Why do people who believe that both parties are the same participate on a board...

[Recursion]

... that explicitly requires the favoring of one party over the other in its terms of use?

[JoePhilly]

1. My guess ...

Is that they go to the Republican boards and claim that Democrats "suck" there too.

They could start a 3rd Party Underground, but that would take real effort.

[BlueCaliDem]

26. YET . . .

they call Democrats who don't subscribe to their ideologically pure view as "third wayers". I've been labeled as such many, many times here although I'm a registered Democrat and vote straight Democratic ticket in each and every election.

Go figure.

They could start a 3rd Party Underground, but that would take real effort.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

41. I love the made up terms

Like "third way". Anyone know anyone that talks like that? Didn't think so.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. Third Way is a major centrist organization, not a made up thing..from Thrid Way's website:

"Third Way represents Americans in the “vital center” — those who believe in pragmatic solutions and principled compromise, but who too often are ignored in Washington.
Our mission is to advance moderate policy and political ideas. Our agenda includes: a series of grand economic bargains..." and so forth. More at the link
http://www.thirdway.org/about_us

A list of Co-Chairs of Third Way
http://www.thirdway.org/co_chairs

[Recursion]

67. "Third way" is a real thing. Tony Blair liked to talk about it.

It's basically a belief that market forces can be directed to achieve social goods. It can obviously be misapplied, but by itself it's not such a bad idea.

[Bobbie Jo]

86. That doesn't mean

DU'ers who disagree with the impulsive, knee-jerking hyperbole aimed at the president fit into this category.

It's beyond tiresome.

[BlueCaliDem]

94. I thought that was called, "New Democrats" or "DLCers", not "Third Wayers".

My bad.

[Recursion]

95. DLC isn't entirely third way

Those are two different things

[graham4anything]

31. 3rd party people generally are lazy or intellectually lazy, take Ralph and Ron and David Duke

if they and their fans actually had to work for a living, they wouldn't know what to do with those large bottles of whine they drink every morning

[liberal N proud]

2. Maybe they are trolls

[cali]

3. Not that that doesn't bug me, but generally those people vote dem

[Octafish]

4. Could it be the policies of both are the same in that they favor the rich?

Which is weird, because most people I know became Democrats for the justice -- economic, social, and political.

Now both sides of the aisle seem to back the same things that make empires run: wars for profit and conquest.

FYI: While I never said both are the same, I will speak up when the Democratic Party starts to stand for the same things as the Republicans. Which is weird, because most people I know became Democrats for the justice -- economic, social, and political.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Because some of us are trying to seperate the terrible twins instead of cheering the combination.

We have the archaic notion that parties are supposed to be different and actually have conflicting policies.

[woo me with science]

6. Those who care about the health of America and the direction of the Democratic Party

are appalled to see it purchased by Wall Street and want to do something about that corruption.

[progressoid]

35. +1

[Cleita]

93. I find that Republicans run everything, even those who have a D after their names.

There are only a few left wingers still in our government and one of them, Bernie Sanders, doesn't even have a D but an I for his party affiliation. The last true Democrat we had in the office of the Presidency was LBJ, IMHO.

[patrice]

7. Because they are the same as the parties they claim to be different from, so they are competing

for the same resource, power for power's sake alone . . .

. . . and either for other agendas that they are not revealing (ASK them about timelines, concrete goals, task-objectives etc etc. etc.) or for nothing more than to divide and conquer, ever if ever so briefly, any and all others.

[patrice]

8. Also don't forget to ask them how many dead people whatever their current objective is is worth.

[Fumesucker]

24. How many dead people are *your* current objectives worth?

[jberryhill]

55. That would be a great ad slogan for an investment company

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

9. Doesn't make sense, does it?

[cantbeserious]

10. The Argument Is Better Stated As More Similar Than Different

This Is All Do To The Corrosive Influence Of Money.

[denverbill]

11. Why do people who are conservatives post at DU and pretend to be Democrats?

Personally, that bothers me a lot more than liberals who want the Democratic party to act more liberally.

