaign closely, as did many others. I watched every debate, both before and after he won the primary. He actually supported the war in Afghanistan (as did I and many other people). As for Iraq, his plan was something along the lines of pulling back over a period of time. I forget the exact plans for Iraq after that, but it most certainly was not to stop on day one. Besides, even if he had wanted to, a war cannot be immediately stopped on a certain day. That would be a silly promise, and he never made it. (That's the sort of promise that Trump would make..."I will repeal Obamacare on Day One!" )

I know what you mean, I was paying close attention. He made fairly vague statements about Afghanistan, but definitely left the impression that he was more interested in building up the society there, than extending the war. Ultimately he achieved just the opposite. And I don't think there is really anything in his campaign rhetoric that would have indicated he intended to triple the number of troops. I also don't think anyone would have understood that he would end up being the MORE hawkish one of him and Biden. But when Biden advised him to draw down and move out of the country, he did just the opposite. And ultimately he chose to never leave. (Partly I suspect because he expected Hillary to finish the job).

But that isn't "both parties are the same".

In Iraq, he's got one speech, in which he talked about drawing down in 9 months. But again, I'm not sure you'll find ANYTHING in his campaign that indicated he intended on executing EXACTLY the Bush SOFA, not to mention allowing Sec Def and State to try to negotiate last minute extensions with the Iraqi government. (Amazingly, SecState apparently didn't understand just how badly they wanted us out of there).

That's not "exactly" the same, although one does struggle to describe "meaningful" differences.

And going one step further, both he AND McCain campaigned on "closing" GITMO. I'm not sure you can find ANYTHING in his speeches that indicates his real intent was to keep it open, but move it to the main land, which in the end is what he tried (and failed) to do.

Here, the two CANDIDATES were probably the "same", and really the parties were probably more of the "same" as well since of course democratic legislators of both houses were on board with preventing the closing of GITMO.

The whole "they are the same" expression I always take as a bit of hyperbole. And quite honestly, I find arguing against the hyperbole to be pointless. The only time I find it with value is when, if the hyperbole is removed, there is no point. In this case, taken strictly, I think that is true, without the hyperbole, there is really no way to make it an "honest" statement. There is very little that is "the same" about the two parties.

However, I do understand some people to mean that in substantive ways, both parties can be expected to behave similarly, and as the above example outline, there is some truth to that. They will campaign on one stance, and then "nuance" themselves to a position they never express, and to a great degree is nearly the opposite of what was reasonably expected from their campaign rhetoric. A bit of this of course is our own fault, wanting to believe someone is more than they are. But it is also an intentional feature of campaigns, getting people to project their own hopes and dreams onto the candidate, even if they have no intention of following through. And THAT is truly a case of "both sides do it".

Issue: Statement by poster that Obama said he'd end the Afghanistan War on Day One.
My response: Not true. He never represented that, said that, or implied that. TO the contrary, he SUPPORTED our efforts in Afghanistan.


You've gotten off track and forgotten what my post was about.

If you have a link for Obama stating that he will end the Afghanistan War on Day One, please post it. You can post it here:

________________________________________________

If you don't, then your response is irrelevant.

We are talking about PROMISES DURING THE CAMPAIGN. Not changes made to his plans later. Plans ALWAYS change for various reasons. However, he was not lying and NEVER represented that he was against the Afghanistan War and would end it on Day One....which is what this thread is about.

We did in fact stay in Afghanistan. We're still there.

Please post the links to your quotes of Obama here: __________________________________________________. Quotes don't mean much w/o a cite to the source.

A lot of people think what that poster thinks. i've heard it repeatedly over the years. I think that a lot of people ASSUMED Obama was far left and anti-war, when he was not. Most people did not watch all the debates, as I and some others did. Some people just misremember, or confuse some Iraq War statements with Afghanistan (although he ALSO did not say we'd leave Iraq on Day One; for anyone to think that shows naiivete about war. We get troops out in one day, even if we wanted to. So by logic, anyone should know that Obama did not say that. Obama, if anything, was a practical, factual man.)

As I stated, what is happening in these instances is that his statements during the campaign are intended to leave one impression, and leave him with the space to move to another.

He said he wanted to increase the troops by a third, and do non-military activities as well. What he actually does is increase it six fold, and do little to nothing on the non military side. Ask anyone during the campaign of those to things are consistent and they'd say no.

