The two parties are the same

[BainsBane]

If you find yourself saying that, think for a moment about who THIS guy would appoint to the Supreme Court.

[kimbutgar]

1. Ugh I got a chill looking at the face of evil!

False prophet and a Greg Stilson type.

[hrmjustin]

2. Huge Freaking K&R!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. Yup, that pretty much answers the STUPID-ASS question, are the 2 parties the same

One party consists of pompous fascists, bent on evil.

The other has been fighting them, sometimes unsuccessfully because the GOP is in bed with the churches, and the country went FULLY right wing 33 years ago for too many reasons having to do with the absence of intellectual curiosity in this country, and the inability to just think. Same reason this country loves "reality" shows, I suppose.

I can't even F believe some people would suggest that the two parties are the same. I last heard that from a Repuke. When I hear it from a lib, I get transported to that moment the Repuke said that, and feel I'm staring into the face of another Repuke.

[polichick]

10. Except nobody says the two sides are the same in every way...

just that they've both been corrupted by corporate greed.

All you have to do is read carefully to get that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. Spare me the rhetoric. Go tell someone who will believe what you have to say. nt

[polichick]

13. Spare me the lies. Where does someone say that - quote please.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. I believe I asked you before, do not respond to my posts. Not interested. Thanks. nt

[polichick]

17. So there's no quote. Of course.

[Whisp]

23. There is plenty of that here.

If you want quotes, read DU tomorrow and you'll get nice, fresh ones.

[polichick]

26. Bullshit. If someone says "both sides are corrupt" or "both sides serve corps"...

it's twisted into "both sides are the same."

A little reading comprehension practice would help.

[Whisp]

30. Anderson Cooper, is that you?

He's the 'both sides do it' guy when some atrocious GOP story breaks.

[BainsBane]

39. Obviously both sides are beholden to big money

We live in a capitalist nation. That is a given. That is the nature of the state under capitalism, as it has been since the dawn of the Republic and in every other nation on earth. It's like complaining about breathing in oxygen. Add Citizens United and today's ruling on top of it, and you have a corrupt system. The idea that it will produce some utopian vision of what you would like politicians to bestow as gifts upon the people is absurd.

What I would like to know is how you all only just figured out something so basic? Where do you think you've been living your entire life? And how is this the fault of Obama in particular?

If you want systemic change, it takes unrelenting pressure from below. That is the only way change has ever happened. The state voluntarily gives nothing to the people. It never has. Politicians act when forced to do so by sustained popular pressure. A cursory examination of the history of social movements and political reform demonstrates as much.

So again that gets back to the key question you keep avoiding: What policies are you advocating? You insist you are better than the rest of us because you care about "policy" as opposed to "team," yet you don't actually identify any policy, despite three attempts to get you to do so.

[AgingAmerican]

40. You just attacked that person

...while agreeing that they are correct. We see that a lot lately. Bravo!

[BainsBane]

100. Clearly you missed the point

[AgingAmerican]

158. Oh, not at all

I think you were just temporarily blinded by vitriol

[treestar]

77. If the Democrats serve corps explain

Why those corps benefit more than we do from the ACA, Lily Ledbetter, Medicare and so on.

How do they benefit more than we do by pulling out of Iraq?

If it is competition between their corps and ours, at least ours don't support what the Tea Party wants

[treestar]

75. So true

Don't you live being asked for proof of things which, if you took the time, you could find an embarrassment of riches

[BlancheSplanchnik]

131. spare me the philosophical hair splitting.

Of course they're both subject to corruption.

Now let us keep our attention on the difference between individual corruprion within the larger group interested in democratic ideals, versus the encompassing corruption of a vast corpo- fascist/pseudo christian right wing network.

[Tx4obama]

14. I see comments all over the internet where folks say that the 'are the same' - with no difference

Of course they are not, not even close.

[polichick]

15. Where on DU? Quote please.

[BainsBane]

29. I think this gets pretty close

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4773172

[polichick]

32. You really have no clue what I'm saying, huh? Oh well, no worries.

[BainsBane]

36. Was there a point other than using cute Con words?

When you beat up on the Democratic Party in senseless ways (as this argument about Democratic votes for Republican nominees is) as opposed to working at the local level to get progressive candidates nominated, the effect is to pave the way for Republican electoral victory. So yeah, you might as well vote for RepubliCons.

[MADem]

84. Now, YOU asked for "quote please." So here they are....

imo they get away with it because at this point both parties exist to...

serve corporations and the 1% - they are not actually warring with each other, but putting on a show to keep the people divided. The sociopathic nutbags make for good division and take the focus off what's really happening in our one-party with two faces.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024195017#post5

Just in time to protect the status quo that both parties serve...


from the progressive/populist movement that's getting started.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=345796

Yep - both parties serve the same masters.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3923174

I think you have to acknowledge that BainsBain was right on the money. This is a regular theme with you, and I can provide more examples if you want them.

