yeah, there IS a goddamn difference

I keep hearing comments like this:

“There’s no difference between Trump and Clinton. Both major political parties are corrupt. The only way to force change is to vote for a third party. The only way to express my disgust with the current political system is to vote for a third party. The lesser of two evils is still evil. To think there’s a choice between Trump and Clinton is an illusion; they’re both the same.”

You know what this is? Twaddle. It’s nonsense; senseless; silly bullshit. And I’m hearing this twaddle multiple times a day. I’m mostly hearing it from former Bernie supporters who now believe Bernie is a traitor for doing what he always said he’d do — support the Democratic nominee.

I’d intended to write a thoughtful, well-researched analysis detailing exactly why those sorts of comments are twaddle. Hell, I was even prepared to discuss the etymology of twaddle. But bugger all that. I just want to rant, because there’s some bullshit that just doesn’t deserve a serious discussion.

"Trump ou Clinton, Je choisis ni l'un!"

“Trump ou Clinton, je choisis ni l’un!”

No difference between Trump and Clinton? Are you fucking kidding me? That’s not just stupid, it’s stupid at a cellular level. It’s metabolically stupid. Seriously, if you believe this your cytoplasm must have been replaced with stupidplasm. Jeebus fucking Tinkertoy, just consider that one of them actually wants to construct a physical wall across the border with Mexico. That’s medieval thinking — and not in a good way. If you tell me there’s no difference between Clinton and Trump, then I have to assume you’re either lying or you’re a fucking nitwit (which is like 50% as stupid as a total fuckwit). There are flatworms that can distinguish between Trump and Clinton.

And no, voting for a third fucking party is NOT the only way to change the political system. It’s not even a viable way of changing the political system. The fuckwits who make this claim are almost always electoral locusts — they show up every four years to piss away their vote, then bury themselves in the earth until the next presidential election, during which they complain loudly and insistently about how their vote doesn’t count.

You want your vote to count? Vote in local elections. Vote in County and State elections. Elect your third-party candidates to the School Board, or the Board of Supervisors, or any sort of local elected office where shit actually gets done. Get your third-party candidates into your State legislature. It’s not as sexy as a presidential race, sure. But if you really want change, you do that — and you do it in towns and counties and Statehouses across the U.S. That’s how you begin to build a political base. Then you nurture the shit out of those candidates you get elected. Support them with a small donation of time and/or money. Nurture it, and your third-party will grow.

Even those shit-for-brains Tea Party asshats were smart enough to do that — which is why there are states that keep passing stupid laws against the teaching of evolution. If you allow your County and State to elect people who believe idiotic shit like the Bill of Rights is based on the fucking Bible because you think only presidential elections are worth your time and effort, then fuck you and the “no difference between Trump and Clinton’ horse you rode in on. You’ve got the government you deserve.

You support a woman’s reproductive freedom? You want to implement effective gun safety legislation? You want to see more bike paths and more art funding and renewable energy sources and an end to fracking? You’re not going to get any of that shit by voting for GaryJohnson or Jill Stein. Because they’re NOT GOING TO GET ELECTED. You get that shit by voting for progressives at the State and County level. That’s where the laws that shape the lives of regular folks get written.

You want to see real change? Then grunting isn’t enough. You want real change, you have to do the actual grunt work.



137 thoughts on “yeah, there IS a goddamn difference

  1. Wow! I havent read this much self-righteous hate and name calling since…well…. TRUMP! I started to read your article looking for something to convince me to vote for Hillary. Instead, I think you have proven the point of not much difference. Hate and name calling is hate and name calling, no matter which candidate you support. If you treat diverse viewpoints the same way as your opponent then there really isnt much difference.

    Liked by 7 people

    • I’m not trying to convince anybody into voting for anybody. What I’m saying is that it’s pointless — and yes, stupid — to complain about the lack of a viable third party if you’re not willing to help create a third party. Every four years I hear this complaint. And immediately after the election, almost everybody who voices that complaint disappears until the next presidential election.

      Hate? No, I don’t hate anybody. Self-righteous? Yeah, probably, a bit. But mostly I’m massively annoyed at people who want somebody else to create a third party they can support. And I have totally lost my patience for people who claim there’s no difference between Trump and Clinton.

      Liked by 10 people

      • And the fact of the matter is, there IS a difference. Trump repeatedly demonstrates his total ignorance regarding the separation of powers, foreign policy, TRUE (successful) business development, domestic policy, economics, fiscal policy, race relations, … And the English language above a third grade level.

        Liked by 5 people

      • dont worry, screeds dont convince anyone. except what to avoid returning to with precious worthy conversation time. thanks for the roadside spectacle. p.s. the bus aint going anywhere. all the other bozos are moving along.


      • Yes! Most brilliant use of words I’ve read. Homegrown. Get busy complainers and DO something about the lack of candidates to truly represent US. Meanwhile, this election, I’m voting for Hillary because she comes closest to my governmental needs.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Trump brings a refreshing look at all the things a lot of us are frustrated about. Trump has worked from the inside not trying to creat a third party but working with the tools that are already there and changing within! I am anxious to see were and how he puts It together. There are so many things that the globalist have been able to move us as a nation too. Obama was not the first. He was in place to finish the process of introducing us to the ultimate slavery of the people in the One World. If Trump does not succeed it is over!


      • Please, Bob, go on. How will Drumpf protect you from the Illuminati, the Rothchilds, or the brain-eating ameoba that lives in warm freshwater lakes. You’ll use Ameros to buy donuts like the rest of us and be thankful a red light camera didn’t catch you flick a booger out your car window like the rest of us!

        Liked by 1 person

      • All I know is that if the DNC had truly been interested in winning in Nov. and displaying a real difference between themselves and the RNC they would have allowed a democratic process to determine their candidate; however, since they cheated from the very beginning of the process (eight long years ago) to the very end of that mock process they deserve no, none, notta support from people of conscience.


      • Au contraire, the Dems in my state, who supported Bernie, understood the process and were well aware that there was nothing rigged. It was the people who don’t understand that the type of voting (Primary or Caucus, Open or Closed) is decided by each state. The national party has no say in it. The Independents were told they had to register as Dems to vote for Bernie, and many didn’t do it and then got mad.

        Liked by 1 person

      • they cheated from the very beginning of the process

        I keep hearing this — and it’s my opinion that it’s mostly bullshit. Bernie lost, it’s that simple. He lost. Not because of his policy positions, not because the DNC plotted to fuck him over (although there were certain some folks in the DNC who were willing to consider doing that), not because Hillary was a better candidate.

        Bernie lost because Hillary is the more professional and more experienced candidate. She learned a lot from her loss in 2008. She and her staff knew the rules for each state’s primaries/caucuses. Bernie’s people didn’t. She and her staff put more money and effort into getting voters to polling places than in holding large rallies. Bernie’s people didn’t. She and her staff ran a campaign designed to get votes. Bernie ran a campaign to create a political movement. They both succeeded.

        How many Bernie supporters in places like New York and Oregon weren’t allowed to vote because they hadn’t bothered to learn their state’s rules for voting in a primay? Lots. I got sick of hearing Bernie supporters complain that their votes were ‘suppressed’ when in fact they simply hadn’t followed the rules. They hadn’t bothered to learn the rules.

        Let me give you an example. A friend who’d moved to Oregon was pleased to learn she was automatically registered to vote when she got her new Oregon driver’s license. She didn’t bother to learn that new voters registered in that manner are registered without party affiliation. She didn’t bother to learn that Oregon holds a closed primary — only registered Democrats can vote. When she attempted to vote, she learned she couldn’t, and complained that her vote had been suppressed.

        One of the reasons Bernie lost was because his supporters just assumed their passionate support would be enough; they donated money, they attended rallies, they posted all over Facebook — but a LOT of them never took the time to find out what they needed to do to actually VOTE for him. That’s not cheating; that’s just inexperience.

        Liked by 2 people

    • it is unfortunate to not see much difference between the two candidates, and seeking out information is what one can do. I personally like Greg’s mantra of not preaching, but offering ideas of how to pursue information and/or clues into things we have not noticed. (also, going into right-wing sites to mine out some nuggets of how people think, or not, in my view.)

      I hope you find a way to reconcile a way to vote, and hopefully, it results in keeping Trump from winning, and perhaps more importantly, as Greg mentions, that your vote helps to act locally in an effective way.

      this advert uses the same man as an LBJ’s advert in 1964. he has been around, and perhaps it is another voice of reason: []

      Liked by 4 people

    • You’re proving Greg’s point.
      There is a total lack of critical thinking among ALL the “… or bust” fanatics, who refuse to accept that there is no way that a third party PRESIDENTIAL candidate can win. That allows a man with the self control of a 2 year old with ADD to hold the nuclear war codes.

