For those who think there is no difference between the two parties:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Read the statements made in response to today's and yesterday's SCOTUS decisions by Obama, Clinton, O'Malley, Sanders.
Read the statements made in response to today's and yesterday's SCOTUS decisions by Bush, Rubio, Walker, Ryan, Carson, Paul, etc.

More importantly, look at how the 4 judges appointed by Democratic presidents voted, and how the 5 judges appointed by Republican presidents voted.

If you insist on referring to the Democrats as a "lesser evil", you must at least acknowledge that it is a *lot* lesser...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Well, at least that strawman horse you're beating was never alive to begin with.

How many thousands of times must people point out that no one has ever claimed 'there was no difference between the two parties' on social issues?

[JI7]

3. social issues can mean economic issues for people like gay couples can now get economic benefits of

marriage .

[William769]

4. Give me a fucking break. We must read two different DU'S.

[morningfog]

19. On social issues? I haven't seen that.

I've seen people say it on economic issues and perhaps allude to it on foreign policy or war. But social issues?

That is not even an argument which could be made.

[William769]

22. Like I said, two different DU's

[morningfog]

24. I you have a link to a single DU post saying Dems are not different than goppers on social issues,

I'd love to see it.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. It goes like this: 'on social issues, sure but that does not matter, the 1% does not mind that

because it does not cost anything, social issues are just bones they toss to placate the masses who are stupid while we, the enlightened straight folks, are brilliant'.

[morningfog]

29. I have seen things like that, but that is a different point.

Definitely still offensive, since it minimizes civil rights and social justice, but it isn't the same as saying there is no difference between the two parties on social issues. It is saying that social issues are not as important.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. No matter how many thousands of times you point it out, it won't become true.

*You* may have never claimed that. Other people, however, regularly do.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. Really? You've personally heard or read statements by other people that there is

no difference between the two parties on social issues? I'd really love to see a link to even one instance of that.

[William769]

14. They are civil rights, not issues.

And until you can comprehend that, you should not be discussing it.

There's a difference right there.

[Sheepshank]

16. yes....said all the time without any of the qualifications you are trying to add

nice of you help some finish of sentences that were never said.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. Well, like I said, if it's "All the time", you sshould be able to provide links easily enough. nt

[Sheepshank]

34. well interestingly enough....

I don't give a rats ass that you attempt to white wash the goings on on this board. You go ahead and wallow in your own manufactured playground. I am NOT doing your home work for you....especially since it really doesn't matter what you think.

[geek tragedy]

6. so people who say there's no meaningful difference between the parties

are saying 'social issues' aren't meaningful, correct?

Can we call them "civil rights" issues instead of "social issues" while we're at it?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. I don't see the word 'meaningful' anywhere in my post.

Any other words you'd like to try and stick in my mouth while you're recreating what I said for me?

[geek tragedy]

11. There are people who try to mnimize the differences between the parties--

surely you will concede that point?

That's what people who say stuff like "there's one corporate party with two wings" mean.

They don't say that there's 'no difference' but rather that the differences are so slight as to be trivial, small etc.

Or are you denying that we have that crowd around here?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

17. I have a different viewpoint.

I don't consider that 'minimizing the difference between parties'.

I consider it pointing out how certain politicians who run as Dems would be better suited to running as Republicans. That THEY work hard to bring the two parties closer together by their words and votes, and that the party would be stronger without them.

I think the corporate "Dems" should just abandon their protective colouration and come out as the moderate Republicans they actually are.

[geek tragedy]

23. the parties have never been more different. People don't like to hear that, but

the parties in past decades were much more heterodox.

There were conservative southern Democrats and liberal northeastern Republicans.

The latter migrated to the Democrats and the former migrated towards the Republicans.

One reason there's so much gridlock is that virtually all agreement occurs within parties rather than across parties.

[Ed Suspicious]

27. Compassionate Conservative Democrats.

[yardwork]

9. People say that all the time.

I heard it a lot in 2000, for instance.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

12. Psst, it's 2015.

If you have to go back 15 years to try and find an instance of something, it probably doesn't qualify as 'all the time'.

[yardwork]

31. I repeat, people say it all the time.

I brought up 2000 for a very specific reason.

[dirtydickcheney]

10. Exactly!!

This ruling has the CORPORATE STATE & BIG MONEY shaking in their boots............ exactly ZERO!!

There really isn't that much difference between the parties when it comes to Big Money and it's interests.

100% of the Republicans are in the pockets of Big Money.. and I'd say about 70% of the Democrats are.

And it's truly unfortunate for all of us...

[geek tragedy]

13. True or false: There are major, meaningful differences between the two parties? nt

[Zorra]

25. The disconnect, in those cases where there is no deliberate deceit intended,

is incomprehensible to most literate, reasonable people.

We just won on a bunch of important social issues, which is awesome, yet it appears that working people are about to crushed forever because Democrats are working with republicans to implement a trade deal that is basically a treaty a empowering global wealthy private interests to have more control of our lives and our government.

WASHINGTON, June 23 – Sen. Bernie Sanders expressed deep disappointment on Tuesday after the Senate voted 60-37 to cut off debate and advance legislation that would grant President Barack Obama powers to complete a major Pacific trade accord.

“The vote today – pushed by multi-national corporations, pharmaceutical companies and Wall Street – will mean a continuation of disastrous trade policies which have cost our country millions of decent-paying jobs,” said Sanders, who voted no.

“American workers deserve a trade policy that works for them and not only for the CEOs of major multi-national corporations. We cannot continue trade policies which outsource good jobs to low-wage countries overseas and lead us into a race to the bottom,” Sanders added.

The legislation would let the president negotiate an agreement that Congress could vote up or down but not amend. The measure also lacks a provision to help workers in the United States who are thrown out of jobs because of trade deals.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/corporate-america-wins-again-

[William769]

2. Kick and highly recommended!

[kath]

15. Uh, Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Reagan.

[Sheepshank]

18. Abso-freaking-lutely well said k n r

[davidn3600]

26. Social issues they are different

But economic issues and most foreign policy issues...they are very similar.

TPA passed this week. That's proof.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Civil rights are not a 'social issue' and the marriage issue is about as economic as it gets

The fact that it's about rights you have always had and about money that was being stolen from another class of people might leave you befuddled as person of great self interest.

[yardwork]

32. I think it's pathetic that William's post in this thread was hidden.

There was nothing wrong with his post. Looks like babyish behavior to me, possibly even sour grapes from some folks who are angry about today's Supreme Court decision.

Pathetic. Now go ahead and hide this post. I'll take it as a badge of honor.

Got your back, William. Some people are just sore losers.

[WinkyDink]

33. As a reminder: Ralph Nader said there was no distinction, and didn't specify "social" or otherwise.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nader-assails-major-parties/

Our two parties are basically one corporate party wearing two heads and different makeup," Nader said. "There is a difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, but not that much."