[Bobbie Jo]

89. I think we all knew they existed

Doubt you'll get a response. Looks like the poster has walked away from the discussion.

Can't say I blame her....

[MADem]

93. I'm tired of the bashing, trashing, and shit-kicking.

I'm tired of people who seem to oppose the mission of DU, too. As I've said, I don't mind constructive criticism, but the relentless drum beat of "They suck! They're all the SAME!" is bullshit, and I'm not putting up with it anymore.

[Bobbie Jo]

97. Right there with you, MADem

Not to mention the steady stream of Fox-style misinformation, half-truths, and outright falsehoods.

I'm glad to see DU'ers stepping up to knock this shit down.

The pushback is LONG overdue.

[Hekate]

90. Applause

Eventually Skinner might make note, but not my call.

[MADem]

92. There are many, MANY more examples.

That was the very tip of the tip of the iceberg.

[polichick]

96. To say that both parties serve the same masters is not to say...

that they are "the same" or "identical" - there are still issues on either side that draw their constituents. If those issues didn't exist, voters wouldn't bother.

[stevenleser]

110. That hair is too thin to split anymore. It's time for you to admit defeat and not do it again. nt

[stevenleser]

130. You have spun yourself silly and look ridiculous now. Everyone sees it but you. nt

[polichick]

132. Sorry, I take comments like that for what they are.

[stevenleser]

135. Good that you recognize the unvarnished truth when I tell it to you. nt

[MADem]

125. Not buying it. Yes, it is the same. You want more examples?

You asked for quotes--and it's very clear what you are saying. These are YOUR words, now--so no crying--you have been shopping these bashing/trashing themes for a long time, here. Again, you demanded examples, and these are YOUR very words:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125154172#post1
Yep - one corporate party, two faces...
When voters stop being pawns, the game will change.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024357172#post17
True - and it was both parties that took him down...

Soon as he spoke about too much corporate power, he was toast.

The people have to stop being manipulated - both sides...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023956405#post5

And you constantly shop this theme in other ways as well--if the ACA was such a GOP solution, why has the GOP tried fifty times to repeal it?

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/1251357874#post74
The ACA is a Republican solution - not a Democratic one...

That's how far the party has fallen.

It's simply not a Democratic solution...

If the party no longer fights for Democratic policies, it's irrelevant and people will vote accordingly.
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/1251357874#post76

That's the fearful thinking that has led to a less and less Democratic party...

and more and more RepubliCons posing as Dems. So we get RepubliCons if we win and if we lose.
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/1251357874#post63

Bashing and trashing, it's all you seem to do--nothing is ever good, everything sucks when it comes to the Democratic Party as far as you are concerned:

4. Easier to blame the non-voters than a party that offers nothing to vote for.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024667422#post4

You can keep voting for Third Way hacks if you want...

I stand by my post: the party has sold it's soul.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024667422#post117

Reality: voter turnout will continue to be low because the party has sold its soul...

You can call fellow voters all the names you like and keep cursing like a kid having a tantrum, but that's reality. Better to face it asap.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024667422#post124

Yes, we need to build a democratic party...

The question many of us long-time Democratic Party activists are asking ourselves (and our fellow liberals) is where to put our passions (which are based on policy, not party or personalities) and energy to work in the future.

The guys who run this place have been very generous and I know this is pressing my luck, but so be it. (No worries, if this is a step too far and I get tossed.)

We are at a place where we have to decide if this party, with its current structure and inclinations, is worthy of our talents and energy - and, more importantly, if the changes that 99% of the population desperately needs will likely come through this party.

After being away for several months, I came back to see where DU was on this. What I've noticed is how many liberals I used to post with are no longer here. Those of us who are still here seem to be asking the same question. Would it be best to rebuild the Democratic Party or should we build a new people-driven democratic party?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023666297#post58

Is your Congressman worth working for...

or is he just less of an asshole than a Republican?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023591794#post13

And while I am not a fan of Blue Dogs, particularly, I am not so foolish as to believe that kicking them out of the party is going to "help" matters. In some cases, in some states, it's Blue Dog or NUTHIN'. Kicking them out is just going to get more Republicans elected. Yet you demand purity:

Kicking out the Blue Dogs is definitely the way to go...

But we're in a situation where the party establishment is for the Blue Dogs and liberals have been marginalized. So we're fighting the sociopaths on the right and the "Dem" corporatists too. As you say, it could take a long time - and, with climate change and a million other huge problems looming, we don't have years and years. imo we need a people's movement that involves going around the usual channels, using the internet and social media to support and elect candidates who are there to serve the people, not to become corporate lobbyists.

