Ted Cruz for President

[Jason Harvestdancer]

In the spirit of good will, I must also admit an error.  I was too hasty when I said the two parties are the same.

The arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic really is very important, and it is foolish to say that the two parties are the same when they have very different deck plans for the Titanic.  One party reserves the best seats on the Titanic for the elite, while the other party tries to make all seats on the Titanic available in a more egalitarian manner.

The third party kooks who say we should watch which way the Titanic is traveling, and that we should watch out for icebergs, are being very short sighted when they disregard the very different plans for the deck chairs.

[Shiranu]

^--- more or less that.

Yes, Democrats are better of the two, but the thing is they are are, on average, not fixing the real problems but only offering more band-aide patches. Rather than deal with the core issues they rather try to make the side effects not hurt as bad.

In that regard they are definitely better than the Republicans, but at the same time the problem is not going to be fixed under them either. You have a few like Elizabeth Warren who are trying to deal with some of the more important issues, but she is a minority even in the Democratic party. And you have Republicans, also minorities in their parties, who want many of the same things she does and who actually care about fixing the problems.

Democrat or Republican, the mainstream of both parties are not dealing with the problems that are killing our economy and making people suffer; corporations out of control, trillions of dollars being spent on wasteful programs, laws and bloat, legalized bribery of our politicians, complete disregard for human rights and the continued practice of war crimes and torture, etc.. Until mainstream Democrats address these problems, they are just as bad as the Republicans because they are showing they don't care about changing the problems that make the average man suffer. They just try to make you feel good enough that you aren't as pissed off about them.

I vote Democrat because they are the lesser of two evils, but if a third party had any serious chance of winning (and I sometimes vote 3rd party at local level because they can win) and whom I agreed with in terms of fixing the core issues, I would vote for them in a heart beat. Hell, I would vote Republican if the guy made sense... I don't give a shit about party, what I want is a candidate who will get shit done.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The democratic party actually gets most of its contributions from unions (I'm talking country-wide, not just the presidential campaign)

Source?

Here's what I've read:

Rhetoric aside, both sides—companies and Democrats—remain dependent on each other. Corporate money has tilted Republican this year, but even so, the Democratic Party and its candidates have collected $565 million from company PACs and executives, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Republicans have received $715 million from company PACs and executives.

The Democrats' sum is about 75% of the total amount of campaign money they have received so far this election season in itemized donations. Democrats have received $37 million in donations from labor unions, according to the Center.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2197381498

I have emphasized the relevant passages. 75% of Democrat funding in the last cycle came from corporations; 2% came from unions.

You are talking about Obama. Hint: He is not the same as all other democrats. He is a blue dog democrat, which is true of very few elected state democrats at the moment. Alan Grayson? Bernie Sanders? Wendy Davis? Cory Booker? Al Franken? Elizabeth Warren? De Blasio? You can't tell the difference between them and people like Michelle Bachman, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham etc...? Or even between them and Obama or Baucus? Then you need to start paying attention.

Of course there are shades of difference even within the parties.  But in overall terms, both parties are bought  by corporate interests, is my point.

Also, shitcan the condescension, please.  

Even the left wing crazies like Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein have completely different stupid ideas than the crazies on the right (Feinstein wants to ban guns, which you won't hear from the GOP, while GOP crazies like Jan Brewer want to spread guns and get them into the hands of all white people).

Yes, on the margins, there are differences, but in the mainstreams, they aren't very distinct.  In policy, both parties seem to support the infringement of individual liberties. Both parties seem to support the offshoring of industry.  Compared to those issues, gun control pales in comparison.  

Mosquitoes and birds both fly, but the similarity is not regnant.

 

Do you think both parties are the same on abortion rights? Gun control? Affirmative Action? The ACA? Gay marriage? Religion mixed with state? Teaching Creationism? Unemployment benefits? SNAP/food stamps? Welfare? Tax code? Voter ID and early voter laws? Immigration?

Guess what: they are not.

Yeah, there are issues in which they are the same , and some democrats (like Obama and Baucus) are toward the center, but the two parties are very different and have demonstrably different masters and policies.