      And read it again. Greg told us to vote.
      He told us who he doesn’t support.
      He did NOT tell you how to vote.

      Grow up and understand that politics is the art of the possible. Only those who learn to compromise survive, or accomplish anything.

      Liked by 6 people

    • Some people really don’t get the point of this article. To start to make changes to the political system, you NEED to start locally. If you want to vote for Trump then do so. If you are or were a Bernie Sanders supporter your non vote is a vote for Trump. You claim to be progressive, but yet you would walk away from voting at all or for a candidate that doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. Try getting the point, START LOCALLY!

      Liked by 4 people

    • There is a difference if you are female, working class, believe in reproductive rights, believe healthcare is a right for all human beings, believe we have an obligation to the environment, believe in good higher education at a reasonable price,

      Liked by 4 people

    • I call bull shit on your comment. That’s what you got from this article? Wow! I haven’t seen such willful ignorance since well, the rise and fall of Bernie Sanders. It’s not like hate and name calling hasn’t been a thing for you Hillary haters has it? You know what? keep your head up your ass. We will move forward without you. With supporters like you the Green Party will go no where

      Liked by 1 person

    • You can find that information anywhere and you know it. Just put differences between Trump and Hillary Clinton in Google. You don’t need this blog post to do it. The author clearly stated at the beginning that it was going to be a rant. And no rants usually aren’t polite. It was your clue to decide when the dropping off point would be. One VERY GOOD point was to encourage third party candidates at local and state level. It’s not just smart on the tea party movement’s part but shows their tenacity and work ethic. They are like ants and they have overrun areas. They basically demand that others live by their rule.

      Liked by 1 person

    • If that’s all you got out of this, then you didn’t read the whole thing. And you’re kind of demonstrating the whole point of this article. I’m sorry your precious feelings got hurt, but it’s time to get real.

      Bernie and Hillary’s voting record in the Senate – they voted the same 93% of the time. Since Trump has no voting record to compare, look at Mike Pence’s as a comparison and tell me that they’re exactly the same, or even 93% the same. Hint – they’re not.

      Bernie, like me, voted for Bernie in the primaries. And Bernie, like me, is voting for Hillary in November.


    • If you’re looking for someone to convince you to vote one way or another, I feel for you. Not being able to make up your own mind and think for yourself must be awful.
      Had you read the article to the end, you may have noticed that the “hate and name calling” was not directed at one candidate or another. The language you seemed to find offensive was just frustrated ranting, not aimed at anyone in particular (except, perhaps, those “tea party ass-hats” Lol) and absolutely understandable. I, like many of my fellow Americans, am utterly fed up with politicians who have obviously forgotten that their elected positions are supposed to be PUBLUC SERVICE positions, meaning their purpose is to SERVE the PUBLIC. And on the rare occasions that I rant to vent my frustration, sometimes the existing swear words that are available are not sufficient to get my point across.
      My advice, try reading the article again, all the way to the end this time. Then, maybe do some of your own research so you can make an informed decision about whom to vote for instead of relying on internet articles to make up your mind for you.
      Just a thought. 😊

      Liked by 1 person

    • LOL If you need something to convince you, just read the news. Listen to Trump’s vitriolic and bombastic ravings. As for your claims about what this blog does or does not prove; one blog post does not prove any point about anything but that post itself or its writer. So you can only draw conclusions about this one blogger, not whatever it is (maybe the Democratic party?) you’re trying to say isn’t different from whatever else (maybe the Republican party?) you’re trying to compare to the first thing you’ve indicted but not named. SMH.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. So far, neither of the major parties supports changes to the electoral system which would facilitate voting for smaller parties. Some of those changes could be proportional allotment of a state’s members in the electoral college. My preference is for ranked voting. So I could choose #1 Jill Stein, and, if she should not receive a plurality of the voters, #2 Hillary Clinton.

    In the meantime, I do intend to vote for Jill Stein. I am in a red state. If Hillary has a chance of winning this state, it means she’s already winning in the rest of the country.

    If I were in a true battleground state, I might vote for HRC.

    There are differences between Trump & HRC, but mainly in the speed that they would take this country off the cliff. Trump’s running, HRC is walking.

    Liked by 2 people

    • neither of the major parties supports changes to the electoral system which would facilitate voting for smaller parties

      Absolutely right. The two party systems benefits the two parties, so they have no incentive to change. Which, I think, is why it’s important for folks who really want a third party (or a fourth or fifth) to start getting involved locally. That’s where political change can make a more immediate difference.

      I do intend to vote for Jill Stein

      I like Jill Stein. I don’t think she’s qualified to be POTUS, but I think she’d be great as a mayor, or a governor, or a member of Congress. That’s how Bernie got started. That’s how a LOT of politicians got started. And to her credit, she’s run for more local offices. But aside from a couple of terms sitting on the Lexington, MA town council, she hasn’t won an election.

      Liked by 4 people

      • So get her elected to an office to which she CAN get elected.

        And recognize that voting for her for president might result in the Supreme Court selecting the President AGAIN.

        Liked by 4 people

      • I do intend to vote for Jill Stein….I don’t think she’s qualified to be POTUS, but I think she’d be great as a mayor, or a governor, or a member of Congress.

        Let me guess, not a member of Mensa?


      • Kabe Black — you might notice that “I do intend to vote for Jill Stein” was in italics, meaning it was a quote from another person in an earlier comment. I was responding to that comment.

        It never fails, though, does it — there are always some folks whose only contribution to any discussion is to take cheap shots at others. As Trump would say: Sad!

        Liked by 2 people

    • I think you’ll find that EVERY state in this election will become a battleground state as those voters who normally vote for one particular party (regardless of WHICH party) appear to be disillusioned with their party’s candidate* and may vote in ways they would normally not…

      *I say “candidate” because although the DNC and RNC haven’t taken place yet, we all know who the candidates are going to be.


  3. Pingback: yeah, there IS a goddamn difference — | Mayor StGomez

  4. It’s not really helping your credibility to not even get all the candidate’s names correct, you know.

    But frankly, you seem to be laboring under the illusion that Democrats and Republicans are entitled to people’s votes. They aren’t. There is no constitutional mandate that requires only two parties, and in fact, John Adams warned against it. You’re talking about private clubs that are controlling our elections — not a part of our government. Third parties have a right to exist, and people’s votes are their own – if they want to vote for Tinky-winky they can, and shaming them is going to be completely useless. Third party voters aren’t “locusts” who somehow steal something from you that you believe is yours — they are simply fellow citizens who don’t fit into the so-called “big tent”, who are generally disenfranchised by electoral politics altogether. They’re right to complain, because the system is broken; you’re wrong to complain that people aren’t working on the local level, because they are. Maybe check your privilege for a minute and realize that being in one of the two dominant groups in electoral politics doesn’t make you automatically right.

    What I wish I saw on the part of Democrats was graciousness, strategy, and respect for others, as opposed to all of this entitled, angry bleating about other people’s votes. What I wish I saw is an actual understanding of how elections work, and reaching out to convince the voters you actually do NEED to win this election. I am absolutely terrified by the unbelievable arrogance of Clinton supporters towards nearly half of their party — bullying, fear mongering, and name-calling is going to do fuck-all to promote the unity your candidate desperately craves. Why are you so angry? You got what you wanted — your favored candidate supposedly won. So…now it’s time for you to get to work, is it not? Instead of ranting at your opposition, maybe you should actually try to win them over. The arrogance you’re displaying is really what will lose this election.

    For the record — I don’t know who I’m voting for right now. I’m an Independent in a swing-state, so I will probably forced to choke down the bile and vote for a candidate that is as far to the right of my position as the Republicans are to her position. For the moment, I’m sticking to the position I had on day one of this primary: I will decide in October after carefully watching the polling. I’m not one of the people you’re screaming about, but I absolutely understand where they are coming from. And I urge you — no, BEG you, to start from a position of taking them seriously and treating them with respect so we don’t all wind up in total fascism. In other words: YOU’RE NOT HELPING. Stop whining and get to work — you wanted this candidate, so don’t blame us if she loses, because it’s your responsibility to make sure she doesn’t.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Laurie, Is this truly how you decide who to vote for? “I will decide in October after carefully watching the polling.” Do you even understand what this rant was about? There is a BIG difference between the two candidates! He is absolutely correct when he says these people come out at Presidential elections, but not at any of the other elections. In order to get a third party system, you have to start at the lower levels and work your way up (just like anything else in life). Throwing away your vote on a candidate that has no chance of winning is exactly that, throwing it away. Choosing and voting for one of the candidates that actually might be able to win is a lot better way to at least avoid as many bad things as possible. ……

      Liked by 3 people

      • Did you even understand what MY post was about, or did you still think being insulting was a good way to go after what I said, Paul? Yes: there is a big difference between the two candidates, I get it. And yet, they both still suck, in my opinion. Voting for someone who supports fracking, who will support the TPP (since the platform gives her position to again once she’s in office), and who is so incredibly pro-war is not voting for a progressive, sorry. Am I just supposed to turn off my brain and suddenly pretend I think she’s good because he’s worse?

