Anybody who says there is no difference between the two parties is an absolute idiot.

[LonePirate]

I am going to blow my stack and scream at the next idiot who tells me there is no difference between the two major parties in our country. It's been four days since the inauguration and we have already seen a dozen or more day and night differences between the current corrupt, lying, incompetent and treasonous administration and the previous ethical, honest, competent and patriotic administration.

I simply refuse to tolerate the wholesale ignorance of my fellow Americans.

[mcar]

1. +1000!

[blm]

2. I know a few on FB who are STILL dug in and refuse to admit they were wrong in pushing that claim

as they urged voters to choose Stein or Trump….and if Trump got into the WH that would still be better than Clinton.

And they call themselves true progressives. I call them dumbasses whose egos are bigger than their brains.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. There was a little too much truth to that the first time it was said (years ago)

I can't believe anyone would say that today.

[betsuni]

4. It's depressing to think that after 4 or 8 years a Democrat will be voted in and the hard work

of cleaning up the wreckage begins, and so will the whining because the president can't do it overnight. Then the whining about status quo and establishment and both-parties-are-the-same and we-need-change starts and Republicans take over and the cycle repeats. The U.S. won't be a leader in the 21st century, this much is clear.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

18. What makes you so optimistic that we will

have two parties in the Fascist States of America after 4 or 8 years.

[IronLionZion]

33. Because there are more of us

We are way more diverse than the places that have had fascism

American supposedly like freedom too much to allow fascism to take over

[briv1016]

42. With the amount of voter surpression and outright fraud we're going to see in 2018 and beyond,

we may not get back power for a VERY long time.

[SidDithers]

5. NO THEY'RE NOT!!...

They're absolute fucking idiots.

Sid

[NCTraveler]

53. Great sig line.

[Madam45for2923]

6. hear hear!

[Hekate]

7. I was appalled and then outraged when Ralph Nader said it in 2000, & have not changed my opinion...

Here at DU we have a handful of people who are allegedly our allies on the left (plus the ones who join for a time), and they will say that and similar things every time campaign season rolls around. The older I get, the less tolerant I am of that line of barnyard byproduct. I want to just slap them upside the head.

[world wide wally]

14. That was going to be my comment.

Nader said, "there's not a dimes worth of difference between Bush an Gore"
To me, that Makes Nader indirectly responsible for 9/11, the Iraq War, water boarding, climate change denial, and the Great Recession.
Fuck you, Ralph.
Fuck you Stein and Johnson voters, and of course
Fuck you, Trump

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

20. Apparently a lot of people didn't learn that lesson. n/t

[LisaM]

23. You forgot the loss of New Orleans

and the loss of the Voting Rights act, thanks to the Bush SCOTUS. Oh, and Citizens United.

[Trust Buster]

8. The far Left is where you see this position being held. It's very damaging to our cause.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

19. Right now our cause is to save our country

from a fascist takeover and the far left will be needed to help in that endeavor.

[Trust Buster]

35. I agree, that is why I believe that it is very important for the far Left to stop using the

"Both parties are the same" foolish meme as the OP suggests.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

37. Not all on the far left are using that meme.

No need to paint with such a wide brush.
I think that we all can agree that we have a corporate problem to contend with.

[Trust Buster]

38. Never used the word "all". I responded with agreement to the position in the OP. That is my right.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

39. True, you didn't use the word all.

see how easy that was, have a good night.

[Renew Deal]

52. And the far right

It lives in the extremes. It also lives in the conspiracy nuts that think it's all a sham

[Trust Buster]

64. Totally agree. The more people move from the center to either extreme, the more you see this

"Both parties are the same" mentality. Well, can they here us now ?

[JI7]

9. they say that because they don't care about women and others who will suffer

NoTice what type of people usually say it .

[nycbos]

10. I was hear before the hack.

For the longest time this was Bash Obama underground.



Many folks calling Hillary GOP lite.


Nice to see folks finally wake up.

[Bigredhunk]

11. -

But "neoliberalism" or some shit.

[Xipe Totec]

12. Absolute Idiot #1 - Ralph Nader nt

[rzemanfl]

22. How different the world would be if Nader hadn't gotten all those votes in FL in 2000. n/t

[jaxind]

13. The difference is...

The difference is that when you put a republican into office, you are putting a child into the office! And, when you put a Democrat into office, you are putting an adult into the office...plain and simple!

[Akamai]

15. A-effing-men! Also you are putting in office people with empathy, who are not interested only in

their own enrichment, people who will not lie.

[johnp3907]

16. Or a liar.

[Ligyron]

17. Most of those people are young and still politically naive

The coming mess is going to be a hard lesson for them in practicality.

[yardwork]

21. I'm right there with you.

[Cary]

24. "Both sides do it" is a bald faced lie.