The most of those issues are small potatoes, if you ask me.  Abortion rights have been settled as the law of the land since 1973. Gay marriage, separation of church and state/teaching creationism, voter ID and early voting laws will make very little, if any, difference in the lives of most Americans. UI benefits and social programs to help the poor are a small difference, it is true.  But I don't think that the direction our country is taking is reliant upon those issues, but rather, the abuses of the government, the expansion of the surveillance state, and the increased diffidence to multinational corporations in order to further their profitability at the expense of the American middle class weigh far more in the scale, I think.

As for ACA, I don't think that Democrat support for it is as high as you reckon:  almost thirty disapprove it: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-obamac ... -new-lows/

You are not pointing out any facts about the democratic party, just one blue dog democrat, who is very atypical. You display your ignorance.

The vast majority of Democrats in America support Obama -- 73% according to the same CBS poll linked above. (The seventh question of the scroll-down report in the middle of the page).

Please, if the facts don't support your point, don't call me ignorant.  

The difference between the parties is vast on many issues. They get their money from VERY different places, and their money masters have VERY different goals. Corporations and unions are essentially after opposing goals. It shows in the differences between how the two parties vote in both houses of the congress. I listed several important issues above in which the parties differ greatly. Pay attention.

Look over the above sources, and values. I think that much of the supposed differences between the two parties are window-dressing, and others, while perhaps important to us atheists, will not change the larger currents at work in this country, of the continued erosion of our rights, supported by both parties.

Also, civil discussion is better than insults such as calling someone "ignorant" -- especially when the facts aren't what you seem to think they are.  I'd like to think that you share my desire for a friendly conversation.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

^--- more or less that.

Yes, Democrats are better of the two, but the thing is they are are, on average, not fixing the real problems but only offering more band-aide patches. Rather than deal with the core issues they rather try to make the side effects not hurt as bad.

...

I vote Democrat because they are the lesser of two evils, but if a third party had any serious chance of winning (and I sometimes vote 3rd party at local level because they can win) and whom I agreed with in terms of fixing the core issues, I would vote for them in a heart beat. Hell, I would vote Republican if the guy made sense... I don't give a shit about party, what I want is a candidate who will get shit done.

Your "agreement" is fascinating.  You essentially agreed that they're arguing about the seating chart of the Titanic, but then go on to say that as long as there is no chance of a third party steering the Titanic away from the icebergs you will continue to pick the one with the better seating chart.  And you throw in praise for the Democratic Party's own counterpart to Sarah Palin along the way.

Also, I didn't say which one had the more egalitarian seating chart.

[Shiranu]

^--- more or less that.

Yes, Democrats are better of the two, but the thing is they are are, on average, not fixing the real problems but only offering more band-aide patches. Rather than deal with the core issues they rather try to make the side effects not hurt as bad.

...

I vote Democrat because they are the lesser of two evils, but if a third party had any serious chance of winning (and I sometimes vote 3rd party at local level because they can win) and whom I agreed with in terms of fixing the core issues, I would vote for them in a heart beat. Hell, I would vote Republican if the guy made sense... I don't give a shit about party, what I want is a candidate who will get shit done.

Your "agreement" is fascinating.  You essentially agreed that they're arguing about the seating chart of the Titanic, but then go on to say that as long as there is no chance of a third party steering the Titanic away from the icebergs you will continue to pick the one with the better seating chart.  And you throw in praise for the Democratic Party's own counterpart to Sarah Palin along the way.

Also, I didn't say which one had the more egalitarian seating chart.

As I said, I agree for the most part, not fully.

If we are staying true to the Titanic story... the doors to the bridge have been locked with magical seals that no man not part of the elite could ever open, and the third party is just a lowly deckhand who will never be at the top. Given that, I rather vote for the one who at least gives me a comfortable chair to sit in as we go down.

Pragmatically, the two party system is not going to change any time soon, therefor it is in my best interests to support candidates who lean as close to my position as possible. Overtime, if the people vote in rational candidates, the party will become more and more rational on average, and perhaps then someone will open the door to the bridge to other parties.

And really? Warren is the counter-part to Palin? What world do you live in...

[Special B]

In the spirit of good will, I must also admit an error.  I was too hasty when I said the two parties are the same.

The arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic really is very important, and it is foolish to say that the two parties are the same when they have very different deck plans for the Titanic.  One party reserves the best seats on the Titanic for the elite, while the other party tries to make all seats on the Titanic available in a more egalitarian manner.