        The argument that voting third party is “throwing your vote away” is ludicrous, since winning is only one objective. If a third party gets 5% they get Federal matching funds, in order to build towards the future. Whereas voting for a candidate who is as far to the right of me as Trump is of her is not only compromising my principals, but truly throwing away my vote if my vote is unnecessary. You misunderstand Federal elections if you think they are simply about individual votes, it’s conveniently ignoring the electoral college. If it’s safe to avoid voting for Clinton, then that is probably what I will do — voting for a candidate that doesn’t represent me if she’s likely to win anyway is what is really throwing my vote away.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I’ve seen that the day after election day, no one seems to remember there was a third party. Anything the third party stood for gets pretty much ignored.

        On the other hand, I believe many of Clinton’s negatives come from 25 years of Republicans trying to lower her ratings. They even had to admit that the only reason they had the Benghazi hearings were to lower her ratings. As soon as the private server issue came out, they seized on that issue to make political hay out of it. Almost all of the emails that ended up classified that were sent by Hilary were classified AFTER she sent them. General Petraeus on the other hand, took home documents that had already been classified and had no approved way of storing classified documents in his house. His case was practically ignored because he wasn’t running for any office.

        As far as TPP, most economists will say it’s not a simple yes or no since it depends on a lot of external conditions such as exchange rates in the affected countries and other factors. Who is to say if it’s good or bad? No one really knows.

        What troubles me about this round is I’ve never heard of supporters for one candidate in the primaries decide in such large numbers to not vote for whoever emerges from the primaries.

        In my case, I’m not angry, I’m a bit terrified that Trump and Pence will get elected. His choice of VP frightens me, not only because he signed off on his “religious freedom law” that would allow any business to discriminate against LGBT but when companies threatened to boycott his state, he backed out. As Pence says of himself, “a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.”

        Liked by 4 people

    • you seem to be laboring under the illusion that Democrats and Republicans are entitled to people’s votes.

      No, not at all. I’m saying that if you want a viable third-party candidate, you need to first construct a viable third party. You can’t just show up every four years and complain that nobody is taking your third-party candidate seriously — especially if you don’t take that party seriously during the intervening three years.

      My rant isn’t about any particular candidate; it’s about people who expect somebody else to create a third party for them.

      You got what you wanted — your favored candidate supposedly won.

      My preferred candidate was, until a couple of months ago, Bernie Sanders. I think that’s pretty clear from everything I’ve written this election season. In fact, Bernie is STILL my preferred candidate, though I became disenchanted with his campaign. But Bernie didn’t win, so yes I’ll support and work for Hillary.

      Liked by 2 people

      • “You can’t just show up every four years and complain that nobody is taking your third-party candidate seriously — especially if you don’t take that party seriously during the intervening three years.”

        I’m really not sure why you think that’s how third parties work, but it isn’t — they are working on getting people elected locally at every election, they are meeting throughout the four years prior to every election… (maybe they are simply inactive where you live)? The problems with Third Parties are multiple, but the reason I am hoping I can safely vote third party (I will not vote for Trump and I really don’t want to vote for Clinton if I can help it) is simply to help them get to 5% so they could get to the level needed for Federal matching funds — so isn’t doing that exactly what you’re talking about?

        I’m an independent — I’m not a member of a party because there is no party that fits my needs and comes close to what I believe; the Greens, though they are the closest, are still disorganized and have an unrealistic view towards foreign policy. But I am looking forward to working with others towards building a Progressive Party on November 9th, because the Democrats are clearly as broken as the Republicans are — that’s not saying they are the “same”, but they are too close for comfort at this point.

        Between the electoral college, the mainstream media, and the fact that the Dems and Republicans control the debate stage through the Commission on Presidential Debates (after the League of Women Voters walked away thanks to corruption), third parties will never have a chance to win the Presidency until we change these structural issues, so there are multiple angles from which we need to approach the future of Presidential elections if we want to change this stranglehold on the White House. But it’s become clear, through the massive gridlock in Washington, that without doing so we look forward to more of the same obstructionist game-playing. So even if I don’t want to join the Greens, I will help them if I can — the more strong third parties we have, the more we can work towards one of them becoming viable and breaking through. Like I said before — if I have to vote for Hillary, I will choke down my bile and do it, but until that becomes absolutely necessary I will be searching for options to avoid that fate.


      • I’m really not sure why you think that’s how third parties work, but it isn’t

        I can only speak from my own experience. I’ve lived in Iowa, Ohio, NYC, Washington, DC, Virginia, and NH — and I usually vote in every election. I rarely see a progressive third party candidate on the ballot for local or County offices. I’ve never had a progressive third party volunteer come to my door canvassing for a candidate (although I have had a Tea Party member knock on the door).

        I know there are people who are seriously and tirelessly working for third parties, but the vast majority of people I know who say they’re going to vote for Jill never gave her a thought until they felt betrayed by Bernie. Maybe this election will make a difference. Maybe this will inspire folks to actively work for a progressive party, starting the day after the election. I’d like that.

        But that’s not what I’m seeing now.

        Oh, and I totally agree about the League of Women Voters. I admire the fact that they refused to concede to the various party demands — but I wish they were still the ones running the debates.

        Liked by 1 person

    • i voted for senator sanders. i eagerly and wholeheartedly back mrs. clinton. my frustration with the bernt is this sense that their vote is this preciously held jewel that must not be tarnished in any way. in fact, their vote only matters when it loses all individuality, when it becomes part of the completely anonymous totals that determine who wins and who loses. the calculus that i made was assessing what was better for our nation and the world: president [gack] trump or president clinton? if you supported senator sanders and you fail to understand the profound difference in that choice, shame on you for refusing to really understand both the policy positions of mrs. clinton and her lifelong work as a liberal and champion of the 99%.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Telling people they are nitwits for voting their values is garbage. Insinuating that they have to vote one way or they are garbage is near fascism. Of course there is a difference between Trump and Clinton; one is a complete nut bag that will never accomplish any of his insanity even if elected, and the other is a corporate sentinel fully capable of keeping the status quo and ensuring corporations and banks remain in power. You can’t use the argument that Bernie would never accomplish anything in office because he is too extreme and then say Trump is as dangerous as he is. Garbage. What everyone needs to fear is Trump’s following. We need to fear Trumpism, because ensuring it doesn’t reach the White House is a temporary solution to a greater and persistent problem. We need education NOW, we need money out of politics NOW. And the thing about third parties never being capable of winning a general election, it’s only true because you insist that it is. It is only true because you have bowed to the political giants that told you it was true. Over half of Americans are unhappy with our choices for president yet we can’t elect anyone else? Garbage. If we encouraged people to vote values and it turns out they did, the two party system just may be squashed after all. This insipid, insulting garbage only serves to demoralize and further infuriate people. Vote local, start small. That is indeed more important than the presidential election as this is where true progressive change will begin. But don’t listen to someone who tells you you’re an idiot if you don’t vote for their candidate (and out of FEAR), vote for your values. If we all did that, this kind of garbage argument would no longer exist.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Telling people they are nitwits for voting their values is garbage.

      I agree. On the other hand, I’m of the opinion that folks who think there’s no difference between Clinton and Trump are nitwits — which is what I said. I’m not sure where you got the idea I was saying voting your values makes you a nitwit.

      Insinuating that they have to vote one way or they are garbage is near fascism.

      Dude, seriously? This is an argument concocted from your own imagination. I said absolutely nothing about how people should vote. I DID say that voting for a third party once every four years isn’t a viable way of changing the political system. And I stand by that.

      Also, your concept of fascism is flawed.

      You can’t use the argument that Bernie would never accomplish anything in office because he is too extreme and then say Trump is as dangerous as he is.

      I think you must be responding to some other person’s blog.

      Vote local, start small.

      Exactly what I said. I appreciate your passion, seriously. But most of your comment seems to be directed at something somebody else wrote in some other blog.