But unfortunately, even here at DU where people have access to endless articles that should enlighten them about what's happening with our bought gov't, many Dems will continue to vote for establishment candidates in the same blind way that RepubliCons vote for their club's choice.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=345629

And here's your response to a "we're screwed/they suck/why bother" rant:

imo there's no reason to bother on a national scale until enough people have had it...

Until then we just bang our heads against a wall when we could be enjoying life as much as possible. For me, an ex-Dem-activist (30+ years), it's a watch and wait game now. Eventually enough people will have had it and a meaningful movement will be possible - for now, I'm smelling the roses, having fun with the people I love, and joining with other liberals to help where it's possible to help in small-scale ways.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024345076#post107

And, to ice the cake--can't help but notice your sig line, too:

One corporate party, two faces - where are the people in that?


If the D and R Parties are "One Corporate Party" you're saying there's no difference, that they have the same corporate body wearing two masks--no matter how you might try to play it. I've never seen you say anything positive about the Democratic party or its platform--you seem to delight in the negative. There's much more than these examples, too--and you know it. It's pretty much your only topic, how "lousy" the Dems are, how much they suck, how crappy they are, how they fail at everything...it's the same theme, day in, day out. Obviously, you think we're shitty, worthless people, we have no souls.... Makes me wonder why you bother, unless you get a kick out of tearing things down?

[polichick]

127. I stand by every post I've made - and yes, I believe both parties...

put corporations before people and in that sense we have one corporate party with two faces.

Still, there are issue/policy differences that keep voters coming - if you can't see that, I can't help you.

[MADem]

129. OK, so you ADMIT what you denied just moments ago. That's a start.

The reason that voters 'keep coming' is because they don't see things in the same warped, negative "sky is falling and everything sucks" way that you do.

[polichick]

133. lol - I can't help with your reading skills.

[stevenleser]

136. That person read you just fine. You are trying to have it both ways and it doesnt work. nt

[MADem]

137. No, you quite plainly cannot--you might want to get help with your

writing skills, too, if you actually believe that you're not saying what everyone else here knows you are saying. You want MORE examples? It's pretty much your only topic here at DU.

And nothing "LOL"-ish about that, either. It's just not funny--that's why you're getting a bit of push back, here.

[dionysus]

134. there's bullshit like this all over;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002436088#post17

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=629300&mesg_id=629631

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=182890

then again you knew that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. Right here on DU? If I started doing a search, I could post who said that exact thing

It's disgusting, isn't it? And very much a Republican comment. Repukes say that when you win arguments against them (which is all the time, since they have 0 logic and only an evil intent). Either they get upset and storm out, or they give you that but-both-parties-are-the-same-anyway BS. So when I've heard a lib say it, it's made me sick to my stomach.

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. I second that Dyspepsia!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

85. LOL :) nt

[freshwest]

103. Plus a million! You expressed what we are up against perfectly. n/t

[madamesilverspurs]

4. This putz.

[VanillaRhapsody]

59. That putz would put Raul Cruz and Larry the Cable Guy on the Supreme Court

[polichick]

5. He's already there - and unfortunately Dems didn't vote against the nomination.

See how that works?

[BainsBane]

7. What are you talking about?

That's a picture of Ted Cruz. The next president will have several appointments. If you want more right wingers on the court, keep it up. It can get a hell of a lot worse, and some seem determined to make is so.

[polichick]

9. And he'd pick someone like Scalia - who's there...

because our side didn't stop him.

It's easy to look at what's happening on the other side and get freaked out - but there's plenty to be freaked out about over here too, and that's something we can change.

[BainsBane]

19. No, because if they blocked nominees for partisan reasons

There would be no one on the Supreme Court. They are supposed to vote based on judicial competence, not ideology. If they imposed that test, Obama would have gotten NONE of his justices through because the Republicans would have filibustered them. Do you seriously want a government that functions even less than the one we have today because that is what you are advocating?

And what is it that you are seeking to change? I see a lot of determination to shoot down the Democratic Party. which serves to pave the way for GOP victory, even if that is not the intent. I saw your post about "policy." What "ideas" or policy are advanced? How does the cult of personality for Snowden, Greenwald or Warren or the hatred for Obama accomplish anything? What is accomplished by calling someone authoritarian who suggests Greenwald might not be a saint or points out that Assange is an accused rapist? What policy does that advance? Obsessing over one individual or another isn't policy. It's a determination to avoid thought or discussion about policy. If the people who so despise the Democratic Party have proposed action of any kind, I haven't seen it. I've seen a lot of hand wringing and determination that nothing will change, that nothing can be done. The more nihilistic, the better people like it. That is anything but policy or activism.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

21. Thank you for posting this. It summarizes it all. A tiny group with 0 ideas but lotsa whining. nt

[polichick]

24. Really, you're making excuses for Dems not voting against Scalia...

and the other nutjobs on the court?