The third party kooks who say we should watch which way the Titanic is traveling, and that we should watch out for icebergs, are being very short sighted when they disregard the very different plans for the deck chairs.

That is a terrible analogy since most of those "third party kooks" are actually puppets for the same corporations that the mainstream GOP is.

Yeah, some third party candidates like Nader or Stein are slightly different than the rank and file democrats, but your "third party" libertarians are just republicans that tell different lies then vote the same. They are owned by the same people as the mainstream republicans, and their policies are the same. You have fallen for rhetoric and propaganda, as it was designed.

To suggest that the democrats and republicans are the same, but that the libertarians are different... wow... man... you really need to start paying attention to what politicians do and what their policies actually say rather than what they tell you (hint: they lie). Their propaganda won't work on you when you become informed. Until then, have fun voting for the Koch brothers and ignorantly thinking you are making a difference.

The democrats and republicans don't just have different deck plans, they have different routes altogether. Your libertarian party is just the GOP's same failed route, with a different deck plan.

Try reading the actual bills instead of listening to what politicians say. The Koch brothers have bought you ignorance. They kept the same tragic Titanic route, changed the deck plan, and you fell for it.

[Special B]

75% of Democrat funding in the last cycle came from corporations; 2% came from unions.

I said country-wide (which is ambiguous but I also said....), specifically not just the presidential election. Your sources are specifically referring to the presidential campaign. Yeah, corporations buy the presidency. I am talking about the parties, not one election, and not one politician. Even in the presidential election, unions overwhelmingly support democrats. The two parties have very different donor bases, and thus, different policies. It isn't as if the same corporations give equal amounts to both so they can continue their charade.

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php

Rank  Contributor                                 Total Contribs  Total     Dem% Repub% Total
1       Democratic Governors Assn           $5,674,977  $0                 0%  0%  $5,674,977    
2       Carpenters & Joiners Union            $2,682,792  $785,500      71%  29%  $1,897,292       (UNION) $$ to Dems
3       American Fedn Munic Employees   $2,340,700  $799,450       100%  0%  $1,541,250       (UNION) $$ to Dems
4       City of New York, NY                     $2,275,867  $25,600          97%  3%  $2,250,267    
5       AFL-CIO                                      $1,921,000  $121,000         83%  17%  $1,800,000     (UNION) $$ to Dems
6       Next Generation                           $1,783,400  $33,400          100%  0%  $1,750,000    
7       National Education Assn                $1,598,870  $318,370          83%  17%  $1,280,500    (UNION) $$ to Dems
8       Honeywell International                $1,292,707  $1,292,707        42%  58%  $0                (CORPORATION) $$ to GOP
9       AT&T Inc                                     $1,286,453  $1,286,203        34%  66%  $250             (CORPORATION) $$ to GOP
10     Northrop Grumman                      $1,279,043  $1,278,793         38%  62%  $250            (CORPORATION) $$ to GOP
11     Operating Engineers Union            $1,150,208  $1,140,208         79%  21%  $10,000       (UNION) $$ to Dems

Sorry the pasted chart is hard to read, just click the link.

Notice a trend? Of the top political contributors, the unions give their money to the democrats and the corporations give their money to the GOP.

If you think the democratic party only gets 2% of its money from unions, then you are ignorant and the facts disagree with you. Sorry.

What do you think Citizens United was all about? Taking 2% of the democrats money away? LOL.

Of course there are shades of difference even within the parties.  But in overall terms, both parties are bought  by corporate interests, is my point.

And your point is incorrect. Both parties are bought, but by different interests, and hence, they have different policies, which I have already listed as well as a link (above) showing the differences in donors where the democrats get more money from unions and the GOP more from corporations.

Different donors, different policies. It isn't the hard to understand.

Also, shitcan the condescension, please.

When you stop earning it, I will drop the condescension.

Yes, on the margins, there are differences, but in the mainstreams, they aren't very distinct.  In policy, both parties seem to support the infringement of individual liberties. Both parties seem to support the offshoring of industry.  Compared to those issues, gun control pales in comparison.

I gave you several examples of politicians and policies in which the mainstream of the parties differs. Address what I said.