      Liked by 2 people

      • You are right on all counts. I will vote for HRC and against Trump. If a good Third Party Candidate stood a chance of winning I would strongly consider it although I would rather work from within and change the Party I have. I was a Precinct Rep for 2 years and without fail, Independents and Third Party people I talked to were not interested in doing any work for their candidate. They just wanted to “have a candidate” and then go vote for them once every 4 years. They mostly don’t bother with off-year elections, and they always say it’s because “they are all crooks”. Mostly my experience with them was that they were just too busy or too lazy or too uninformed to bother with the work to be done to mount a viable campaign. They don’t try to register voters for their party, they won’t make phone calls, they don’t donate, they don’t go to meetings. If I’m a little chagrined over this. I live in AZ with 30% Independents and pretty much all the Independents I dealt with visiting in my precinct had no plans to vote at all (I’m old, and it’s a bitch in hot weather walking your precinct). The excuses were always the same…”it doesn’t make a difference if I vote as all the candidates are the same” (they’re not). The big problem with a Third Party is that whoever wins will stand virtually no chance of getting over 50% of the electorate vote and the haters would be stabbing them non-stop during their whole term in office with “you don’t represent the majority of the people”. No easy answer here.


  6. Thank you so much for your honest words. The republicans started the charge at the local level starting in the 70s and look it what it has gotten us!

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Tell me how they are different when it comes to demanding BIG needed legislation, that would require significant tax increases on the wealthy to pay for it. You can’t because they are not. If it requires money and it helps the struggling working class primarily it’s crickets with both parties. But righties can have their guns and lefties can have their abortions and same sex marriage…because it costs the elites nothing.


  8. greg, glad the prune juice is working. fyi, a new generation that was not old enough last round is now waking up. meanwhile you repeat yesterdays philosophies of where and how the great peoples revolution will come about. and sling perfumed coprologia.

    no difference someone said except he runs to the cliff while she walks. no, he drives a pimpmobile, she jets in with a paramil hitsquad. he is a tenuous market winner. shes on the inside track. thats what slow and easy got her into…real money real power


    • Oy gevalt! Thanks for pointing that out. That’s the problem — well, one of the problems — with a rant. You just open the tap and let the frustration pour out. Thanks again.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Wow. Great job. Shaming and fear mongering, with a holier than thou pretentious intellectual supiority. You are so cool.
    Still not voting Hillary.
    And not because I am a pouting petulant scorned Bernie supporter.
    Because She is going to push the TPP through. Because she is going to support fracking.
    Because she is totally owned by the corporations. Because she doesn’t give a flying F about women’s rights, or the environment or any other lip service bullshit that comes out of her mouth.
    Because Trump is not going to build a stupid wall and anyone who thinks he,is no matter what party you are for is clueless dimwit. ( not to lower myself to your condensending rude level) but seriously..
    Trump is not going to be president. He is going to self destruct and/ or be found out to be the farcical puppet reality show that he is. Or, if by some insane surreal freak show fluke he is the president, we will all survive the 4 years of mayhem and come out having learned a thing or two about our own ignorance buying into this media control system shit show, and vote in someone real for a change.
    Because, the only way to change a dysfunctional corrupt two party system is to stop buying into it.


    • Still not voting Hillary

      Still not asking you to vote for her. Not asking you to vote FOR or AGAINST anybody.

      anyone who thinks he,is no matter what party you are for is clueless dimwit. ( not to lower myself to your condensending rude level) but seriously.

      Yes, seriously, thank you for not lowering yourself.

      the only way to change a dysfunctional corrupt two party system is to stop buying into it.

      THIS is what my rant was about (though I’m guessing you skipped over that part of the rant). You can’t change a dysfunctional corrupt two-party system by voting for a third party every four years. You change the system by building a third party from the ground up. That’s hard work and it requires dedication and persistence from a LOT of people over a big chunk of time.

      You vote for progressives for the Town Council, and for the County Planning Commission, and for your State legislature. You construct a solid base and expand it. But complaining about the fact that there’s no viable third party candidate RIGHT NOW is pretty fucking useless. You can make it sound noble and say you’re voting for your principles — and yay for that, I’m all for voting for your principles. But unless your principles also include doing the grunt of building a viable third party, I’m just not impressed.

      Me, I’m a Democrat. I supported Bernie Sanders up to a couple of months ago. Now I’ll support Hillary, because unlike you, I’m NOT willing to put up with what you call “4 years of mayhem” just to teach Democrats a lesson. Because if Trump were, by some weird confluence of events, to win, we’d see more extreme limits on a woman’s right to choose. We’d see poor folks lose their health care. We’d see more restrictions on the rights of LGBT folks. We’d see a more conservative Supreme Court that would last for another couple of decades.

      You may be okay with that; I’m not.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I remember when Reagan ran against Carter and no one thought Reagan would win. Well, he did. So I don’t understand you’re saying Trump won’t win. How do you know?


      • Reagan was pretty cool about how he got his ratings up. He made an illegal deal to trade hostages for weapons. He held up the release of the hostages in Iran so that Carter would look weak. Thats right, the hostages didn’t need to stay as long as they did. St. Reagan kept them there.

        Then he had alzheimer’s in office but didn’t bother to tell anyone. Yeah he was a peach. You can follow his actions straight to 9/11, by arming Bin Laden and Saddam.

        He also decided Ketchup was counted as a vegetable for your school kid’s lunch.

        Both huge and small things Reagan showed he didn’t give a damn.

        Carter was the last genuinely good man to set in the hot seat. We replaced him with a criminal.


  10. “Trump is not going to be president. He is going to self destruct and/ or be found out to be the farcical puppet reality show that he is. Or, if by some insane surreal freak show fluke he is the president, we will all survive the 4 years of mayhem and come out having learned a thing or two about our own ignorance buying into this media control system shit show, and vote in someone real for a change….”

    You appear to be quite naive, myopic and/or irrationally optimistic that ‘cancelling’ the Trump freak show presidency is as easy as cancelling a TV show. I’m not sure how much more of a reality check you need to see how ignorant and destructive he is- and with that lack of critical logic, how destructive and potentially irreparable his actions would be.

    Shall we skip the fact that his campaign manager was (is still?) a shill for ex-Soviet governments, that his prime time Gen Flynn was also compensated by Putin’s government? In the process of Trump’s self-destruction (already in progress), damage will be done. His vitriolic speech leads to heightened tension instead of progress.

    Here’s a question- do you expect Trump to survive his entire four years? If not, will he be impeached, quit or die in office? Of course, then the keys get tossed to Gov Dense. As a resident of Indiana, I, as well as many, many of my conservative friends are extremely glad to see him out of the gubernatorial race. Even Repubs in office (Brian Bosma and others) have

    Liked by 3 people

  11. the comments, some are funny. what I find most amusing about the Greens is their whole “both parties are alike” it started in 2000 with Nadar and gets repeated every election. bit like the NRA saying they’re taking our guns! in 16 years the Greens have a presence in one state. they have no congressional support and have not built a party, a base any following. they show up every four years yell “both parties are alike” and disappear for 4 years. if they want my vote, build a party.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Trump is incapable of carrying an intelligent conversation. He almost has Short Term Memory Loss, according to his former ghost-writer, Tony Schwartz. Of course he will self-destruct (and he will take down some others in the collapse.) He’s getting old and his mind is not going to get better. (“What would Dory do?”)


  13. The Democrats and Republicans are gangs. They protect their turf. How could we expect any different? Elections will not change with either of them in power. While change is MORE possible at the local level, 60%+ of the electorate doesn’t vote AT ALL. For all kinds of reasons. Why not a national voting holiday? So everyone has the opportunity to get to the polls? Gerrymandering anyone? Bueller … Bueller … Bueller? Redistricting to keep power is a fraud all in it’s own. How about keeping the paper ballots so we can do an actual recount? This digital shit is too easy to fake. There have been congressional hearings about the ease of faking results. People being dropped from the polling for no reason at all? And then when they go to vote they can’t. Why do we need to rely on a list at all? When we see elections in third world countries, do they make sure these people have ID? No, they dye their finger and everyone knows they voted. Are people going to fly in from foreign lands to upset the vote? Maybe they will. OK keep the list, add the dyed fingers. It would be a great patriotic symbol to see a large group of voters holding up their fingers to show that they voted. Actual voter fraud is such a small problem, it isn’t worth much discussion at all. It is the systemic fraud that needs to be examined.

    We need to get money out of politics, give free TV/Radio time to viable candidates of any party. (Australia has a pretty good system for this.) Seriously, we gave these people the airwaves for NOTHING. It isn’t too much to ask for in return is it?

    We also have to remember that most of these politicians chose this as a CAREER. Maybe a first, maybe a third, but saying what people want to hear to continue to get elected is disingenuous at best. I want to see real change, not hear things that make me smile as I dream. The tactics you are preaching about will take a LIFETIME to exact change. Do we have that long? We all exist on the same planet and the things we are doing to it, here and abroad are destroying it. Slowly, but surely. War, disease, hunger, pollution, slave wages; all continue. With a refocusing of effort these are solvable issues to one degree or another.