[IronLionZion]

25. But DUers want to punish the Democrats first

teach them some sick lesson....or something. Then when things get really bad, maybe we'll have some grand socialist awakening.

[LonePirate]

31. Those are not DUers. You're thinking of the JPR crowd and the brainless fools over at that sewer.

[kimbutgar]

26. I think going forward the Democratic Party will die a slow death

The rethugs control all the media, voter suppression and hacking and enough neurolinguistic programming will convince people that rethugs are the only ones who can save this country and Daddy chump will be our savior.

Personally, there is no way I will ever fall in line but those who are easily manipulated like Jill Stein voters will hasten the demise of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is so broken now and easily manipulated by fear.

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. Shame on us

[vi5]

28. The problem isn't that there's no difference....

..It's that our Democrats do a poor job at clarifying, identifying, or highlighting those differences.

We don't need a better message. We need better messaging.

We need to not buy into Republican framing. Not "Well, we all agree low taxes are good but......", and not "Well we all agree abortion is bad but........", not "Well, we all agree less regulations are good for business but......". None of that.

We need all our positions shouted repeatedly and unequivocally by every Democrat, and we don't need Democrats trying to split hairs and have it both ways.

Those of us that know better and for whom it is clear, can only do so much explaining. We can only reach so many people with our words and facebook posts. We can't reach more people than see Corey Booker on Meet the Press admonishing President Obama to be nicer to Wall Street and bankers. We can't reach more people than see Chuck Schumer saying he wants to work with President Trump. We can't reach more people than Joe Machin on tv kissing up to Republicans on any number of issues.

[TrekLuver]

32. And we need good messengers....likeable people.

[DanTex]

43. Booker, Schumer, and Manchin are not the problem.

Compared to Trump, or any Republican for that matter, even Joe Manchin is Mother Teresa. To establish majorities, we need to have a large coalition, and we need people, like him, who can win in states like West Virginia.

The far left is a much bigger problem than Joe Manchin, because the far left actually tries to throw elections to the GOP because they perceive the Democrats as not being sufficiently socialist. They've now done it twice in the last 16 years.

[vi5]

54. They are the problem...

Because they are the faces out there. They are the ones that get their mugs in front of a camera. And when low information voters see them spouting Republican talking points they don't think to themselves "Oh blah blah blah, broad coalition, etc. big tent yada yada". They think "Those guys sound like they agree with Republicans.

As for your second paragraph, that's pure bunk, but something tells me it fits your own narrative so.....have at it. Nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise because believing it absolves you of any responsibility. And if that's what you need then oh well.

[DanTex]

58. I recommend you put down the Chris Hedges and join us here in the real world.

Because you seem to have really fallen for his "Democrats sound like Republicans" line.

Chris Hedges has no clue what ordinary voters think or care about, he and his far left ilk have somehow convinced themselves that there's a big appetite for a Trotskyite revolution in this country and if only politicians would go on camera and insist on the proletariat seizing the means of production, we would have a worker's paradise.

Trust me, there are no low information voters who remember of even know about that one appearance from Meet The Press from Cory Booker four years ago. The far left is not going to appeal to low information voters.

[vi5]

62. I don't even know who Chris Hedges is.

And the sensible centrists who run our party currently don't seem to be doing a bang up job appealing to low information voters either based off the past 8 years of elections and continued Democratic losses.

And it can't be both ways. If the "far left" is that powerful that they can win or lose elections then maybe the party should do something to start including them and appealing to them rather than pissing them off.

And I love that many of the same people during the campaign claiming "We don't need the far left" or "The far left are just a fringe" are now claiming that they are all powerful and monolithic and are the ones responsible for losing us this election.

So the low information voters won't remember Corey Booker's appearance on a major network news program with millions of viewers, but they'll somehow be influenced by some far left blogger with a readership of a thousand people? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

[DanTex]

63. Do you see a wave of far lefties winning elections across the country? No.

Joe Manchin has actually appealed to voters, in West Virginia no less. Corey Booker is very popular in New Jersey.

No, the far left isn't powerful enough to win major elections, outside of a few states and districts. They don't have the broad appeal of someone like Booker. They are only powerful enough to throw elections to the GOP. They appeal to a small segment of the electorate, which means that in close elections, like this one and 2000, their efforts to attack the Democrats have the effect of placing Republicans in office. And, like Ralph Nader, Susan Sarandon and others have made clear, this isn't an unintended side effect of far left propaganda, it is the purpose. It is the direct modern equivalent of the "After Hitler, out turn" strategy.

We're now repeating the cycle of 2000. A bunch of gullible fools get convinced that both parties are the same, then the GOP takes power, and and then a lot of people wake up to how stupid they were. A lot of the Greens and BoBs are going to come to their senses over the next 4 to 8 years (please let it be 4).