Both parties have members that support offshoring jobs but to say the parties are equal in this is just silly. Many democrats (including ones I listed) are against it, while the GOP as a whole is for it. I'm as pissed about NAFTA as anyone, but it is silly to say both parties are equally to blame about offshoring jobs. Corporations want to offshore jobs, unions want to keep them here. And as my link and chart show, unions overwhelmingly support democrats while corporations overwhelmingly support republicans. You cannot deny the facts.

Abortion rights have been settled as the law of the land since 1973.

That hasn't stopped the dozens of attempts by the GOP to circumvent this ruling by making aborting impossible in their state. Do you really need me to list examples? Are you really confused as to why I point out your ignorance when you make comments like THAT? As if the GOP isn't actively attacking women's reproductive rights.

Gay marriage, separation of church and state/teaching creationism, voter ID and early voting laws will make very little, if any, difference in the lives of most Americans.

Try telling that to the millions of people effected by these issues. It matters to the couple that can't get married because of discrimination. It matters to the kid that doesn't learn real science because the theocrats are in power in his/her part of the country. It matters to the people that lost their right to vote because they weren't in a republican demographic.

The most of those issues are small potatoes, if you ask me.

Well, I disagree. Those are big issues to me, but not the only issues. They certainly prove that the parties are not "the same".

SNAP/food stamps? Welfare? Tax code? Voter ID and early voter laws? Immigration? These are not small potatoes to anyone paying attention. I think the economy and the right to vote are important issues.

The vast majority of Democrats in America support Obama -- 73% according to the same CBS poll linked above. (The seventh question of the scroll-down report in the middle of the page).

And this proves what exactly? Most democrats support democrats and most republicans support republicans. This, if anything, proves me right, not you. Most democrats supporting Obama and Obama being a blue dog doesn't change the fact that the two parties are not the same.

Please, if the facts don't support your point, don't call me ignorant.

Ah, but they do, and so you are.

Look over the above sources, and values. I think that much of the supposed differences between the two parties are window-dressing, and others, while perhaps important to us atheists, will not change the larger currents at work in this country, of the continued erosion of our rights, supported by both parties.

What you call "window dressing" I call important. We can agree to disagree there, but the fact remains that the two parties are hardly the same. I think that keeping poor people from stealing or starving is important. I think the right to vote and fair elections are important. I think the economic benefits of immigration reform make it a big issue. You can call these hugely important issues "window dressing", but that doesn't make them cease to exist for the people that actually do care about the economy, voter's rights, and poor people.

Also, civil discussion is better than insults such as calling someone "ignorant" -- especially when the facts aren't what you seem to think they are.  I'd like to think that you share my desire for a friendly conversation.

Calling you ignorant when you display your ignorance *IS* civil. If you do not like it, try not being ignorant.

[Special B]

Democrat or Republican, the mainstream of both parties are not dealing with the problems that are killing our economy and making people suffer

You don't think immigration reform will help our economy? The democrats want to put more money into SNAP, WIC, and welfare, and the GOP wants to greatly reduce their funding. You don't see that as trying to help people avoid suffering? You don't see people with preexisting conditions being able to get health care as helping people not suffer?

The democratic party is far from perfect, but it is clearly better for our economy. It isn't that both parties will sink our economy but the GOP will do it faster. The democratic party actually has a chance at fixing the economy and the GOP (and the Koch funded libertarian party) does not.

[Shiranu]

Democrat or Republican, the mainstream of both parties are not dealing with the problems that are killing our economy and making people suffer

You don't think immigration reform will help our economy? The democrats want to put more money into SNAP, WIC, and welfare, and the GOP wants to greatly reduce their funding. You don't see that as trying to help people avoid suffering? You don't see people with preexisting conditions being able to get health care as helping people not suffer?

The democratic party is far from perfect, but it is clearly better for our economy. It isn't that both parties will sink our economy but the GOP will do it faster. The democratic party actually has a chance at fixing the economy and the GOP (and the Koch funded libertarian party) does not.

Your first post is what I said, so...

And yes, they can put band-aides on it, but that's not going to stop the huge wound, just slow it down. Which is why I vote for them... I rather go with band-aides than no-aides, but I don't pretend they are going to fix the real issues because they continue to pass laws that only make the core issues worse.