He said he close Gitmo. Then he proposes moving it to Illinois instead. Ask anyone during the campaign if those two things were consistent and they'd say no.

He campaigned on a change in Iraq policy (but not in one day) and then he executed EXACTLY the SOFA that Bush negotiated (and allowed cabinet members to try to extend it) Ask anyone during the campaign if those two things are consistent, and they'd say no.

Now, in hindsight can one put them within the same context? Sure, especially after he is given an opportunity to try to justify his position. After all, he can claim to have new information, or that the situation has changed.

I agree that the OP was over stating Obama's Iraq position. Which is why I label it hyperbole. What I am suggesting is hyperbole of this type extends from the problem that politicians promise things, hoping people project their own positions upon them. When the reality comes out, SOME of the people who were most counting upon those positions being quite static are going to feel that the positions changed radically.

Now, if like yourself, you were listening closely and heard the space he was giving himself, you might project far more space upon him to allow for variations in policy. But some people may have misplaced their interpretation to assume that this support of military action in Afghanistan would be to the left of Hillary, not the right of Biden.

I'm trying to put the claim of "the two parties are the same" into some context to demonstrate how different people can mean different things by that statement. This was just a nice narrow example to use.

If you don't have one, then why are you responding?

It appears you don't understand my response to the post I was responding to. Nothing you're talking about is relevant...except any promise that Obama made during the campaign that he would end the Afghanistan War on Day One. My response was that that isn't true...he never promised that.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? If so, post it here: ____________________________. If not, then I suggest you get used to being mistaken, and walk away. You misunderstand my posts, instead choosing to argue with me over something you have concocted in your head.

And if you are reading, I've mentioned that twice. It was part of my example of hyperbole. You are actually reading what I've written right?

My point is once you get beyond your pedantry, and his hyperbole, what there is left is a real discussion about the disconnect between the voter and the candidate and how much of that is intentional on the part of the candidate. And that disconnect occurs "in both parties" and as such leave the impression with many that "both parties are the same".

Pedantry and hyperbole are the opposite sides of the same coin. Both are attempts to mis-characterize the situation either through a narrowing, or an extrapolation.

Most voters aren't policy wonks. They listen and project. It's not that candidates suffer that, it is that they COUNT on that. And that is where the "both sides are the same" finds its home.

Most people understand how to come to terms with not getting what they want (usually learned at an early age). The failure to get what one wants does not usually disable (or significantly impair) the portion of the brain responsible for rational thinking. Unfortunately, it just takes a small percentage of people to ruin it for everyone else.

I am not saying you are one of these people. I have no idea who you personally voted for, and that is really besides the point. That being said, the people who allowed Trump to win because they weren't thrilled with the alternative -- the people I am taking about above -- make arguments indistinguishable from yours. Such arguments (and the entire line of thinking that led to them) should be repudiated at every opportunity.

I grew up lower middle class. My dad worked his ass off making automobile paint for cars which he couldn't afford to own until they'd found their way to a used car lot - the back row "Specials" offerings. I never thought much about what I didn't have. I had clothes ( that someone else had kindly "broken in" for me). I had food when I wanted it (lots 'n lots of peanut butter sanwiches and milk toast). I had my own tiny little bedroom (in a tar-papered shack - well, it was a bit fancy with it's wooden floors and centrally situated oil stove for heating) with an old 1930s Zenith floor model radio that came out of a neighbor's basement and was headed for the trash before I intercepted it and brought it back to life. I was also lucky enough to have parents who encouraged my interests in nature and technology. And while I don't know what their political leanings were, since my dad belonged to a union, he may well have voted GOP - since the GOP WAS the party of the working man when I was ignorant of politics.
As regards the part of my brain that deals with rationality, mine seems to be in working order. I drive a 20-year old 4 cylinder car because I like it's performance (economy) and I can fix anything on it that needs attention - usually for less outlay than one months car payment on a new one. Your allusions as to how I might have voted in 2016 are just illusions. The wife and I voted for Clinton. Both she and the Donald denied us rational choices. We had to vote by the "Duck 'n Cover" way of thinking. Decipher that as you will with your rational mind.

To all the other replies my post generated - Having hung out here since '07 or so, I've gotten to where there's a mental list of acceptable excuses and rhetorical blow back that's predictable when one doesn't fall to their knees at the altar and dares alter the chapter and verse of the book of CYAWCD.
Not to pick on this nice senator, but she supposedly represents me (and many others in this blue state) while sending me a copy of a coverall letter with a robo (or some staffer's) signature on it that offers no definitive answers other than how she's still able to walk the fence rail between know-nothing, peon me and her corporate suitors. And I'm just using her as an example. There's many who could fill in her blank.