[vi5]

65. So let me make sure I have this all straight....

Hillary lost 40% of women to a misogynistic rapist.
Hillary lost 30% of hispanics to an unrepentant racist who declared citizens of a latino country murderers and rapists.
Hillary lost 40% of union households and members to a billionaire with a history of attacking workers and workers rights.
Hillary lost 30% of Jewish voters to an anti-semite. Someone who employed literal nazi sympathizers.
Those aren't groups that sat out because they didn't think there was a difference. Those are percentages of groups that actually and actively voted for the other guy. And none of them bear any culpability in our loss?

Hillary WON states with large left/liberal populations.
Hillary LOST states with large centrist/working class/moderate populations.

Hillary was hurt by the last minute, unethical shenanigans of an FBI director who was appointed by a......wait for it.....DEMOCRATIC president.

Hillary was praised and endorsed by media, both print and broadcast outlets seen by tens of millions of people.

But it's the far left that cost the election by having their marginal, fringe media figures out there somehow magically only influencing states like Ohio and Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania?

Got it. Makes perfect sense. Totally checks out.

[DanTex]

66. She lost by a total of about 100k votes total in a few swing states.

You're right, the FBI, Russia, non-scandals played up by the media, and all that played a huge role. But with a razor-thin margin like that, yes, the effect of far lefties was certainly enough to push the election to Trump. We needed every vote we could get, and without those Bernie or Bust jackasses booing at the convention, without far left media and Jill Stein and the rest convincing low information lefties that there wasn't any difference between the parties, my guess is we would have had it.

You're right, we do need to do better with centrist/moderate voters. And your solution is to move hard left and bash people like Cory Booker? How does that make any sense at all?

[vi5]

67. So all of those groups....

Latinos.....women....union workers.....jewish voters.......voters in rural WI, PA, and OH.....the reason 30-40% of them voted for Trump was because they were influenced by far lefties?

So by your logic.....if people WANT to vote for a centrist/moderate candidate....that the far left saying that our candidates are too centrist and moderate will convince them NOT to vote for Democrats? Because they don't want to vote for someone centrist and moderate? You're saying that voters in the Rust Belt were influenced by....Susan Sarandon?

Or what you are saying is that unlike all those other groups which you seem to absolve of any responsibility for not voting lockstep with their demographic, that progressives and more left leaning voters DO need to vote lockstep. No other group, just them. If women want to vote against their own interests or beliefs....cool. Union members want to vote against their own interests.....yeah, no problem. Latinos.........no worries. All good.

But if any portion of lefties don't want to vote with near unanimity......it's their fault.

[DanTex]

68. Are you paying attention? At all?

Of course not all of them did, but enough did to push Trump over the top. This is not complicated, I'm not sure why you're confused and putting words in my mouth.

We need all the votes we can get, and people like Stein, Cornel West, Chris Hedges, the Bernie or Bust people, and anyone else who works against Dems in order to help the Republicans win are not our friends. Obviously, Republicans aren't our allies either. But people like Cory Booker most definitely are allies, he was a strong Clinton supporter and has never played any of the "both parties are equally bad" games that the far left has played.

[vi5]

69. Did you not say

that the far left cost us the election?

That implies that theirs were the only votes in those states we lost or that were obligated to go to Hillary. It also implies that that a majority of people who identify as far left didn't vote for Hillary. Neither of which there is a single shred of evidence for.

Otherwise the correct statement would be that there were a lot of people in every demographic who cost us the election and we would do well to appeal to all of them.

[DanTex]

71. Absolutely, but obviously it was one of many factors, not the only thing.

Russia, the FBI, the pseudo-scandals, racism etc. Events have more than one cause.

And, also obviously, having Bernie or Busters and Greens and the rest of the far left actively pushing the "both sides are equally bad" lie was one of the causes. This is what the far left does: they try to sow disenchantment with the Democrats in order to put Republicans into office. They've been doing it for at least two decades now, and this is their second big victory in that time.

Sure, there are people who voted for Trump who weren't influenced by the far left. Some, many, are just outright racists. Some want a return to trickle-down economics. Some are anti-environment. And so on. But this doesn't absolve the far left of their role.

[LonePirate]

34. Do you honestly think Clinton would have done the same things had she been elected?

Last edited Tue Jan 24, 2017, 11:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Would she have stacked her cabinet with incompetent, regressive, anti-intellectuals? Do you think she would be gutting health care, Medicare and Social Security? Do you think she would be approving pipelines, attacking scientists and the climate and putting a gag order on all government agencies? Do you think she would impose a hiring freeze? Do you think she would hire a racist liar as a press secretary? Do you think she would alienate our intelligence community while blowing a big fat kiss to Putin?

If you can't see the difference between what the current president has done and what would have happened under the alternative, then you need to start paying attention.