As I said, there are some members of the party, more than Republicans I would say, who actually do propose legislation and have actions that deal with the core issues, but they are more fringe. At least on the Democratic party they stand a chance at influencing the higher ups; as for the GOP, if you are not mainstream party line you have very little chance at influencing the others.

[Special B]

And yes, they can put band-aides on it, but that's not going to stop the huge wound, just slow it down. Which is why I vote for them... I rather go with band-aides than no-aides, but I don't pretend they are going to fix the real issues because they continue to pass laws that only make the core issues worse.

As I said, there are some members of the party, more than Republicans I would say, who actually do propose legislation and have actions that deal with the core issues, but they are more fringe. At least on the Democratic party they stand a chance at influencing the higher ups; as for the GOP, if you are not mainstream party line you have very little chance at influencing the others.

A budget surplus is not a Band-Aid. Obama (not alone) has only reduced the deficit by about 50%, but that is a start. He might end up with a budget surplus by the end of his term; and that is with the most obstructing GOP the nation has seen. Carter and Clinton left office with budget surpluses, while Reagan and Bush jr. inherited these surpluses and left office with massive deficits. Blue states give more to the FED than they take while red states take more from the FED than they give. So much for being the fiscally responsible party. If we elect another democrat in 2016, we may have a budget surplus again. If more red states go blue, we may have fewer states leeching. What we need is more progressivism, not less.

What are the "core issues" that you think democrats are making worse?

as for the GOP, if you are not mainstream party line you have very little chance at influencing the others.

Actually, the mainstream GOP is being influenced by the hard-right. Mainstream conservatives are being primaried from the hard-right, not the other way around.

[Shiranu]

What are the "core issues" that you think democrats are making worse?

Already mentioned some of them, but I will again...

-Needless wars. If it wasn't for a massive knock against it in the polls, we were going to invade Syria. Obama was pushing very hard to invade, until even Biden said, "If you do this, I will be the first to call for your impeachment.". Wars are expensive, but Obama doesn't seem to be hurrying us out of them.

-Corporate Immunity from the Law and Lack of Regulations: You want to fix our economy, this is the biggest place to start. Force corporations that are making unbelievable surplus to pay their employees livable wages, force them pay their fair share in taxes, force them to stop using the government to pay for their employees welfare and, with some of the money you save from not having to pay for their employees food stamps and health care, offer incentive to buy American made products over Chinese and bring some manufacturing back to the U.S..

Additionally; when they break the law, either fine them or remove subsidiaries. Don't slap them on the wrist with a $1 million fine for something we are going to pay to fix that will cost $100 million to the tax payer.

-Banks: They are still fucking people over left, right and centre. There have been SOME improvements, but not nearly enough.

-Healthcare: We pay astronomically more per pill, doctor visit, etc. because we have given the pharmaceutical companies carte blanc to determine the prices of the products and do not allow our medical programs to negotiate for lower prices. Additionally the system we use is simply inherently more expensive than single-payer. There is so much pork in healthcare that could be trimmed to make the prices reasonable, yet Obama is instead punishing the regular people for not getting healthcare rather than the organizations that make it too damn expensive in the first place.

Bloat in General: Lets face it; we pay WAY to damn much for services and goods. Rather than have the government make the supplies that the government needs, we sell out contracts to companies that will charge us 10, 20, 30+ times what a product or service is worth. Even changing contracts to go to the lowest bidder (who can offer acceptable quality) we tend to give them to people who helped lined the politicians wallet.

K-Street: Complete abolishment of legalized bribery. until this is fixed nothing will be truly fixed in this country.

There are more, but those above would be a huge boon to the economy that neither parties mainstream is campaigning about changing.

Actually, the mainstream GOP is being influenced by the hard-right. Mainstream conservatives are being primaried from the hard-right, not the other way around.

Yes, the branch off win, but they are not changing the minds of the mainstream but rather are working at becoming the mainstream. Whereas I could see Obama being influenced by left candidates success, I cannot see a Republican being swayed by either far-right or left.

This is at the top level, mind you; lower level candidates I can see changing hard-right to increase their chances of becoming bigger names. But the established mainstream Republicans have their views, and it doesn't matter if Jesus himself came down and told them to change they will not change those views.

[Special B]

-Needless wars.