[progressoid]

36. +1

[frylock]

54. and boom goes the dynamite

[Bluenorthwest]

59. Amen to that.

Today I read a thread from an 'independent' about those loony liberals, using that phrase. That chapped my britches a bit.

[nenagh]

12. I realize that I am currently in the grieving process....

It's not that I agree at all with the Republican agenda...and I've just returned from Florida..

Where some friends are Fox News only mindset women... So when I brought up transvaginal probes...

The lady had never heard of the legislation... I didn't pursue the matter, realizing she might be anti abortion..

My friends, otherwise were lovely, generous, giving people. We avoided politics entirely..and maintained positive friendships.

But know that I am repelled and afraid of the Republican agenda in many States.. Legislation that seems to spring, fully formed..
from Republican think tanks? I don't know..

But I grieve for the Pres Obama as I thought he would be...it seems to have started perhaps in the new year..

The disappointment creates irrational anger at times....and sadness..

Perhaps others are grieving as well...

[pampango]

13. Maybe they post on right-wing boards too that both parties are the same.

Of course, I doubt that right-wing boards do not put up with such "bipartisanship" the way DU does.

[datasuspect]

14. because some people place principle above partisan loyalty?

loyalty is earned and given: and it is a mutual exchange.

the problem is that BOTH political parties in this country do not see any accountability or loyalty to the voters. the only accountability, the only loyalty they have is to the check writers.

it's just reality. you can deny it, you can hate it, you can disagree with it, you can be delusional about it, but it's still THE PLAIN TRUTH.

"my party/country right or wrong" was bullshit in the 60s.

it's bullshit now.

[SidDithers]

17. And some people place posting privileges over principle...

and won't come out and state THE PLAIN TRUTH about their opinion, for fear of being tombstoned.

So, instead, they dance around "no difference between the parties" and "we need a better option", without coming right out and saying "don't vote for Democrats".

Not directing this at you in particular.

Sid

[datasuspect]

18. don't vote for any politician that places special interests above the common weal

or the interests of the working class.

pretty simple actually.

for me at least.

[SidDithers]

15. Kick and fucking rec...

been wondering that for a long, long time.

Sid

[xiamiam]

16. democratic values have nothing to do with whether a politician has a D behind his name

some of us know what those values are and fight to defend those. That is the difference. Principle over party.

[snooper2]

19. Because this is a good sized discussion board with lots of activity...

And some people need attention, lots of attention


So if they were to go to another board with say 137 active members it would be like trading in your 2006 BMW 750i for a 2008 Kia Spectra

[Enrique]

20. they are the same in some ways

the differences between them are exaggerated. The real conflict is not between the two parties.

[RandiFan1290]

21. Huh?

[Savannahmann]

22. In many ways, both parties are the same.

I've pointed it out many times. I prefer our issues, and positions. I prefer the liberal answer. However, I am not a my party is always right sycophant. I'm closer to the my party is the lesser of two evils cynic.

Both parties use scare tactics, the Rethugs are a little more blatant, but just the same, we do it too. We tell people if they don't vote our way, we'll lose a womans right to choose, we'll lose gay rights, or minority rights, or whatever the pet issue of the listener is. Then we tell them that victory depends on donations, and they have to donate unless they want to lose a womans right to choose.

The Rethugs are doing the same thing, just on the other side of the issue. In the end, nothing changes, because nobody wants to solve the problem, there are too many donations, and too many votes riding on keeping it going.

In many ways, both parties are the same. Disappointing isn't it?

[ljm2002]

23. Please provide a citation...

...showing what you mean by "people who believe that both parties are the same".

I know that I often criticize the Democratic Party or individual politicians for policies that mimic Republican policies, usually on economic issues. This does not mean that I think "both parties are the same". I don't think I've ever voted for a Republican. But that doesn't mean that I turn off my critical faculties. I despise a certain sort of conservative Democrat who is against abortion rights, or scared to vote for background checks for gun ownership, or willing to trade away the rights of individuals and expand the Security State, or eager to give corporations unequal protection over the rights of individual Americans.