    The TEA PARTY are Republicans. They already had financial backing and with money you can get people to canvass for you. The door-knocking and phone polling stuff we all enjoy. The third parties need more money. More votes = more money. Who throws money/time away on a guaranteed loser? Even if you believe in their candidacy. A vote doesn’t cost you anything. Not to mention the people most likely to vote for a third party don’t have a lot of money to begin with. Of course Bernie made a stand with the average donation of $27, but he had a party apparatus to tap. He’s a third party candidate that switched to the Democrats to get that machine working for him. Even if they were manipulating things behind the scenes to screw him. Much like Vince McMahon did to Brett Hart.

    Third parties claw for every dollar/vote. Getting on the ballot alone is a massive task. These are not small things you are advocating. These are massive changes to thought and action that are built into our culture. Voting for Hillary or Trump won’t help fix these things. There is no incentive for them to level the playing field. Grassroots efforts are a start, but we really could’ve used a Bernie presidency to help right the ship. I still have hope. He didn’t concede to Hillary. So all of his delegates will still be with him at the convention. Fingers crossed.


    • we really could’ve used a Bernie presidency to help right the ship. I still have hope. He didn’t concede to Hillary.

      Well, yeah, he basically conceded. When you say your opponent has won and you’re going to work for her, that’s conceding. And while I was — and still am — a Bernie supporter, the LAST thing the Democrats need is a contested convention.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I completely disagree. He didn’t give up the delegates so he didn’t concede. He said he was going to work very hard to make sure Trump isn’t elected. Hardly an endorsement. In this situation semantics matter. A lot.


      • he didn’t concede. He said he was going to work very hard to make sure Trump isn’t elected. Hardly an endorsement. In this situation semantics matter

        Okay, Bernie didn’t use the term ‘concede’. But this is exactly what he DID say: “Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process. And I congratulate here for that. She will be the Democratic nominee for president. And I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States.”

        I think the acknowledgement that she’s going to be the nominee is tantamount to conceding that he will NOT be the nominee.


  14. Even though I see a huge difference between Hillary and Trump, I don’t think badmouthing and calling other people’s ideas “stupid” or even worse, saying that people are basically stupid for supporting Trump, is actually going to convince anybody to vote for Clinton.


  15. I agree with everything you say, except I don’t see where it follows that voting for a 3rd party in local elections will accomplish anything either. Our whole system inherently, albeit maybe accidently, promotes two parties. Once in a great while a 3rd party is in position to replace a collapsing 2nd party, but that hasn’t happened since 1860. What does work at the local level is to replace the guts of an existing party, as the Tea Party has done to the Republican Party. Your point remains, though, that long-term local organization is required.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think what you are mentioning is called « Duverger’s Law ».

      “In political science, Duverger’s law is a principle which states that plurality-rule elections (such as first past the post) structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system, and that “the double ballot majority system and proportional representation tend to favor multipartism.”[1][2] The discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a “law” or principle. ” — [ ]**

      thus, any wish for third party, is to be futile, unless the plurality-rule, and single-member system is changed. thus, this is the way it goes in normal years, but for some transition: as it can happen if the worst case scenario comes about that the GOP splits.

      ** I know, Wikipedia, but it is a place to start with the generalization.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. No difference between the candidates? No difference between the parties? Republicans hate everyone and everything that isn’t God (Baptist preferred and Christian only, of course) or guns. As exhibited by their platform and rhetoric, they hate gays, blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, women who have opinions, national parks, conservation, war heroes who aren’t Democrat, intellectuals and a whole laundry list of populations and things. They do love fearful people though because without them they wouldn’t have this modern, extremist version of their party. By contrast, Democrats try to help the less fortunate (I know, I know…costs money…so evil) and the overlooked. They try to come up with real solutions to world problems, not just reactionary responses full of bravado and anger. They care about the environment, victims of gun violence, religious freedom. They are inclusive of all races, religions, nationalities and they’re optimistic. That’s the fundamental difference. Just put any two speeches side-by-side, Republican and Democrat, and ask a group of four-year-olds to describe them. Ask the child, which is friendlier, more caring? Which is “mean”? It would be clear just how different the parties are. Do both parties stew in hypocrisy?. Yes. Do both parties have their share of corruption and mistakes? No doubt. But the hateful rhetoric? That’s the signature of one party alone. The Republican Party. And that’s the purest difference.

    Liked by 3 people

    • among the party difference, which the GOP has flaunted, and few Dems seem to mention: the Supreme Court.

      if not only for the pending nomination, perhaps one or two more nominees. it is clear that DJT will just do as told, which means very conservative nominees, and now with Pence (if the NYT article about DJT just wanting to be a figurehead, or the president with a “ghost-VP” doing domestic *and* foreign policy), then even more of an imperative.

      there could always be a hot-button issue in other elections of two bad choices… though it seems that this one can be with greater long-term repercussion with the points you mention.

      Liked by 2 people

  17. No more elections, the military must overthrow the communist socialist liberal atheist homosexual abortio9nist regime and put Donald Trump into power as Dictator for life. Kenyan Muslim nigger traitor piece of shit and infected diseased cunt whore Hillary must both be assassinated. WHITE POWER NOW AND FOREVER!!!


  18. You wanted to write a thoughtful, well-researched analysis, but settled for an emotional rant. That’s nature’s way of telling you that a thoughtful, well-researched analysis would not have yielded the conclusions you wanted.

    Sanders betrayed his ideals by voting for a candidate that he himself said was unqualified for the job, both personally, and unqualified, by virtue of being the Wall Street Candidate. If the Wall Street backed candidate is eminently qualified, then Sanders’ entire candidacy was a lie. Your defense, that he said he’d do it all along is no defense at all. It just means that he betrayed his values long ago, or was never serious about them, and only wanted a book deal.

    You’re so anxious to have someone to hate… every sentence of your article oozes this fact, that you are unable to think logically, and continually get the wrong answers in ways like these. Enforcing immigration law like every other country somehow “feels” medieval, so it must be. You think with your knee, not your head.


  19. Totally agree with your position that there is a difference between Clinton and Trump (or between almost any normal human and Trump, for that matter), but your statements/assumptions on the two “major” political parties is deeply flawed and, quite frankly, inaccurate. You are essentially saying that any new party – to be viable – must begin with a “bottom-up” grassroots organization (“You want your vote to count? Vote in local elections. Vote in County and State elections. Elect your third-party candidates to the School Board, or the Board of Supervisors………”). Hpowever, neither of the two “major” parti4s that you embrace in your article did what you now expect a new party to do. The Democrat Party was founded within the context of the NATIONAL debate between Jefferson and Hamilton over the relative power between the Federal and State Governments; the Republican Party emerged out of the NATIONAL debate and issues surrounding slavery and the balance of power between slave and free states. Both of those were “top-down” in origin – both began within the context of Presidential elections and both worked to build grassroots support and organization after they had achieved national attention in the Presidential elections. The other major flaw in your is the implication that running and organizing in local elections is required for any new party to be legit. But, today’s local elections are funded and supported by the two “major” National Parties and very often with money from very powerful national- and even international-level PACs. It is common practice for millions of dollars from Texas billionaires or national environmental PACs to be funneled through the national organizations to local elections to make sure the right candidates are elected in other states and localities. The national Democrat and Republican parties run well-organized, far-reaching national networks that target state and local elections and pour money into those on which they can build their national power base. That’s not at all the kind of “grassroots” campaign you now expect a new party to adhere to. There is no way a local candidate can fight that kind of “top-down” power and money. No, if a new party is to come on line and compete in the current two-party oligarchy, it will have to be the same way your beloved Republican/Democrat Party did it – ride a national issue to national prominence in a Presidential election and then build down to the grassroots organization needed to sustain it.


    • No, if a new party is to come on line and compete in the current two-party oligarchy, it will have to be the same way your beloved Republican/Democrat Party did it – ride a national issue to national prominence in a Presidential election and then build down to the grassroots organization needed to sustain it.

      I disagree, obviously, but I like the way you structure your argument.

      If your analysis is correct, that essentially means there hasn’t been either a national issue powerful enough to create a viable third party. I’m not convinced that’s true.

      But I think you and I are talking about different issues. I’m talking about governance. I’m talking about the stuff that everyday citizens have to deal with. If you want your local library to remain open, you need good people on the town council. If you want your kids to have clean water to drink, you need good people on the Water Commission. If you want abortion to be available in your state, you need good people in the State Legislature. If you want your kids to learn science in school, you need good people on the School Board.

      The issues that shape our daily lives are mostly decided at the local, County, and State level.