And I guess there are excuses for Dems appointing RepubliCons to powerful positions. And Dems pushing RepubliCon policies.

I know, let's just vote for RepubliCons!

[BainsBane]

27. Excuses? It's not an excuse

It's asking you to think about the implications of what you advocate. Do you want the GOP to block all Democratic nominations on ideological grounds?

Neither did you answer the question about what changes and policy you or others who oppose the Democratic Party have advanced. Are there any?

[LadyHawkAZ]

49. If you dislike Democrats so much, why on earth are you here? n/t

[Hekate]

50. One wonders, doesn't one

Really, what is the gratification?

[JI7]

56. a few times i have told these types to not vote for the Democrat

and they got even more angry because they love the attention and feeling like a martyr as if they are some morally superior types.

but seriously, if i actually believed this shit i would not support the democrats and i would not be on a democratic website that is mainly about support democrats.

and these people claim to be about policy and conscience ??????????

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. They just want to Punch Democrats....they have no other policy....

and even less conscience....

[BainsBane]

66. And some get irate

at the suggestion that the site is for Democrats. It's it big letters on the sign on the way in: DEMOCRATIC underground.

[treestar]

82. And then quite Teddy Roosevelt

As if we said one should never criticize a President. But when you have nothing but criticism, you can't help but wonder.

I noticed two of them do a positive OP recently, as if for cover. Realizing that they'd bear do that to fluff their credibility

[BainsBane]

98. For cover

Yep, in one case anyway.

[Whisp]

94. oh, that group that says DU shouldn't be partisan toward Democrats...

oh my, they make me laugh with joy, tears flowing down my cheeks. And they are SO serious...

There aren't enough of these -------> in all the universe for that stand.

[LadyHawkAZ]

113. Actually, one has a pretty damn good idea

but in the interests of not getting alerted on, one will keep it to one's self.

[Hekate]

119. Heehee

[tofuandbeer]

61. +1 That's why I left CommonDreams: no solutions, constant complaining and hate.

[JI7]

51. you don't have to vote for any Democrat, but i find it interesting that people like you

come on a site that is mainly for democrats and about getting democrats elected .

if i felt that way about the party i wouldn't be on a dem site. i would be out there supporting something else and getting support for that party and candidates.

[JoePhilly]

72. I'm waiting for them to start ... PerpetuallyDisgruntled Underground.com

[Bobbie Jo]

79. Well that just won't work

Their audience is here.

Besides, it has been attempted. As you can imagine, they ended up turning on one other until there was no one left to antagonize.

[treestar]

83. It's about tearing down

Never about supporting. I bet on a Green or Socialist site it would be the same. Blaming the leaders for not getting more traction.

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. +1! That sentiment is peppered throughout this thread. Question is, why are they here?

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side

[JI7]

54. so you would have voted against Feingold ? you happy Feingold lost ?

[JI7]

55. according to you Lindsey Graham is supporting liberal policies because he voted to confirm

Sotomayor .

[Bobbie Jo]

62. Right?

And these are the "thinkers?"

[leftynyc]

69. You obviously don't know jack shit

about supreme court nominations. A President should be allowed to nominate anyone who is qualified - one party shouldn't be able to shoot down the nominations of the person who won the election just because you don't like their politics. That's the way it's supposed to be. Your stupid idea would mean NO President will be able to fill those slots unless they also have a majority in the Senate. How much are you going to whine if they cons take over the Senate and a seat comes up and the cons shoot down every single nominee on ideological grounds. Are you even thinking about what you're saying or are you truly ignorant of how supreme court nominations are supposed to work?

[Hekate]

73. Slept through high school Civics class, or opted out, or the school board dropped it as irrelevant

There's a vocal cohort here who really don't have a clue how the US government works, not to mention how real grassroots organizing works, or are deliberately spreading the FUD for shts'n'giggles. I find it very disheartening -- which may be the point, after all.

[leftynyc]

81. Yet they shriek and whine the

loudest. You must be much nicer person than I - ignorance pisses me off. Absolutely no excuse for it in the age of the internet.

[Hekate]

88. Oh, I'm p.o.d all right, and periodically ....

...get called an authoritarian and nice things like that. I know I can be acid at times, but gods help me I do try not to lose it, because not only would it be counterproductive but >mumble mumble not all of us can get away w mumble mumble<

I really admire people like MinMan, who patiently goes on teaching those capable of learning, and trying to teach even those who seem incapable.