[DanTex]

44. Chris Hedges is most definitely an idiot.

He endorsed Jill Stein for president, which is the hallmark of far left stupidity. He spends his time attacking Democrats and drawing false equivalencies between the parties.

People like Hedges, Nader, and Stein are actively contributing to the rich getting richer, because they help Republicans win elections. Without the help of people like that, neither W nor Trump would have been elected.

[tomp]

46. if your sole criterion is support for clinton or not...

...then you have not followed my instructions: 1) open your mind, 2) read chris hedges.

get back to me AFTER you have done that. let me know what you read and what exactly in that reading qualifies hedges as an "idiot."

thanks.

[ProfessorGAC]

47. The Poster Explained That

That you don't like the explanation is one you, not that poster.

[DanTex]

48. No, that's not the only criterion. Where did I say that? It's just one criterion.

Yeah, I've read Chris Hedges, the guy is a melodramatic buffoon, he has no understanding of economics whatsoever, he tends towards conspiracy theories. He's also a Putin stooge with his show on RT. He's one of those far-left rubes who thinks it's cool to hate "the system" but has nothing intelligent to say about anything.

And he endorsed Jill Stein, something that requires that a person be either stupid or else intentionally wanting Trump to be president. With Chris Hedges, it's probably both.

[HughBeaumont]

49. Even more sickening when you realize Stein was the SANE one on her ticket.

This despite all the nutbar stuff she believes and stating Trump would be the lesser evil.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

30. K&R nt

[SidDithers]

36. Some progressives would rather stay home and make waffles...

than vote for a Democrat.

Yes, that was actually posted at DU by an alleged "progressive" who's on permanent FFR and has found an nice, new comfortable home with all the other Trump supporters at JPR.

Sid

[ismnotwasm]

40. Yup

[JCanete]

41. Of course there's a difference. I'll take a Dem in office over a Republican every time. It's where

they are the same(or shades of the same) that we have a problem. Its where our lack of conviction for standing uniformlyagainst the very moneyed interests that ultimately get people like Trump elected, that we have a problem.

You are right though, the language "they are all the same" is seductive, and is gleefully relied upon by powerful interests to foster public apathy and to suppress voter turn-out. I don't think the differences are missed by liberals who are cynical of our system. I think that many of them believe that our refusal to grab that third rail is why we continue to backslide on progressive policy in this nation(in particular economic policy, which only helps to empower racist scapegoating) , and why the right has been able to get more and more outrageous over the last 30 years.

People ARE ignorant of civics and politics, which is why we suffer a system that is so manipulated by money--on BOTH sides of the aisle to varying degrees. We can certainly look to society at large in its fostering that, and individuals as they helped to shape society, but those individuals are as much or more a product of it, than its producer. Which is why I'm not interested in being self-righteous about people who seem less sophisticated when it comes to matters of American Government and idealism. As part of the larger culture, we're collectively at fault.

[Rex]

45. The rank and file of each party wants something different. That is obvious.

And now those differences have been polarized by the two parties, but mostly the media.

I have to admit I have not been nice to folks that want to pretend Trump is just a commoner like the rest of us. As if he is just a normal Joe, nope sorry I don't shovel bullshit for a living and refuse to start. He is a rotten to the core person and is liable to do anything that pleases his ego.

[Fix The Stupid]

50. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028531465 n/t.

[Renew Deal]

51. I've been saying that for years. It means they can be dismissed as fools instantly

[still_one]

55. Ralph Nader started that "memo", and we have been paying for the consequences

of that ever since, by those who fell for that refrain.

This time the damage that will be done in the next four years could be unrecoverable

Noam Chomsky said it best:

'Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a ‘bad mistake’

...

"Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left.

“[Zizek makes a] terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

Hillary lost Michigan by .3%. Jill Stein received 1.1% of the vote there. Similar results in Wisconsin, and other swing states. Yes, those who voted third party could have made a difference.

What made this the perfect storm was that every Democrat running for Senate in a swing state lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican. Those self-identified progressives who refused to vote could have made the difference.

[treestar]

56. Right

It is astounding anyone would make that claim.

[Paladin]

57. Amen. We're sure as hell are paying the price for the actions of the purity police. (nt)

[Buckeye_Democrat]

59. Of course not. Was that a common opinion here in the past or something?

I wasn't here to see all the primary drama that apparently took place.

[vi5]

70. No, it was not a common opinion on here....

It was an extremely small minority of people, whose power is not taking on monolithic and all encompassing proportions simply because that's easier than looking at what we may have actually done wrong and what culpability our own infrastructure and/or candidate and/or campaign may have in this debacle.

It is a complete and utter strawman argument.

[etherealtruth]

60. "absolute idiots" ... without doubt

[Cha]

61. Thank you! we use to get that shit on here about President

Obama and bush2.. Idiots