      Liked by 1 person

      • One of the underplayed & undervalued aspects of the Sanders campaign is that he apparently inspired 6,000+ citizens across the nation to sign up to pursue positions at the local levels.

        This is the same conversation I had with my younger relatives last night- change starts at the local level. We saw that, by & large, much of the social services goals and large infrastructure projects that Obama had pursued- works projects at the peak of the recession as he entered office, were squashed by the Repub Congress. HRC will face the same (as will Trump- who, if you missed it, has promoted ‘infrastructure investment’ as well as high speed rail!).

        POTUS sets a national / global image of our nation but its the local levels that get people engaged (or disenfranchised).

        Liked by 1 person

  20. This was spot on on the issue of local and state government being the place to build a third-party. I couldn’t agree more. That being said I am fed up with the premise that it is a “waste of a vote” to vote for a third-party presidential candidate. The logic that one is “wasting” their vote by voting for a candidate other than a Republican or Democrat is based on the fact that they have no chance of getting elected. Well, thanks to the electoral college, if one lives in a red state Hillary Clinton has no more chance than Jill Stein of winning that state (all that matters in a presidential election) In fact, using this “wasted vote” logic people living in red states would be wasting their vote if they voted for anyone other than Donald Trump. Of course, the opposite is true for blue states. Bottom line in my opinion everyone should vote for the president they feel would be best based on their values. The only people who should even think about holding their nose and voting strategically are those in swing states. And yes, if one believes and a third-party nurture them in local and state elections!


    • The only people who should even think about holding their nose and voting strategically are those in swing states.

      Sadly, I have to agree. Mostly. Everybody should vote their conscience, of course. Sometimes, though, a narrow victory leaves the winner with the public perception of being wounded, and that can inspire the opposition party to undermine the victor. That’s good if you’re part of the opposition, but sucks if you support the winner.

      That’s politics, of course, and maybe it’s a good thing for narrow winners to be hampered in their agenda.


  21. You are very much correct that when it comes to the issues that there is a huge difference. What I think you are failing to hear when people say that there is no difference is that they are talking about the nature and moral fortitude of the individuals who seek office within the current political structure. (Successful) politicians are narcissists by nature who will do anything to be in the limelight and wield power. This is true of both sides.

    The same argument can be made for fundamentalists (of any religion) and atheists. They couldn’t be farther apart in their beliefs, but when it comes to HOW they think about their beliefs, they are both absolutists who refuse to hear any potential value in what the other is saying. But I digress.

    You are also very much correct that it is unrealistic to expect (in the current political structure) for a third part to jump into the top of the food chain. The party must be built up from the bottom. BUT, until the American voters realize that the creation of a third (or fourth or fifth) party might be possible, they will continue to vote only R or D. The power of the third party in the presidential election is that it raises a much larger awareness to this potential than a local election in Fairview Height, Illinois (“where is that?” you ask… exactly… nobody is watching that election). But if a Green party or Libertarian party or Mardi Gras party or whatever candidate can make a showing in the presidential election, then perhaps that party can begin to make headway at the local level and grow into something real. By shutting these third party candidates down, we lock ourselves into the current broken two party system.

    With all that said, I will begrudgingly vote for Secretary Clinton this year as the alternative is (in my not so humble opinion) far too dangerous to ignore. I will not risk voting for a third party this election.

    Liked by 1 person

    • if a Green party or Libertarian party or Mardi Gras party or whatever candidate can make a showing in the presidential election, then perhaps that party can begin to make headway at the local level

      Yes, that may be so. But isn’t the opposite also true? If a Mardi Gras party always runs and always gets badly and repeatedly trounced, doesn’t that make it easier for folks to dismiss the party?


  22. Interesting that the Tea Party was brought in to this now that Obamacare is completely crashing, because it was never sustainable as it was rammed down the country’s throat in the first place. That is what started the Tea Party – – fighting the fiscal idiocy of that plan. In fact ALL of your factoids are nothing more than echo chamber noise & propaganda designed to make people like you who lives off them be rabid with hate & anger, which you just proved. Why don’t you Google how The Obama WH staff have bragged & laughed publicly to reporters how they’ve controlled the press, & LIED to their constituents (you) because you all are so stupid you’ll believe it & help with the echo chamber deceptions they wanted. And finally if you can’t face the fact that the FBI director just skewered Hillary with FACTS that there is Nothing comparable in Trump’s life further destroys your credibility.


    • you all are so stupid you’ll believe it & help with the echo chamber deceptions they wanted.

      You will have much to report when you return to your home planet.


  23. I couldn’t agree less with many of your positions but I, likewise, couldn’t agree more with the basic premise of this rant. Despite the fact that I like him a lot, I will not be voting for Garry Johnson on November eighth. I will be going with the lesser of two evils and, believe it or not, I have come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is not that.


    • I will be going with the lesser of two evils and, believe it or not, I have come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is not that.

      If you believe Trump is the lesser of two evils, then you SHOULD vote for him. I may question your concept of evil, but the only person responsible for your vote is you. That’s how this democracy stuff is supposed to work.


  24. While I agree wholeheartedly with your post that if people want to see other parties get stronger, they need to build up from the local level, I’m afraid that many of the arguments supporting third parties are not based in facts about our American political system. Our country, based on the election system we have, will never support a third (and fourth and fifth) major party. The reason that European countries can support more than two parties is because basically, they have proportional voting systems, where you don’t vote specifically for a candidate but for a party which takes a proportion of the legislative seats based on the percentage of the vote they received. The party with the highest percentage takes control of the government (or forms a government in alliance with other parties) and appoints the country’s leader.

    We have winner-take-all elections, where only one candidate for each office emerges as the winner. That means our elections are always going to come down to two people representing the widest swaths of supporters as possible. It means that you throw your hat in with one candidate or the other because your alternative is, as you have pointed out in your blog and in your comments, throwing your vote away on a losing candidate. So, most people support someone who doesn’t meet all their needs, but enough that their vote isn’t wasted.

    That means that third parties can only become strong enough to replace an existing party, and in the process that means that they will either become the standard bearer of most liberals or most conservatives. This has happened throughout history – the Republican Party was originally a third party that replaced a declining and moribund Whig party. Unfortunately for your argument, they did it by electing a president first, Abraham Lincoln, but that I think was an anomaly – the Whigs were really dead. The Democratic Party replaced the Democratic-Republicans, which had replaced the Federalist faction. With the Republicans in disarray and not unified, it is possible that a third party (Libertarian-driven or disaffected moderate Republicans) could replace the current Republican Party, but it would rapidly come to be a political umbrella representing all different kinds of conservatives.

    But, the people who insist that we need a viable third party to compete with the other two are due to always be disappointed because our system will always default to two major parties, whatever those parties are called or look like in the future – additional ones will always be minor. That’s not to say that they won’t be able to influence policy – the Progressive movement of the early 1900s proposed many ideas that were adopted by the major parties because the Progressives were so strong. Once the major parties adopted changes such as direct election of senators, for allowing initiatives, referenda and recalls at state levels as well as other things, the Progressive movement faded and died.

    Long story short, if you want an electoral system that supports three, four, five or six parties at once – you’ll have to dismantle our whole political system and replace it with a European-style parliamentary system – and that won’t be happening any time soon.


    • Yeah, people like the OP are woefully uninformed. They prefer establishment politicians and ignore that the two parties have done a fantastic job at limiting, in most states, the ability of 3rd parties to gain much traction. People like the OP claim to hate corporate involvement in politics and the influence of money, so they eagerly support campaign finance reform. That reform usually winds up benefiting major parties because they have the organization to handle the paperwork, set up PACs, move money around, and lawyers to fight the FEC. The small parties simply can’t compete and so play very very conservative with the law. I’ve seen countless potential candidates back out because running for office is extremely time consuming in terms of paperwork and a mistake can cost thousands and even jail time.


    • people who insist that we need a viable third party to compete with the other two are due to always be disappointed because our system will always default to two major parties

      I don’t know. You may be right, but there’s nothing institutionally that limits us to two parties. As you almost certainly know, in the 1992 election, Ross Perot received almost 19% of the popular vote. A sustainable political party that could consistently draw a fifth of the voting population might not gain the presidency itself, but could certainly act as kingmaker.


  25. Well I am a Trump supporter, and I agree. There is a huge difference, Thank God!!! For one thing I haven’t seen many Trump supporters dig for so many lowest common denominator words in such a short space!!!


    • I haven’t seen many Trump supporters dig for so many lowest common denominator words in such a short space!!!

      I can only assume you haven’t looked very diligently.


  26. Are your morals so superior that you feel the divine obligation to shove them down the throats of everyone else? Then vote for one of the major candidates. It’s just a matter of which government-worshiping model you devote yourself to – that of the Republicans or the Democrats. And, if someone says something you disagree with, be like the blogger here who has to insult everyone else to make himself feel good and morally superior.