If that is what you are talking about then I think you need to reexamine your own definitions.

[Dawgs]

25. No one believes that both parties are the same.

They believe that many of the elected leaders in the party are the same.

Big difference.

[Rex]

48. Exactly.

Many here think both parties have been bought off by Big Biz. Still doesn't mean they also believe the party platforms are the same. Not by a longshot. Not even close.

[FSogol]

27. Ryhmes with "rolling"

[villager]

28. Why do some people willfully keep ignoring the "Underground" part of a board's name?

[progressoid]

37. +1

[DevonRex]

42. Why did you emphatically ignore the question asked?

The Underground portion of the name does not provide cover for people who say there is no difference between the parties.

http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/10022761374#post39

http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=303509&sub=trans

[villager]

43. As do you -- when you only selected one half of a particular board's name

...to entirely suit your own agenda.

[Recursion]

83. touché

That is a fair point.

[Lil Missy]

29. DU is not representative of real life. n/t

[graham4anything]

30. To divide and get republicans more votes in a classic disinformation propaganda campaign.

Every vote NOT for the democratic candidate is a vote for the republican party.

And if a very minute number are pure, they are exploited by the pros.
Karl Rove ultimately is smiling in each case President Obama or Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are put down by someone.

Plus add the professional NRA folk and gun lovers who know the democratic party is/will be against them.

Quite simple, really.

[bvar22]

32. It is NOT about The PERSON, or even The "Party".

It is about The POLICY.

Why do anti-Liberals who support Warmed Over Republican Policy
participate in a discussion board for "Progressives of all stripes"?


CENTRISM!!!!....because it is so damned Easy!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO!

[eilen]

33. Why can't I emphatically "like" this post?

Some responses are so on point, they should be recognized.

[bvar22]

50. You just did.

Thanks.

---bvar22
a Mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ loyal Working Class Democrat for over 46 years,
now branded a "Fringe Leftist" in today's New Democrat Big Business Centrist Party.
I haven't changed.

[progressoid]

34. +1

[winter is coming]

40. Word.

I'm sick of seeing "the Party" treated like some sort of cult figure. Ideally, political parties should be a coalition of like-minded people pursuing common goals, i.e., an extension of a group's joint beliefs. Instead, they're frequently "led" by politicians who fail to represent the best interests of their base, their constituency, or the country as a whole and yet we're expected to behave as if we've sworn fealty to them. All of the "well, we have to do this or the Republicans will/would have done something worse" arguments are little more than a tweak on the "well, we have to give up our civil liberties to be safe from the Scary Other" fearmongering. We should expect better from both parties, and we shouldn't pretend that self-serving, short-sighted, manipulative, and craven approaches to government are "the best we can hope for".

[madfloridian]

51. Your last 3 lines...

just say it all.

[woo me with science]

58. Thank you. nt

[TheKentuckian]

77. Fucking A!

I think I know exactly why, it is to push their ideology and what they believe will pay off for them and jollies, a game where the "Super Bowl" is every four years and every two is the semi-finals.

[The Straight Story]

38. Well there is a really simple answer to that

We are called 'underground' we don't always like the main stream dems and what they do/how they vote, but we like the actual party ideals (not really the principles so much as even here we toss em out the window when convenient).

We know the other party has zero chance of ever representing our needs/ideals so no point in working much on them (ie, through discussion) so we spend our efforts where they can have an impact, fellow dem voters.

The parties are the same on some things - if you don't get that maybe you should go participate on a board that tells you what you want to hear.

[raouldukelives]

75. That's always been my feeling on it.

One of the reasons I was attracted to this site was the "Underground" label. I felt like the party was fading away from my own reasons for becoming a Dem and instead embracing greed is good ideals.
Here I find people who still think Reagan was an asshole and wars for profit are bad, no matter who is in charge.

[lunasun]

76. ditto!

[azurnoir]

39. well perhaps many of 'those people' have beeen here for a long while

and do vote for Democrats, however are appalled at the direction their party seems to have taken, and some of the decisions being made by its leaders

[1-Old-Man]

44. It might be because they are trying to make the Democratic Party look less like the Republican?

Could that be the right answer?