[leftynyc]

95. The list of negative things

I've been called for not towing the DU line on what they think Democrats should support is as long as my arm. MinMan has the patience of a saint. I used to be much for forgiving here but gave up on that around a year ago. The "purists" got on my last nerve.

[JoePhilly]

71. Dems didn't block Scalia 30 years ok ... so let's punish Dems NOW!!!!!!!

... or something.

[polichick]

99. Nice try - it isn't about "punishing" Dems; it's about expecting them...

to fight for Dem policies and appointments as hard as the other side fights for Republican policies and appointments.

Dem leaders frequently choose Republicans to run the military (and for other posts) - why?

[JoePhilly]

121. Because they hate America

[polichick]

122. You can say something silly like that - or you can come up...

with the real answer.

[JoePhilly]

123. Because the President is President of the entire country.

Not just the Democratic half.

See ... I know that most of the Republican party has gone nuts ... but in the past, members of both parties recognized that to govern effectively, you actually needed bipartisan efforts.

Now, I suppose that the Democrats could simply adopt the current GOP approach. And if they do, the government will truly grind to a halt.

So look, you can pout about how Democrats 30 years ago didn't act like today's Republicans, you can demand that the President lower himself and the office to little more than a political position where each and every decision is ideological, or you can help the rest of us move the country forward.

Hey, did you hear that the President just opened Medicare benefits to spouses in same sex marriages. That's what progress looks like.

[polichick]

126. Do Dem presidents think Dems can't run the military?

When I vote Dem, one of the reasons is to have Dem foreign policy. We would've been out of the Middle East much faster if Pres. Obama hadn't listened to Republican military leaders - or put them in charge to begin with.

The reason people vote Dem is to have Dems in charge. Sorry, no passes for "reaching out."

Yes, the Medicare benefits news is good.

[JoePhilly]

128. We have the EXACT foreign policy that the President said he would have as a candidate.

Said he'd get us out of Iraq, and DID.

Said he'd INCREASE troops in Afghanistan, and DID.

Said he'd go and get OBL in Pakistan if we had actionable intelligence and they would not or could not help us, and DID.

Said he was not against all wars, just dumb wars.

Has used our military very judiciously, even has some predicted new wars.

Obama has been in charge the entire time. The others take direction directly from him. Which is why DADT is gone. Its why we are out of Iraq, its why we're heading out of Afghanistan.

Help us, or not.

[UglyGreed]

139. Well Obama just followed orders pulling out of Iraq

Said he'd get us out of Iraq, and DID.

All American military forces were mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008 by President Bush. The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011.[1]

[JoePhilly]

141. And why did Bush do that?

Let's review ...

Starting in 2007, the Senator Obama called for a 12-16 month time line to remove all combat forces from Iraq.

Bush and the entire GOP screamed that setting ANY timeline was a terrible idea that did nothing but help the terrorists.

Starting in Feb 2008, CANDIDATE Obama starts calling for the same time line. Bush and the entire GOP again screamed that setting ANY timeline was a terrible idea that did nothing but help the terrorists.

Then ... for some reason, in July 2008, right before the conventions, Bush says he supports a timeline.

Then ... after Obama wins the election, Bush completes the SOFA agreement.

Now, we all know McCain never wanted to leave Iraq. Do you think Bush signs that agreement if McCain wins?

Let's face it ... Bush never wanted to adopt any timeline, and did so only to take Iraq off the table as Obama and McCain entered the home stretch.

When Obama won, Bush signed off on the same timeline Obama had called for back in 2007. Same timeline Bush hated.

[treestar]

147. OK so you give Bush credit for ending the Iraq War.

Right?

[UglyGreed]

159. Nope

just that the MIC just marches on and does not skip a beat.

[creeksneakers2]

156. Hagel is cutting the military

I think he's doing a good job.

[Whisp]

25. +++ !!!

[AgingAmerican]

42. "There would be no one on the Supreme Court"

So they have to vote in the Scalia's and the Thomas', cuz the court would be empty without them? lol

I guess it boils down to, what is more important to you and worthy of protection. The voters or the politicians. You guys protect the politicians, while others are more worried about the people.

[Bobbie Jo]

65. Thank you. nt

[Progressive dog]

86. Very well written

and very true.

[pnwmom]

34. At that point in our history, blocking any nominee was very rare. It makes no sense

to blame Democrats for not anticipating the changes that would occur decades later.

[JI7]

43. and there were some republicans who voted to confirm the liberal justices

see how that works ?

whoever the president is will be the one to nominate the justices.

just because there were republicans who voted to confirm the liberal judges doesn't mean a republican president will nominate liberals for the court.

[NCTraveler]

74. Your comment here is beyond daft. nt.

[sarisataka]

6. You should have put a graphic warning on your title

I just finished a burrito and nearly lost it...

