Maybe not the difference some would like, but still a difference.

The Koch Bros see their contributions as an investment, not as "spending".

politics is a just a leveraging game between corporations and industries with the presidents as chess pieces then who's profiting from President Obama? Just asking rhetorically.

Democrats generally think that a "rising tide lifts all boats".

The working and middle classes should share in the prosperity they created and not let it be sucked out of the economy by the 1%.

So the more people who profit the better.

The question was rhetorical. Question, not a statement of opinion.

from various policies. Profit and prosperity in itself is not a bad thing. It just is. So to imply that some or many people will profit from Obama's policies is not saying anything shocking.

It seems like an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that only the 1% will profit from Romney's policies.

a lot of small craft. Don't want to elect the Titanic, of course, but it would be nice if our Tugs would at least pull more off of the rocks.

Nice thought though.

As soon as Obama is voted out, a new paradigm will be in place, supporting human rights, social and environmental justice, health care and jobs. We need a strong leader to deliver all of these things for the USA.

is what I'd like to know.

see what a sociopath Romney is and how fundamentally decent (even if I think he's somewhat misguided) Obama is.

Anyone saying there's no difference between Romney and Obama needs to pull their head out of their ass, for fuck's sake.

that's (and the content of this top post in my deconstruction of it) just an expression of your pov that BHO/the dems can't be improved upon, or that there's no rational or justifiable cause for an interest in a third party. That must be why the OWS doesn't endorse either, those outta the mainstream kooks.

It reads to me like a roundabout way for "purists" to keep their heads buried in the sand over the similarities between the two major parties, and only the dems are beyond reproach over those similarities.

It sure is nice to know that it's either 100% support for the BHO/dems or not at all in this kinda political calculus.

It's an exaggeration, and quite a dishonest one at that, and likely something that erodes support as much as the things criticized do.

It's also almost like acknowledging the similarities and still supporting BHO/the dems are mutually exclusive things.

so that none of us can raise any concerns about the further extension of tax-cuts for the super-rich, the endless wars in the Middle-East, and the pending wage-lowering, let's-send-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreement.

President Obama could distinguish himself from Rmoney by clearly opposing another extension of tax-cuts for the super-rich, by taking steps to end optional wars in the Middle-East, and by stopping his Administration from negotiating for another "free-trade" agreement.

He's going to win re-election, but it would help if he would take certain positions to more clearly distinguish himself from Rmoney.

Are you operating under the belief that U.S. tax dollars are not being used to finance U.S. supplied mercenaries in Iraq?

If wars depend upon the existence of the wearing of military uniforms on both sides, then Iraq counts as being peaceful. If that reasoning is applied to the Taliban, can't we say that they are not at war in Afghanistan?

If wars depend upon the MSM reporting and characterizing them as "wars," then aren't all covert wars something other than wars?

that was my deconstruction of it as well.

I saw it as a jab diected at those who'd dare be concerned about the ways they are similar. The only way I've seen that charge even approximated have largely been confined to the "war on terror", not domestic/economic issues. While some charge that even there BHO is repub-lite -- closer to Raygun than FDR -- there's no one of note I'm aware that aren't aware of the many diffs/distinctions between the two guys on domestic/econ issues.

Who the hell ever said there's no difference. There's no difference in Bush and Romney. Heard that one over a hundred times.

Romney could well turn out to be Bush on steroids.

I read it as a slam on those who think there are some similarities between him and BHO, which is exaggerated (the criticisms over this and that) into things like that. It's almost like an individuals eroded support for BHO these days is either counted as more support for Romney, or a treason of sorts.

I don't get it. While I've been a WC Fields kinda guy most of my voting life Hell, I never vote for anybody, I always vote against. W. C. Fields I've always seen myself as the exception rather than the rule, based on experience.

I can see that kinda attitude coming from authoritarian, bed/pants-wetting rightwingnut cult members, but expected more "tolerance" outta "liberals", since that's supposed to define them much as the aforementioned does most of their opposition.

I guess that "similarity" alone makes them "just alike/identical" too...lol

It doesn't matter that he has governed to the right of an Eisenhower Republican.

It doesn't matter he's given them everything they've asked for; socialism for the rich, poverty for the rest of us.

They really, really think that they are genetically and intellectually superior to the rest of us, and the position of the Presidency is for one of their own. These are truly the most arrogant people on the planet.

If you can gut it, listen to Rush, Hannity, or any right wing mouthpiece. They make it painfully apparent.

The pending "free-trade" agreement, which Rmoney already says that he supports, has not been finalized.

of permanent GOP rule is still alive. A Romney presidency would no doubt continue the stacking of the courts and population of the federal bureaucracy with right wing loyalists from theocratic diploma mills in the Bush/Cheney tradition.

$400,000,000.00 represents what, a whole 4% of their wealth maybe???

When they start spending significant portions of their vast array of wealth on a presidential race, you'll know we have a real "man of the people" running.

Right now, it's all just kabuki theater so you don't think the deck is stacked.

For me as a voter, the question is - does Obama represent me? I'm against facism, the police state and war. Against corporate profiteering at the expense of the poor and middle class.

which candidate will best advance the interests of the working class (or do the least damage to those interests).

If I am right that this is the 'real' question, then unquestionably Obama has to be the choice.

I mean is anyone seriously maintaining that Romney will better protect the interests of workers?

Or I bet I will hear that soon on DU.

Mister Smarty engineering buddy who knows fucking everything because he reads the Wall Street Journal, and has a photographic memory said that "They're all the same".

I sort of nodded my head, but said that there were things Obama wouldn't do that Mitt will do. Not good enough.

This says it all.

Hell, there are obvious differences between say Jim DeMint and Poppy Bush. There are are differences between McShame and Romney. There are differences between Olympia Snowe and Ben Nelson. There are differences between Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Who is this argument with? Mostly non-voters, the disengaged, and the tuned out. AKA...not hanging around partisan message boards to receive the barrage of pushback on this.
It seems mostly a ploy to evade conversation about bothersome similarities by flipping it around on a minimal population, almost to the point of chasing shadows.

The tactic is quite familiar. Their is a nagging feeling of a well worn playbook at work in general. Not a carbon copy, more inspiration and assimilation.

A highway is not the same as a local road either.

But if they run parallel, fast or slow, they will arrive in the same place.