How many needless wars have been started or championed by the democrats? Almost going to war but not isn't the same as going to war. We didn't go to war in Syria or Iran. Huge difference.

If needless wars are one of the scales you use to determine corruption, then the democratic party is like a pebble versus the GOP's school bus. The scales are tipped and it isn't even close.

If you are against needless war, I am guessing you have changed your mind about it being a good thing for the govt. to force citizens to fight in wars they don't agree with.

-Corporate Immunity from the Law and Lack of Regulations

Obama has been bad in this respect, but the democratic party as a whole has not. Not every democrat is doing anything to stop corporatism, but does the GOP even have an Elizabeth Warren? At least the democrats have some people working to stop corporate corruption and control over politics. The GOP has none; because the corporations are their donors. Again, scales tipped. Not even close. See my link and chart above. The democratic party is funded by unions. Unions don't want corporate immunity and a lack of regulations.

-Healthcare: We pay astronomically more per pill, doctor visit, etc. because we have given the pharmaceutical companies carte blanc to determine the prices of the products and do not allow our medical programs to negotiate for lower prices. Additionally the system we use is simply inherently more expensive than single-payer. There is so much pork in healthcare that could be trimmed to make the prices reasonable, yet Obama is instead punishing the regular people for not getting healthcare rather than the organizations that make it too damn expensive in the first place.

The democrats wanted a single payer system. The ACA is a compromise with the GOP (which is why it is so sickening that they now oppose it purely for political reasons). I admit it is far from perfect, but it is not what the democrats wanted. If you want a single payer system, then how is the democratic party (that wants the same thing) fucking you over? You need to do some research into the history of the ACA.

If you hate the ACA, then you should hate the GOP for it, not the democrats. If you hate the democrats for compromising, that is fine, but if they didn't compromise there would have been no reform at all. And as bad as the ACA is, it is better than what we had before.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yeah, some third party candidates like Nader or Stein are slightly different than the rank and file democrats, but your "third party" libertarians are just republicans that tell different lies then vote the same. They are owned by the same people as the mainstream republicans, and their policies are the same. You have fallen for rhetoric and propaganda, as it was designed.

To suggest that the democrats and republicans are the same, but that the libertarians are different... wow... man... you really need to start paying attention to what politicians do and what their policies actually say rather than what they tell you (hint: they lie). Their propaganda won't work on you when you become informed. Until then, have fun voting for the Koch brothers and ignorantly thinking you are making a difference.

The same Koch brothers who failed in their 1980 attempt to take over the LP and having failed to do so founded CATO and now turn their attention to the Tea Party and not the LP?  Those Koch brothers?  The ones who were ultimately rejected by the LP are the ones you say are the puppet masters of the LP?  Perhaps you ought to learn a little about the LP before you say such interesting things.

The democrats and republicans don't just have different deck plans, they have different routes altogether. Your libertarian party is just the GOP's same failed route, with a different deck plan.

I see.  So "egalitarian deck chairs" versus "better chairs for the elite" is a real difference, but "better chairs for the elite" versus "turn the damn ship so we don't hit an iceberg" is the same.

Try reading the actual bills instead of listening to what politicians say. The Koch brothers have bought you ignorance. They kept the same tragic Titanic route, changed the deck plan, and you fell for it.

Please list the bills presented by all the elected members of the Libertarian Party in the US Congress or US Senate.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you think the democratic party only gets 2% of its money from unions, then you are ignorant and the facts disagree with you. Sorry.

You can go back to my source and do the math yourself.

And your point is incorrect. Both parties are bought, but by different interests, and hence, they have different policies, which I have already listed as well as a link (above) showing the differences in donors where the democrats get more money from unions and the GOP more from corporations.

Again, look at my source.  The unions contribute so much less to even the Dems than corporate interests do, arguing otherwise is in essence plugging your ears.

Different donors, different policies. It isn't the hard to understand.

Or, "different quantities, different weights."

When you stop earning it, I will drop the condescension.

... said the guy who won't read the numbers I've sourced.

Both parties have members that support offshoring jobs but to say the parties are equal in this is just silly. Many democrats (including ones I listed) are against it, while the GOP as a whole is for it. I'm as pissed about NAFTA as anyone, but it is silly to say both parties are equally to blame about offshoring jobs. Corporations want to offshore jobs, unions want to keep them here. And as my link and chart show, unions overwhelmingly support democrats while corporations overwhelmingly support republicans. You cannot deny the facts.