[freshwest]

104. Yes, I usually put a warning on pictures of Repuklikans.. n/t

[Cha]

8. Well, only those who can't fathom facts would say the two parties are the same.. all they

have to do is look at the BIG DIFFERENCE on Global Climate Change and get their first freaking clue.

but, yeah cruz would dig up bork or get a clone.

[OnyxCollie]

11. Why bother with hypotheticals?

How many Democrats confirmed the nomination of Alito and Roberts? (Answer: three for Alito and many more for Roberts.)

[BainsBane]

22. The senate confirms SCOTUS appointments

based on judicial competence. If they acted on ideology, not a one of Obama's appointments would be on the bench today. Is that what you want, a government even less functional than we have today? Do you want no judges on the Supreme Court or federal bench anywhere in America? If the Senate votes on ideology, that is exactly what will happen.

As long as people keep working to suppress the vote, that paves the way for Republican victory. Cruz is very much a possible candidate in 2016.

[OnyxCollie]

28. 3 Democrats voted to confim Alito's nomination (58-42).

22 Democrats voted to confirm Robert's nomination (78-22).

We have 5-4 decisions because Democrats voted for that. No fear mongering about a Ted Cruz presidency is going to change that.

[BainsBane]

33. No, you got it because they were appointed by Republican presdients

The first time ideology came up in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing was Robert Bork. Before then, it was unheard of. The fact it is discussed at all is seen as inappropriate by some.

If you argue that Democrats should vote against Republican nominees, that means you must be comfortable with Republicans voting against Democratic nominees, which means an empty bench. No Supreme Court, no federal justices.

[OnyxCollie]

37. Why couldn't Democrats block the nomination?

It works very well for Republicans.

Yes, I am in support of blocking Republican SCOTUS nominees on ideological grounds because their ideology is fucked.

But oh no. Democrats can't do that. Gotta keep the powder dry (and other excuses for furthering the conservative agenda.)

[joshcryer]

41. Gang of 14 "up or down" criteria.

Tied a lot of hands. It's the reason the GOP lost the elections in 2006. Hopefully this SCOTUS ruling livens up the base like the Gang of 14 did then. But with posts like this, I dunno.

Once the Democrats got the 51 vote majority they could filibuster, 45 isn't enough to trigger it. I would suspect, as is typical, the Democrats voting for it were up for reelection and didn't want to be smeared as voting against an "up or down" nomination.

[treestar]

148. Bork

and the Democrats did filibuster him

but it takes a lot. We can't have that in every case, as the Rs now do to Obama (and the reason the Senate finally did away with the filibuster for nominees.)

[DCBob]

151. Not practical.. both sides usual give in at some point after much arguing, screaming, etc.

that's just the way it works otherwise we would never get anyone confirmed.

[pnwmom]

35. Appointments aren't supposed to be blocked for political reasons.

It has only been recently that the Rethugs routinely began refusing to confirm most judicial appointments.

[TheKentuckian]

46. You can't avoid the reality of their ideology nor the hardline nature of the ardents

Nor can you whitewash how regularly we are limited by ideology in our own appointments with well qualified potentials written off before a list can be formed as "unrealistic" that in no way equate in ideological extreme to what would be their opposite numbers and we typically end up nominating moderate justices that hold the line on a hand full of hot button subjects but still bend the court a bit further.

The TeaPubliKlans have been shoving very hardline extremists down our throats and if you don't see the effects then I don't believe LASIC will be enough.

They also have been pretty much assholes about any and all nominations of any sort from our side of the aisle for decades now ( and I believe they would have behaved the same any time after Ray Gun's first term). We are corralled into pre - negotiating with ourselves before they then use every maneuver in the world to force folks to pull out and get beat up and down even if they are deemed "moderate" enough to be swallowed.

Particularly this go around, we seemed fairly boxed into nominating judges (that goes for any sort of nomination too) at all levels at least a bit more conservative than those they replaced and increasingly we are cuckold into even putting some of their wicked reactionary fools on benches.

Really, I think the whole argument taken to much of an extreme becomes pretty much inherently phony or otherwise it wouldn't actually matter. It totally matters and always has, sometimes less purely on partisan lines in the present iron fisted way but always critical.

You are into a hypothetical ideal here against a reality that bites with cruel and terrible teeth of iron.

[pnwmom]

63. How do you explain Sotomayor and Kagan? n/t

[TheKentuckian]

107. I just did. Both are moderate, particularly Kagan. Both arguably more conservative than

who they replaced despite both being appointed by Republicans of a different era.

[pnwmom]

115. They may be moderate for 1970. They are liberal for post 2000,

and this is the period in which they took their seats.

[jeff47]

111. How many Republicans confirmed the nomination of Sotomayor and Kagan?

Answer: 9 for Sotomayor and 5 for Kagan.

