I think you are correct. Also, Amy wouldn't bring all that much support that Joe can't get on his own. barfo
He wasn't the one that confused his wife for his sister last night. Then again, that might have been deliberate by Bernie to appeal to another kind of viewer.
Joe Biden isn't a fairly normal person. You may see him that way, but that isn't the case. His voting record shows him to be a corporate/establishment shill. He voted for Nafta, the Iraq war, the list goes on and on. Biden and Obama didn't do jack for America. Ronald Reagan took America off of the New Deal and put us on trickle down. Bill Clinton knew Nafta was no good for America yet he signed it anyway even though it was a bill that was passed to him by Bush Sr's administration. Bill Clinton didn't take America off of trickle down, neither did Obama. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. During Obama's administration we found out that billionaires are hiding their money in offshore tax shelters, Obama didn't go after that money, neither will Trump. I could go on and on all day long showing how both parties work for the elite class over the rest of us Americans. So I see so little in difference in their policies that makes me see the two parties any differently. Both parties have no morals left. I can't split hairs any further than that.
So, if I'm understanding you right, the only issue you care about is corruption, which is defined as how well protected the interests of corporations are? Issues like racial injustice, LGBT rights, health care access, etc, aren't relevant at all? Though, even if that is the one and only thing you grade on, there are still differences between the parties. While both have certainly protected corporate interests to some extent, Democrats have been the party more interested in campaign finance reform to reduce the effect of money in elections, the ones who protested and have tried to reverse the Supreme Court decision to designate corporations as "people," the ones who have tried to push through regulations on Wall Street. That hardly makes them pristine and without sin, but they still do more for the one thing you care about than Republicans. Saying "I don't care about better if it's not perfect" gets you even less of what you want.
Of course their are subtle differences between the two parties, I am not arguing that. I don't see any difference between one parties swamp selling out America over the other parties swamp selling us out. It is not the only issue I care about, but corruption is the only one that really matters. You can't deal with the rest of America's problems as corrupt as our two parties are, plain and simple. They never came up until now. They are relevant but not nearly so as the corruption in our American politics is. Our democracy is being attacked by both parties. I see that as the biggest threat to our freedom than anything other issue. So you agree they are corrupt? It is not to some extent, it is to the corporations/billionaires benefit over the benefit of the rest of Americans. Personally, I don't think that austerity looks good on America. Here is a sample of our corrupt system. For anyone who doesn't see it yet, or just wants to learn more. I know, I see things very differently to other people.
If that's your definition of "corrupt," then yes. The point is, one of the parties does try to put some restrictions on the power of corporations, in the form of regulations. One of the parties is "less corrupt." What's the point in ignoring that? If you ignore one of the parties being less of what you consider evil, then you're not creating any incentive to move in that direction.
I think some of the regulations are signs of their corruption, maybe not always, but ridiculous rules and regulations don't usually hurt large businesses, they typically hurt small ones. Big corporations can cope, while their competition gets snuffed out by regulations that are put in place as a hurdle to their success. Edit: I do realize that some regulations have merit, and there is a balance, but I think there are at times regulations put in place that Large Corporations push for because they know their competition doesn't have the capital or other resources to deal with it. I think this is where crony capitalism comes into play too. Hey law-makers we'll make you rich if you push this bill through that keeps our competition from being able to compete, and we'll look like it really hurts us, but it doesn't.
You are arguing in a circle. Here we are back to the "lesser of two evils" argument, yet again. You don't get how I see things, lets move on. Now I am being accused, yet again, of something in this thread. It would be just as simple of me to accuse you of ignoring democrat corruption. See how that works? It doesn't get us anywhere in a conversation. So lets not go there either shall we. If you would like to rethink your points I will listen. But I also don't argue like most people do either.
But I'm not ignoring "Democratic corruption." I'm agreeing that they also do some protecting of corporate interests. So, no, I don't see how that works. You are quite literally ignoring that the Democrats do more of what you want to happen by saying "Corruption is corruption, being less corrupt is 'lesser of two evils' and I don't care." Less of a bad thing should be chosen over more of a bad thing. Assuming you don't like that bad thing and want less of it in the world.
I didn't say all regulations are good or hurt big corporations. In an earlier post, I identified specific ones.
A republican hits you in the face with a baseball bat, then a democrat comes along and does the same thing, then sits you down and gives you a band-aid. That doesn't make the democrat better. (That seems to be the basis of your argument. It's flawed logic.) You just don't get how I see things. It would probably be best to just agree to disagree at this point. I don't see this conversation going anywhere. Edit: Telling me that I am ignoring anything isn't helpful. It's like you are trying to read my mind. If that is your stance, we might as well have a hypothetical conversation, or just lie like Trump.
The point is that parties are made of different individuals and factions. Yes, some Democrats are fine with "hitting you with a baseball bat." But others in the party want to ban hitting people with baseball bats. Whereas, nearly all of the other party wants the right to hit you with a baseball bat. The party that has a significant number that want to ban that activity has a far greater chance of getting where you want it to be. That's the basis of my argument. If you'd prefer to stop talking about it with me, I'm okay with that. I like discussing things with people with different perspectives, but I won't force discussion on anyone who specifically doesn't want it.
The basis of your argument is flawed. I don't see how people get sold on this lesser of two evils stuff. Trump might sell America down the river faster than Biden will, but America will be just as sold none the less. Stop accusing me of crap and I would be happy to (being autistic you might as well tell me that I am lying), you usually seem like a reasonable poster. As soon as people make a conversation personal, they lose the argument with me. I am done for the day. Talking to humans is exhausting. Take it easy everyone.
Sorry you felt that I made it personal, that wasn't my intention. I've never considered telling someone that I feel they're ignoring a salient (as I see it) fact to be a personal attack. I wouldn't take it personally if someone told me they felt I was ignoring something. Clearly we see that differently.