Like accusing Obama of not coming through on promises he never made?

that those who say both parties are the same are either secretly authoritarian in nature and want a one party system, are right wingers who are trying to get laid among leftists, or might have progressive tendencies but have such a fat ego that common sense goes out the window, ie Cornell West.

Fuck yourself hard. Really hard. Fuck yourself till you have a prolapsed rectum.

Those who push that b.s. are aiding and abetting "conservatives."

...and since they're almost always using it as an explanation for why they don't vote, I normally don't give them the time of day other than to say, "No, they're the exact opposite."

Every now and then one asks how. I say, "Dems want more people to vote. Republicans want fewer people to vote."

my daddy teaching me that republicans are always for the rich man, my daddy didn't lie.

"Women and children, first!", they're talking about cutting funding.

That was completely without merit or values, composed of hypocrites, and could only get elected by cheating, I believe I would say, "Both parties are the same", for obvious reasons.

I had seen it before, and it was just as disgusting back then. Long past time for universal health care. They did a segment on the visiting doctors a while back. People get in line hours before the start, for dental, eye and other healthcare that nobody can afford. In parts of this country, it is like a third world country. Under the gop, it is getting worse. Do these people STILL vote repub. I wonder? Both these stories should be required watching for the Supreme Court (who all think money does not affect politics) and the greedy swines in the gop.

and I told her if she ever hears anyone say both parties are the same to remember this story and the preventable loss of life.

Do you have a name or a link I can use to find it? And do you have a time I can use to find the section of the video which shows the people you mention? This is a bit more important to me because I once told an older person about this years ago and she called me a brainwashed liberal. Maybe having the names and faces of the dead will make a difference. It disturbs me that there are governors (like Rick Perry) who chose to deny healthcare to their citizens as a political ploy despite the inevitable deaths it would cause

the worst, instead of the best, of what humans do.

Hate each other. Attack each other. Especially hating and attacking potential allies in the war on fascism.

Congratulations for posting about caring for people while you hate them.

disclaimer: I am not now making nor supporting, and never have, the statement that has triggered your hate. I simply find it hateful.

These vermin are celebrating the deaths of suffering Americans who need assistance. They. Don't. Care.

They can all Fuck off and die.

Your "dare" makes my point for me.

The world would be a better place with more caring. In my view.

... but your head, not so much.

I'm sure Neville Chamberlain was a good man.

In addition to not expanding Medicaid, the GOP used that lack of coverage as a way of turning people against Democrats by claiming that they had broken the health care system. So in the end, the people denied coverage voted for the assholes who were responsible for their suffering.

Last edited Mon Jan 1, 2018, 10:18 PM - Edit history (1)

I think you are missing something if you are blaming "people like Susan Sarandon" for Hillary's loss. We need to do a gut check and blaming these folks isn't going to help anything. They were not with us in 2000, they were not with us in 2004... yes a few of them migrated to us under Obama but that was an exception we can not anticipate in the future.

Just exclude those folks from our coalition and forget them.

them all...Turner supports GOP types in our revolution. They are the Nader's of 16.

I instead would recommend trying to find a candidate with strong popular support who has a significant amount of gravitas. Worrying about Jill Stein and her elk is a sure fire path to another loss.

are no friends of Democrats and prefer Republicans and help elect Republicans. Anyone who votes for them is a Republican in reality.

we won't get anywhere if we insist on making factually incorrect statement.

Again, I will try to remind you: You are wasting your time and energy. We don't have ANY to waste. We have to go 100% in for 2018 and 2020. Don't waste time and energy worrying about the extreme left. Either they will be with us or not. If you are really worried about them, then maybe you should support someone like Senator Sanders as he would easily pull most of those voters into the democratic consensus.

Whatever we do, we have to go all in for 2020. If it is Hillary again I will be very disappointed in us but I WILL WORK WITH EVERY FIBER OF MY BEING TO MAKE SURE SHE BECOMES PROTUS.

have been president...same is true with Stein...and the progressive movement was badly injured by both Bush's win and Trump's win as as well. It is not a waste of time and energy when these folks whom I argue are not left have cost us critical elections...I would never support and independent for president...never. And Sen. Sanders should not run...as we may have a 16 situation...we need new faces and I hope younger candidates. The Greens should change their name as the damage this worthless party has done to the environment is incalculable.