Your plan is to strip away those votes, and ensure that every Democratic nominee is filibustered.

[sheshe2]

18. His soul is empty.

The souless party

[CreekDog]

31. wait, are you saying this about Canada's parties?

[Samantha]

38. He would probably appoint his father, who is unbelievably much more right-wing than he

I do not discuss politics with my brother any more. He and I could not be farther apart on our perspectives. But one day, I could not stand it any longer, so I asked, "What do you think of Ted Cruse?" Keep in mind, my brother is an extremely conservative Republican. In answer to my question, his lip curled in a manner reminiscent of the Elvis look. "That guy is an idiot," he snarled.

Sam

[JI7]

44. so i guess some think Russ Feingold deserved to lose

because he voted to confirm Roberts.

personally if Feingold decided to run for President i might still consider supporting him. and for sure if he wants to get back in the senate or even governor.

[baldguy]

45. Anyone who says Democrats are the same as Republicans has LOST THEIR FUCKING MIND!

[Cha]

47. Yeah, the two parties are the same on Global Climate Change..

U.N. Climate Panel: "We're Fucked. Hello? Is Anyone Listening? We. Are. Fucked." - See more at:

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/04/un-climate-panel-were-fucked-hello-is.html

[blkmusclmachine]

48. The Republicans are worse! So vote DEM, and cheer all their wholesale giveaways to the GOP! YAY!!!

Go, team, go!

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. I'm convinced you may have forgotten the mission of "Democratic" Underground. We're partisan.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side

Considering your obvious attitude toward Democrats, one wonders why you would even want to participate on a board with a partisan "Democratic" mission statement in it's TOS? If you aren't "rooting" for Democrats, who are you "rooting" for?

[iemitsu]

52. Granted that the two parties are not exactly the same yet

we aren't seeing Ginsberg, or other liberals, retiring while the party of not Ted Cruz is still in power.

[alp227]

53. Yep! i just read a story in the AP showing his theocratic tendencies!

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ted-cruz-heads-liberty-u-woo-evangelicals

[Rex]

57. Is false - the two parties turn out to be not the same at all.

Sure somewhere in the middle you find like minds. However, studies show that there is a wide curve to the right that the left cannot compensate for. Most scientists believe it is because the left is not that willingly stupid like the right is.

Some site Foxnews as a leading cause along with Rush, Glenn and current Champion of the Dumb Ted Cruz along with his current favorite book 'Green Eggs are Stupid and So Am I'.

[William769]

64. Kick & recommended.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I can think of nothing, here, to add.

Except that his head is still shaped like some kind of odd legume.

But your OP is spot-on.

[Jamaal510]

68. The belief that

both major parties are the same is so easy to refute that it's scary. They're both the farthest apart on the political spectrum that they've ever been in history. Gridlock is the norm in D.C., as they cannot agree on much anymore. Their favored justices differ from each other, and they have different views now when it comes to voting rights, social issues, taxation, health care, foreign policy, environmental standards, and education. Just ask one of the Koch Brothers or Sheldon Adelson if they think the Democrats and Republicans are similar, and listen to what they say.

[BainsBane]

70. yet is continues

as we have all seen.

[JustAnotherGen]

76. BainsBane nails it!

[URL=http://gifsoup.com/view/1324222/mic-drop-charlie-murphy.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://gifsoup.com]GIFSoup[/URL]

[freshwest]

105. Thanks for the 'drops mic' gif! *steals* n/t

[BainsBane]

138. I like it too

I don't feel that cool, but I'll take it.

[Marr]

78. The two parties *are* too much alike.

On economic issues and foreign policy, they're almost identical and never seem to have much trouble finding consensus. It's not bad to make note of that.

The fact that the Supreme Court is so consistently cited as proof that the parties are so very different kind of reinforces the idea that they are, very broadly speaking, incredibly similar. I mean, SC appointments are a fairly minor function of the other two branches of government.

Are the two parties' candidates for the SC different? Absolutely, and markedly so. But I'd be much more reassured if partisans could point to fundamental differences in the parties' trade policies, track records on financial industry regulation, positions on NSA domestic spying, labor issues, etc. Not statements, either-- not just words from politicians. I mean actual, tangible policy. A less right wing Supreme Court would be great-- vital, even-- but that's not going to convince anyone but policy wonks who take a very, very long view.

This idea that the parties are too similar isn't just coming from nowhere, and pretending otherwise doesn't do us any good.

[deutsey]

101. +1

[MisterP]

143. or if they didn't *vote* for the same damn "Justices" they're condemning

the differences are there to get you to vote for the similarities

[Whisp]

91. The only way they are the same is that both parties are inhabited

with human beings, with failings and foibles and weaknesses.