[JNelson6563]

45. Haters gonna hate.

And misery loves company and we've got some mighty miserable motherfuckers here.

Julie

[truebluegreen]

73. Boy, that is so deeep...

[HughBeaumont]

46. Because I expect better.

I don't want an economic non-option to vote for.

Unfortunately, that's what I'm getting.

I only vote Democratic because there really isn't a viable third option with any publicized backing and doing such could possibly send a hate-filled, red-meat-tossing neotheofascist that makes Bewsh43 look like Eisenhower to the White House.

ChurchWarMerica with a 7-2 Kangaroo SCOTUS isn't exactly my thing.

Also, this country really, REALLY is in no position to make a single wrong move at this point in time, thanks to the last ballbag that ran things.

[Rex]

47. No idea, plus none of us believe that 'both parties are the same'.

So why they come here and push that crap is beyond me. Maybe they need someone to lie so they feel better about all the criminal activity performed by their party for the last half century?

I always call that shit out, I know I have my own personal issues with my party but they are NOT the GOP.

GOPukers are GOPukers. They have no equal in the Hall of Shame.

[Taverner]

49. The Democratic Party is a big tent

There is even a Socialist Wing (DSA) and a Green Wing (Green Democrats)

The GOP, not so much...

Still, our party could use a lot of improvement

[JI7]

52. i think many are trolls trying to discourage people from voting

that "better believe it" was very obvious in this.

[frylock]

53. link to loyalty oath kplzthx?

[truebluegreen]

56. To make one party different.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Why do people who want both parties to be the same participate?

I'd like to see the Democratic Party be as different from the RNC as humanly possible. Many here are 'independents' who vote for both Parties and want Democrats to be much more like Republicans and they say so.

And they measure out their principles for the day with a yardstick to the left then to the right, so that they might know where they stand, always relative to others and never positioned by policy or ethics.

[wilsonbooks]

61. I won't apologize for being a Harry Truman and FDR Democrat.

Unfortunately most of our party's leadership has been co opted by Wall Street and the military industrial complex. I refuse to accept this and will NOT stop fighting for a return to our parties core principles. Sorry if that upsets you.

[Recursion]

71. Truman and FDR *created* the MIC

As well as Wall Street as we know it (or knew it before 2008 -- it was the Glass Steagall law that everyone for some reason laments the overturning of that created the investment banks that took the world's economy down with them). You're projecting back into history anti-corporate feelings that not just weren't there, but were the opposite of FDR's way of governing.

[truebluegreen]

74. Um, no.

Repealing Glass-Steagall which had separated commercial banks from investment banks is what took down the world's economy: greedy, reckless, crazy-ass investment bankers gambling with other people's money.

You don't think FDR was anti-corporate? His policies included a 40-hr work week, minimum wage, workman's compensation, unemployment compensation, Social Security...big business / corporations loved him so much they tried to arrange a coup d'etat.

As for the MIC, FDR was fighting a war--an important one--which many of those same businessmen and corporations at first opposed, and later tried to profit from.

Truman did found the National Security State, though, so you got 1/4 right.

[Recursion]

79. That's still completely wrong

Repealing Glass-Steagall which had separated commercial banks from investment banks is what took down the world's economy: greedy, reckless, crazy-ass investment bankers gambling with other people's money.

Nope, no matter how many times that gets repeated it's still not true. None of the banks that went under were the retail banks that the repeal of G-S freed up to open proprietary desks. (And, incidentally, it was their ability to open proprietary desks, which is specifically not "other people's money".)

[truebluegreen]

80. "None of the banks that went under"

The banks that didn't go under were the big banks that a) caused the problem in the first place and b) we bailed out.

Glass-Steagall was passed in the first place to prevent the wild speculation that caused the first Great Depression. And it worked, along with other regulations: we went 3 generations without a similar crash. But those regulations were under assault since the 60s, blurring the lines between banks that took deposits and (originally) could only invest in government bonds, and investment banks that were more involved with rich peoples' money and were looking for higher returns. Glass-Steagall was finally repealed in '99 (another thing to thank Clinton and the DLC for) and in the aftermath the interests of the investor class won out over those of account holders.