In terms of proportions, union money is much smaller as a source of Democratic funding.  Until you address that fact, these swings of yours are misses.

That hasn't stopped the dozens of attempts by the GOP to circumvent this ruling by making aborting impossible in their state. Do you really need me to list examples? Are you really confused as to why I point out your ignorance when you make comments like THAT? As if the GOP isn't actively attacking women's reproductive rights.

Let me know when Roe v Wade is eroded.  I know that there are efforts to change that, but the mechanism of change is so convoluted that plumping that as a distinct difference is silly.  You may as well cite tectonic drift as a factor in selecting a site for building a house.

Try telling that to the millions of people effected by these issues. It matters to the couple that can't get married because of discrimination. It matters to the kid that doesn't learn real science because the theocrats are in power in his/her part of the country. It matters to the people that lost their right to vote because they weren't in a republican demographic.

Hey, my son's mom is a bisexual who just recently won the right to marry her partner in California.  I'll tell her what you said.

But, in seriousness, I don't think those issues are going to change the direction of the country, as it drifts into an authoritarian information state.

Well, I disagree. Those are big issues to me, but not the only issues. They certainly prove that the parties are not "the same".

In the details, sure.  But in deeper context, they are small beans.

SNAP/food stamps? Welfare? Tax code? Voter ID and early voter laws? Immigration? These are not small potatoes to anyone paying attention. I think the economy and the right to vote are important issues.

How many people are affected by voting laws under consideration?  

Also, magnifying welfare to [i/] economy[/i] is not really supportable, in the face of the offshoring I've already mentioned -- which you've assiduously avoided.

And this proves what exactly? Most democrats support democrats and most republicans support republicans. This, if anything, proves me right, not you. Most democrats supporting Obama and Obama being a blue dog doesn't change the fact that the two parties are not the same.

This proves that your assertion of Obama ["You are not pointing out any facts about the democratic party, just one blue dog democrat, who is very atypical"] is not supported by the numbers.  73%  of all Democrats support this "atypical" Democrat.  And the fact that those same Democrats support policies which are so often similar, if not identical, to Republican policies doesn't really undermine my point at all, if you think about it for a moment.

Please, if the facts don't support your point, don't call me ignorant.

Ah, but they do, and so you are.

So you say.  I'd say that your willingness to resort to the ad homineim marks you as someone unsure of his argument and therefore anxious to demean, rather than answer, his interlocutor.

What you call "window dressing" I call important. We can agree to disagree there, but the fact remains that the two parties are hardly the same. I think that keeping poor people from stealing or starving is important. I think the right to vote and fair elections are important. I think the economic benefits of immigration reform make it a big issue. You can call these hugely important issues "window dressing", but that doesn't make them cease to exist for the people that actually do care about the economy, voter's rights, and poor people.

Stripped of its florid rhetoric, this passage simply tells me that we place different weights on different values, and that's fine. I think that the incursion of the security state onto our basic rights is more important than promising a chicken in every pot.  Social welfare is fine, but at what point does it cease being social welfare, and start becoming bribery -- that is, bribing the public with promises of economic mediocrity (which is what welfare is, after all) while asking them to ignore insults to basic rights which many of us hold as vital to a truly free life.

Calling you ignorant when you display your ignorance *IS* civil. If you do not like it, try not being ignorant.

You keep telling yourself that, Chief.  By your logic, I *COULD* level any number of insults, but I won't.  I prefer a decent conversation.  If you're not capable of agreeable disagreement, that's your problem, not mine.

[Shiranu]

How many needless wars have been started or championed by the democrats? Almost going to war but not isn't the same as going to war. We didn't go to war in Syria or Iran. Huge difference.

If needless wars are one of the scales you use to determine corruption, then the democratic party is like a pebble versus the GOP's school bus. The scales are tipped and it isn't even close.

If you are against needless war, I am guessing you have changed your mind about it being a good thing for the govt. to force citizens to fight in wars they don't agree with.

A bit late, but Obama is currently in negotiations to EXTEND our deployment in Afghanistan (even though the war hit a record 17% approval rating, lowest rated war in American history).