Support Senator Sanders.

And I'll continue to remind you that you are wasting our time and energy and sending bad emotions down with good. Put up another candidate like Clinton and we may fail again in 2020. Can you imagine that? It would be horrible. 8 fucking years of Orange Orangutan.

I hope he will not run for president again as his age will be a factor, and it could cause us to lose in 18...if it reopens old wounds. Also, I was not convinced and still am not convinced that Sen. Sanders could win a presidential general election. We live in a center left nation.I think someone like Sherrod Brown with Joseph Kennedy III would be good.

This argument rests upon the assumption that a significant portion of the third party votes would have voted for the losing party. There is little evidence of that. What evidence I've seen over the years is that third party is akin to "write in". It is a protest vote. It is an opportunity to vote, without having to actually chose between the two actually competing candidates. Presuming that if that opportunity to vote for a third party candidate means they would have voted for the next closest choice isn't clear. Too many third party voters of which I know, would participate at all if not for the third party candidate. One can actually make a case that third party tickets have the opportunity to help down ticket races by bringing in more voters.

Quite honestly, I don't think most of these voters actually thought their vote mattered at all. I know a couple of Stein voters and I am positive they knew that Stein had literally no chance. Furthermore, I suspect they thought, because of the state in which they lived, that they could "get away with it anyway". i.e. Hillary would win with or without them. They would never say it, but I strongly suspect this is true. But I also strongly suspect that if Stein hadn't been in the race, they'd a voted for no one at all.

how many were discouraged and stayed home and how many would have voted for Hillary had she not been running her GOP loving mouth...then she literally steals money from Democrats with the phoney recount BS...she went to states which were tight. She intended to elect Trump. Stein is an entitled piece of shit...who in my opinion has blood on her hands.

But that's a long way from "no one can argue". You're mad and your conclusions are based upon emotions, not data, not any studies or polls, and really not on any real knowledge.

And what you really don't understand is their anger and from whence it emanates. Which generally isn't a problem, except that from the few I know, it is people like yourself that demand their votes, and take it for granted they should support your candidate. That some how your candidate had some sort of right to their votes.

As for demanding votes...listen to yourself! You do understand that if you don't vote Democratic, you elect Republicans. Those who don't vote with us are voting for the Republicans and are not progressive at all. They can mouth all the talking points they want. If they don't see the danger of Republicanism and particularly Trumpism...they are of the right regardless of what they call themselves.

The vast majority of these people are angry. If they don't vote for your candidate, in many cases they don't vote at all. You're right, they aren't progressive at all. They're just pissed. Oh, they might lean progressive on one or two issues, but often with no real understanding or logic upon why. So in the end in order to get their vote, you have to attract it, not demand it. You can't say "the other guy's worse". That mostly just gets them to not vote at all. You have to get them to want to vote for your candidate. Which is why charisma has always been important in this television age.

well we tried...

We ran the best person we liked and they got defeated.
Shall we repeat?

system. The majority will prevail. Now I happen to think their will be a big backlash against the GOP in 18 and 20. The voters who didn't voted last time deserve every misery they get period. We can't cater to their stupidity...and consider everyone has a different idea of what makes a great candidate. We vote in the primary, fight for our person (without damaging the candidate that eventually emerges please) and when it is over, we vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is...or the GOP wins. The message that Stein voters or non-voters sent was...we want the Trump and other Republicans to win and are willing to help. And consider Feingold lost...a very liberal candidate...so don't tell me that these people are progressives...I don't believe that.

They are neither progressive, nor conservative. They are just angry and frustrated.
And Feingold lost before, so we weren't listening when we ran him again.

they tend to mean penis.

I'm not so sure about Congress. For example, our Senator, Patty Murray, promised to fight for Net Neutrality, then accepted almost a million $$ in campaign contributions from the telecoms. That is but one example. I'm sure every one of you could find examples of others.

I'd say our Dems in Congress are a little less bad than Repubs. It seems that almost all are willing to sell their souls to get re-elected, no matter how pure they were when they were first elected.

She fought for net neutrality like a boss.

I want to be wrong. But I can't forgive her for joining the lynch mob to remove Franken.

The GOP is America's far-right party.

period. And that is the only way you win a majority.