That's about it. Anyone who thinks both are the same in policies and what has been gained by the Democrats over these years is insane or just stirring that big stick of 'look at me, aren't I the clever nonpartisan'.

[freshwest]

106. Or a Libertarian. To them, they are both the same, because they *aren't* Libertarian. n/t

[BainsBane]

108. Yeah, to me libertarian has always meant right wing

but some here insist it's leftist.

[Bobbie Jo]

109. Exactly

Bootstraps, etc...

[jeff47]

114. There are left-libertariains.

I think there's around 6 of them, but they exist!!!

[BainsBane]

116. I always understood that to be anarchism.

[jeff47]

117. No, they still want a government.

Typically what makes them "left" is they still want some sort of safety-net. Let businesses run free, but keep food stamps.

[BainsBane]

118. Sounds like an old-school Republican to me.

[jeff47]

120. More-or-less.

An old-school Republican would still believe in some business regulation. (Nixon created the EPA, etc). But they're not too far apart.

[freshwest]

124. The results *are* the same, only the complaints vary. More and more, they want the same thing...

Last edited Sun Oct 12, 2014, 06:22 AM - Edit history (1)

They just spin it differently.

All Democrats are seen as the enemy to both 'sides.' Fans of the 'left libertarians,' dismiss any and all complaints of the far rightwing views of their heroes.

They can't say 'Democrat' without the obligatory sneer in their voice. It shows a lot, don't even need the sunglasses:

[steve2470]

142. OT but what movie is that from ? I keep seeing that image

Hope you are well, freshwest !

Go Dems ! Go President Obama !

[freshwest]

145. 'They Live' by John Carpenter. A science fiction cult classic about a guy finds a pair of sunglasses

Last edited Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:27 AM - Edit history (1)

that allow him to see aliens who are controlling mankind with a broadcast frequency coming from media station towers.

It hides how aliens from another planet really look, reveals the hidden messages in advertising and other media, explains their agenda and who supports them.

Some of my favorite clips are the ones showing the GOP mentality.

This one is the first guy who tells the duo searching the answer:

And another one, with more details of how they deceive:

It doesn't end well for the heroes, but things do change when people see through the trick. Released in 1988.

[steve2470]

146. thanks ! :) nt

[liberal N proud]

102. The only time I hear that statement (both parties are the same) is from right wingers

And it usually because they have no other argument to justify the stupidity of the party they support and they are too stubborn to realize it and abandon them.

[gulliver]

140. Did someone stuff a Paul Ryan costume with cockroaches?

Wait, I guess that could be Paul Ryan too.

[BlindTiresias]

144. Surely people can concede

That while not perfectly identical there has been some disturbing similarities between the parties as they are both caught in a right wing frame and this has a massive impact on what policies get pushed via the legislative process or even how the administration of legislature is interpreted. This is further complicated by the realities of incrementalism in politics, in which the incremental changes to policy will also have a rightward drift as incrementalism goes in a direction of -more- consistency which causes it to comport to a basic frame's premises.

How to fix this problem is complex, certainly more so than just "electing Democrats" which while true is only trivially so; the details of that reality will dictate everything about how the Democratic policies will be constructed.

[Bobbie Jo]

149. Welcome to DU

[colsohlibgal]

150. They Do Differ

One is beyond awful and borders on evil. One is not as bad but is still largely bought out and beholden to their benefactors.

To wit - how many Wall Street fraudster big shots got sent to the Big House, as they should have been, by our democratic president and AG? None, and it was textbook financial fraud that ruined people and cost us a ton of money.

[TrollBuster9090]

152. Think about who THIS guy DID appoint to the Supreme Court!

How about THESE two assclowns?

http://www1.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Supreme+Court+Holds+Investiture+Ceremony+Samuel+f64kDgr_9STl.jpg

And then think about who he TRIED to appoint.



I wish every left, or center-left idiot who tries to tell me that both parties are the same, and there's either no point in voting; or we should support 'REAL' progressives like Nader would think about this for a minute. The President gets to nominate the Supreme Court Justices. And no matter how big an idiot the President may be, he/she will only be there for eight years at most. A Supreme Court Justice IS THERE FOR LIFE!

[AAO]

153. I SURRENDER DOROTHY !!!

Egads, what a creepy slimeball!

[Bonobo]

154. It's all about perspective and distance.

Viewed from the perspective of a truly progressive social democracy like Sweden or Denmark, yes, both parties -though not the SAME- are remarkably close.

[nikto]

155. GOP is beyond awful and is thoroughly evil.

ftfy

[herding cats]

157. Exactly.

I get what the real repercussions of our votes, or lack thereof, cause for generations to come. It's nice to know some others get what it really means too.

K&R