    Seriously, you are no better than the fundamentalist Christian authoritarians that you complain about. It’s all about forcing your will on others and expressing your moral outrage through berating and threats of divine punishment (God or Karma, take your pick.)


  27. Oh get real.
    I know of no intelligent person who just says “there is no difference between Clitnon and Trump.” Of course there is. But there also are things that aren’t that much different between the two. A penchant for war, a belief in fracking, support of big banking, a dislike of free healthcare, free education. There are many key issue on policies that there no difference between the two. You may not like it, but it’s true.
    And yes both major parties are corrupt. If you were a supporter of Sanders you’d know this is part of what he has been saying for the last year.
    I don’t know if voting for a third party this year is going to “force change” but it’s a fact that change is not going to happen by continuing to vote for one of the two major parties. We all know this.
    If it’s true that if democrats “want real change, you have to do the actual grunt work” then maybe you can tell me when that plan kicks in but I’m either not seeing much of an effect on making things better.


  28. I lived through the insanity of Ronald Reagan whose head of the department of interior said that protecting the environment didn’t matter because the Second Coming would make it irrelevant. I watched George Bush Sr. appoint Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court days after Anita Hill testified that he had sexually harassed her in the most discusting manner. I saw George W Bush fail to protect the country from the largest terrorist attack in US history and follow that with two unpaid for wars – while cutting taxes, and then through lax enforcement of banking regulations, crash the global economy. Perhaps the idealists on the left don’t remember their likes turning up their noses to the imperfect Democrats that ran against these country-wreckers. Or perhaps they are doomed to switch from leftists to neoconservatives like the current generation that advised George W Bush. perhaps they are intolerant of the kinds of comprises that democracy requires, like the intransigent members of the Tea party. What I know is that Donald Trump is more wreckless, more ignorant, more naive, and more arrogant than the Republicans I have cited. Perhaps it will take watching everything they care about be crushed before they recognize that there is a difference.


  29. Pingback: link love | Grumpy Rumblings (of the formerly untenured)

  30. Reblogged this on ROAMIN' GNOMIALS and commented:
    I know a few of my more gentle readers will probably object to some of the language in this post, but I’m reblogging it on Roamin’ Gnomials because I believe the message is spot on, which shouldn’t come as any surprise to folks who have already read my own mewling on 2016 presidential sweepstakes. Enjoy!

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Finally, someone is calling out the nitwits. They have very little time to switch from nitwit status to thinking organisms. I’m sure that thinking Americans will not allow Trump to be elected, and I rarely call a presidential election wrongly. What bothers me is that previously intelligent people have been sucked into the black hole that is called Trump. The rest of us will make sure that he is NEVER elected- not even to a city or state job. He has NEVER served anyone, just his own self-interest. How anyone can waste their vote on him is a mystery to me. I hope that the GOP starts to nurture viable candidates so that we can have a real election 8 years from now, after Pres Hillary Clinton has done her two terms in office.


    • I hope that the GOP starts to nurture viable candidates so that we can have a real election 8 years from now,

      It would be great to see principled Republicans again — politicians you could disagree with, but whom you could still respect. They’ve been made unwelcome in the modern GOP.


      • Yes, you are so right! I used to feel that I needed to look at all of the candidates, with an open mind. Now, it’s clearly a choice between (what I perceive as) good and evil. I was a member of the GOP way back during “the campaign to re-elect the President”. That was Richard Nixon’s election to a second term. At that time, young people like myself were recruited to volunteer time and to help “spread the word”. I can’t recall any election which has been between such polar opposites. Clinton v Trump can have only one outcome. In order for our democracy to survive, Mr. Trump must be relegated to what we already know that he does badly- causing businesses to fail.

        Liked by 1 person

  32. Wow that’s some ranting I agree I’m totally NeverTrump and not crazy about Clinton but I’ll have to vote Hillary because Trump mouth is going to start a War here at home and we are all ready in shaky grounds. My family like most of came here in the 1600’s and to see this kind of campaign is a disgrace to our for fathers. I would love to get involved in the local and state levels of government but don’t know where to start. My ancestors left England because of Henry Tudor VIII and damn hate to see history repeat itself such as when the USA lock up Japanese after WWII and hoe Hiltler genocide the Jews because at first he believed they were taking all the jobs away from non Jews it’s all crazy and now here we have Trump wanting to build a wall because of Mexicans just one more rant remember the Berlin Wall how well did that work out?


    • Find your local Dem Group, if your not sure call your county or state Dem Party and they should know which groups are local to you. Go to the meetings, participate in their activities (voter reg, etc), volunteer to be a Precinct Rep which will then allow you to attend and vote in the State Party meetings (in AZ they are held quarterly). At the State Party Meetings you will be able to choose which Caucus you want to participate, i.e., Progressive, Military, Environmental, others… which are usually held in the morning, then in the afternoon the entire group meets to vote on issues that are on the table or have been brought up by various Caucus groups. You will also vote on state party officials. Let it be known you are interested in running for a local. county, or state office. If you join a local group and they don’t seem to be doing much, join your County Dem group which draws from a bigger area and tends to be more active. Hope that helps. The local and county groups will allow you to meet neighbors or others close to you.


  33. Thank u For writing something intelligent.Look at Liberty College and the Jerry Falwell people who r funding the Trump campaign. They are a rich rich cult That believes in Fascist life and is a Religious Right Wing Crazy people.They have expressed their desire to control our Supreme Court and the Constitution and I hope there r enough of us who will Not Allow this with our vote Supreme Court that is what this election is all about

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Federal elections were held in Germany on March 5, 1933. Hitler secured power with 43.91% of the vote. The 1933 election would be the last contested election held in Germany before World War II. It was held after the Nazi seizure of power and the Reichstag fire, just six days before the election. After the Reichstag fire, Hitler could have banned the KPD (the Communists) outright, but he opted not to do so. He believed the KPD’s presence on the ballot could siphon off votes from the Social Democrats. To further ensure a Nazi majority in the vote, Nazi organizations “monitored” the vote process. In Prussia 50,000 members of the SS, SA and Stahlhelm were ordered to monitor the votes as so-called deputy sheriffs or auxiliary police (Hilfspolizei) in another decree by acting Interior Minister Hermann Göring.

    The Nazis got 17,277,180 votes (43.91%).

    Social Democrats got 7,516,243 votes (18.25%).

    Communists got 4,848,058 votes (12.32%).

    A lay Catholic party got 4,424,905 votes (11.25%).

    A Bavarian splinter of that lay Catholic party got 1,073,552 votes (2.73%).

    A conservative and nationalist party got 3,136,760 votes (7.97%).

    So –it seems– the 43.91% who voted Nazi were responsible for all that followed.


  35. There is no need to create a viable third party, they have existed for years. What needs to happen is people need to vote for them, but this never happens.
    Why is this? It is because of hyperbolic nonsense like this which is designed to discourage people from voting third party. This diatribe is a continuation of the broken and corrupt status quo we currently find ourselves in. You are using faulty logic to encourage people to maintain the two-party system, because you are invested in the Democratic Party.
    We have the government we deserve owing to the fact people refuse to stop voting the same old way, and you are not helping things improve.


    • There is no need to create a viable third party, they have existed for years. What needs to happen is people need to vote for them, but this never happens.

      A third party that almost nobody votes for — that’s not exactly viable, is it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • In order for a party to be viable, it needs to have members, lots of them! That is what is stopping the third parties from succeeding, lack of membership. You need people to work campaigns, organize, etc. Just like the other two parties do. It is also one of the problems with politics in general, no one has time to spend working on making the party better, stronger, but they have plenty of time to complain about it.

      Liked by 1 person

  36. Do your own research ‘fuckwit’. Libertarians have been elected at local levels and are currently serving.
    Just because you want to drink the Koolaid and not vote for another party doesn’t mean you should be an ass and try to convince others that their choice isn’t valid. When you lead with name calling, your argument just falls flat. I’m willing to listen and give your opinion a chance but if you just are going to name call and curse then you lose even that.
    Do some research on the Whig Party. I’m sure they said the same thing before they collapsed.


  37. First of all whether there is a difference and I would agree that there is, it matters not to me because I can support neither of them because neither of them come anywhere near a rational policy and both will lead to world war. Perhaps one will happen sooner then with the other and perhaps the motivations for that war will be different. It will still end in war. If I am to vote my conscience (which I will do) I have to vote for someone that shares at least a sizable portion of my beliefs, opinions and concerns which neither Hillary nor Donald can as they have no compassion nor empathy for anyone that they cannot use for their personal goals of personal aggrandizement. Trump will destroy the American Economy by protectionism (mercantilism) if he adheres to his rhetoric (that’s a big if) and Hillary will destroy it by a set of fake free trade deals that will make her husbands NAFTA look like it succeeded in doing the things (lies) he promised the American People in his efforts to sell it and should make the Libertarians extremely ecstatic as they will be able to fuck the world in the name of corporate freedom.