And BTW, anti-corporate feeling has been around for a loong time: the Boston Tea Party was staged resistance to a tax cut that favored the East India Trading Co. over small importers of tea. A corporate tax subsidy. The TeaBaggers have it bass-ackwards as usual.

[Recursion]

81. None of the banks we had to bail out were retail banks

Except for Citi, and that didn't fail because they had opened a proprietary desk either (plus the Citi bailout made the government billions of dollars in profit).

In fact, because G-S had been repealed, the retail banks could step in and buy out the Smith Barneys and Merril Lynches.

[Yo_Mama]

62. Possibly because they believe they shouldn't be the same? n/t

[one_voice]

63. K&R

[Starry Messenger]

64. I don't know if people are saying that both parties are the same.

The system they both serve is the same though. One party can be pushed into doing something for their voters that helps people, but it takes a mighty amount of work. And discussion...

[Number23]

65. Because they and ONLY they know the truth!1 Everyone else is a a Corporate Democrat

Or whatever the mind-blowingly stupid pejorative will be for today.

Honestly, I think the answer is quite simple. These people are in such a minority in the real world that coming to a Dem board and shitting all over it is the only way to make themselves heard beyond their own living rooms. Really.

[bluestate10]

66. Those people post incessantly. And always post with breathless, hair on fire urgency. nt

[HiPointDem]

68. why do people who like republican/libertarian policies participate on a board that's explicitly for

democrats?

[newmember]

69. I'm here because it's a board for progressives

It maybe called the democratic underground but many of the views expressed here
are not supported by the Democrats in power.

[lonestarnot]

70. What? Did we do away with the jury system?

[morningfog]

72. Why do people antithetical to liberal Democrat ideals post their garbage here?

[MFrohike]

78. My guess

It's probably the same reason that some people prefer passive-aggressiveness to making a direct statement.

[markpkessinger]

82. "My party, right or wrong" is just as noxious as "My country, right or wrong"

...And your question is as appalling as the common refrain of nationalists: "If you don't like it here, why don't you go someplace else?"

[RandiFan1290]

84. Maybe you should beg Skinner for a purity purge?

Then you guys can keep your ponies and rainbows all to yourselves

[Recursion]

85. I'm not a purger; I count votes

I'm more curious about the unicorn brigade's motivation.

[redgreenandblue]

87. Strawman. nt

[Recursion]

88. No, more snark than strawman

You know that.

[redgreenandblue]

89. You will rarely find people on DU who argue that both parties are identical.

You will find many who argue that in both parties there exist individuals who serve the interests of the wealthy elites.

No one I think denies that the exact number of such individuals, and the degree to which they serve the wealthy elites, is larger in the Republican party. This does not mean that said individuals, as far as they do exist in the Democratic party, should not be called out.

Reducing the argument that is being made here on DU to "the left thinks both parties are identical" is a strawman, because you are conjuring a caricature of the point of view that most people actually hold.

[kenny blankenship]

90. Maybe they remember when the parties had fundamental economic policy differences?

And maybe they would like to see one party pull its head out of the Wall ST/Corporatist feedbag and start acting in the interests of the 99% again? Maybe they want to see the Reagan Revolution revoked, and like a lot people, they believed that Reaganism has thoroughly discredited itself and that it was voted out in 2008 - and are outraged to see it mysteriously revived by their own party?

[LWolf]

91. The former DU,

before this incarnation, identified itself explicitly as "left-wing."

That's gone away. Maybe because we have a center-right neoliberal Democratic president, maybe because the obvious conflict between "left-wing" and "Democratic Party" became too big to ignore any longer.

Many of us, though, were drawn here because of the "left-wing" part, and have been here since it was OKAY to be "left-wing" on DU.

[The Link]

92. Why do people legally unable to vote for a Democrat participate?