    • neither of them come anywhere near a rational policy and both will lead to world war.

      Wow. A world war? I agree that you shouldn’t vote for anybody you think is likely to start a world war. But lawdy.

      Liked by 1 person

      • What do you mean “lady” the world is at war now. jeez dude, is your eyes wide shut? Who do you think has fomented all this war? Those whose societies have been destroyed or those that destroyed those societies?


      • Lawdy. It’s a Southern expression. And no, the world isn’t at war. The are areas at war, there are regions in conflict, there are territories in dispute, but there’s no world war.


      • Yes, I’m very familiar with LAWDY. Been using it all my life long. Really regional conflicts? Wow, Oh, yes, in the mid 30’s there were a few regional conflicts also during a time of similar economic troubles. But these regional conflicts have one thing in common. Each of the countries that have… can I use the word – degenerated into a state of chaos?… have been put into that state of chaos because of military incursions by and/or for the US of A under each of the dominate political parties of this country beginning in 1979! That was started, however, the great Republican president Ronald Reagan? Right? Wrong. That was Jimmie Carter. However, Reagan was happy to take control and credit for it with his “freedom fighter” aka, The Taliban and al Qaeda, but this process was started by a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress.

        This is to say nothing of the many brutal military dictatorships this nation installed in South and Central American countries, El Salvador and Guatemala being notable examples. Millions died to make the world safe for Democracy in these wars. Once again this was mostly during the Reagan years, but once again this process began under Mr. Carter and Ronnie was of course happy to take control and credit, but it wasn’t all his.

        Then there was the need to “liberate” Kuwait because the Iraqis were dashing babies heads against the walls so they could confiscate the incubators. Lies, of course, but the Democratic Congress bought it and authorized Mr. Poppy Bush to use force (military force, war force).

        Then what happened when the opposition party (the Democrats) took office again? They bombed Bosnia/Herzegovina, as well as Serbia nearly into the stone age during which time he, Mr. Clinton, continued the slow genocide of the Iraqi people started by Poppy (with sanctions almost as repressive as Israel uses against the Gazan Palestinians.) This process caused the death of over 500,000 children under the age of 18 (just checking the age was 5–FIVE YEARS OF AGE WERE THOSE HALF A MILLION innocent children were when they died due to an undeclared war against their leader conducted by the husband of Ms. Clinton*. Of course no shots were fired during this time, oooops, wrong again. Mr. Clinton reigned bombs on Iraq on a steady basis during that time.

        Then in we, The US, had to support the FREE SYRIAN ARMY (another band of freedom fighters) except the majority of those FREE SYRIANS were Saudi Wahabbist just like the FREEDOM FIGHTERS in Afghanistan 30 something years earlier. This was started under the Republican leadership of Barak Obama, oops, sorry again, he is a Democrat, right?

        Then there was another bunch of FREEDOM FIGHTERS come to the fore in Libya, except these guys were Libyan either. It seems they were once again mostly Saudi but this time they were a mixture of Wahabbists and the even more radical Salafists. Never mind they were useful in our desire to rid the world of another EVIL DICTATOR, Muammar Gaddafi.

        P.S. There is one other quick curious fact in all of this that is often, always, overlooked that it wasn’t Iraqis, or Syrians or Iranians, or Libyans or even Afghans who flew two planes into a couple buildings in NYC in 2001. But there is a commonality in all of these little regional wars including the attack on the US homeland. They were all fomented by Saudi’s The great friends of the US Imperium.

        No room, time nor inclination to delve into the “intra-national” conflicts in places like The Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, in wide regions of the Caucasuses, throughout nearly half of Africa and throughout northern Central Asia.

        But I concede, these are all simply regional conflicts. Some hotter than others, but they are all pretty much still ongoing.

        *The woman who declared “We came, we saw, he died” as policies she advocated caused the utter, complete and total disintegration of Libyan society which had been a peaceful state with one of the highest standards of living for its people in the Middle East. That was something Libya had had in common with Iraq before US involvement in each country.


    • You know, you could have stopped reading at any point if you were offended. I’m comfortable using profanity in my blog and I don’t feel any need to censor myself just in case somebody might be offended.


      • Wait, what? She could’ve stopped reading? You don’t have to read a complete post, even if your eyeballs are bleeding? So those three minutes I wasted were entirely—by CHOICE?



  38. There is a difference between the two , but ultimately the end result is the same. We have more debt, more division in society and less Liberty! Yes, Trump wants to build a physical wall and Hillary said she would support a fence in the past, what a huge fucking difference!!!! Do you really believe Hillary Clinton supports you and not her corporate donors? If so, maybe you need to get your head checked . I commend you on your perpetuation of a flawed system that never accomplishes anything of value. Of course we need to change at a local level, No Shit! Most voters only listen to political news in election years, most vote their party all the way down the ballot without even know who they’re voting for or what they represent!! Sheep!! How much change did we get electing Obama? We were still at war… But we got “Affordable healthcare “? And ….? Oh yeah, our debt went from 10 to 19 trillion. How the fuck is that affordable? Why aren’t people outraged by that? THEY ARE THE SAME IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE STEERING OUR COUNRRY INTO THE GROUND, NOT IN THEIR BELIEFS!! Do us a service and write a report on a candidate with integrity that doesn’t pander to the masses. Or, go with your original idea of a thoughtful, well researched analysis on how either one of our “only” choices will accomplish anything worthwhile for our future generations without destroying our economy in the process.


    • I commend you on your perpetuation of a flawed system that never accomplishes anything of value.

      Never accomplishes anything of value? Are you fucking kidding me? What about marriage equality? You didn’t like that? What about gay folks serving openly in the military? What about a 2000% increase in solar installations? What about preventing insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions? You didn’t like any of that? What about opening up diplomatic relations with Cuba? What about cutting unemployment from 10% to 5%? That has no value?

      Yes, the system is flawed, no argument there. But to claim that it never accomplishes anything of value is just…well, stupid.


  39. People who see little difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump do so because they are too extreme to the left (or right) to be trusted with governmental responsibilities in the first place. If you hate compromise so much in this diverse democracy we all live in, you might as well be fascist. Like some REPUBLICANS already are! Remember what happened in the French and Russian Revolutions, you idiots?! Lots of people DIED needlessly because of misplaced idealism! GET FUKING REAL!!!!


  40. The one part you got right was that this was a rant. Void of any coherence or deductive reasoning, just childish name calling and rambling. Three minutes I will never get back.


    • I’m completely crushed by the responsibility of wasting three minutes of your life. Unless those three minutes also include you taking the time to write to tell me how you’ve wasted three minutes of your life. In that case, I’m slightly less crushed by wasting, say, two minutes of your life.


  41. All I know is that if the DNC had truly been interested in winning in Nov. and displaying a real difference between themselves and the RNC they would have allowed a democratic process to determine their candidate; however, since they cheated from the very beginning of the process (eight long years ago) to the very end of that mock process they deserve no, none, notta support from people of conscience.


  42. I agree with the grunt work thing. I would like more Greens and Libertarians to run for state and local. As for the wall. It’s not part of her platform, but Hillary has suggested that we build a “physical barrier” between the USA and Mexico (video footage of a Hillary speech I saw this morning). In reality the president doesn’t have power in regard to social issues. So Trump would meet heavy obstacles in congress to do any abortion, gun control, or immigration reform. Unfortunately the prez does have power over foreign affairs and war. Hillary has a history of voting pro war in countries with large oil reserves, increasing funding to Israel, giving weapons to known genocidal rebels that become terrorist cells, supporting the deposition of dictators with no plan to install a viable system of government resulting in a power vacuum that allows radicals to rise to power, selling arms to dictators with longer track records of human rights violations than the countries she suggested that we invade, and supported air strikes with a kill zone comprised of 90% civilian casualties (actual statistic). And Trump suggested that we bring back torture, that we kill the families of terrorists, that we bomb them more, and asked why we can’t nuke them. Guantanamo never went away, so we’re likely still torturing people. Non-discriminatory air strikes are definitely enticing citizens to join terrorist cells, and are likely killing terrorist family members. Lastly, the USA won’t nuke the Middle East because we would have corporate backlash and congress would fight him. No they’re not the same. Hillary has not suggested nuclear conflict.


  43. If you think there’s no difference between Trump and HRC, then think about Trump with the nuclear launch codes and think again.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s