[eli_gottlieb]

There's a difference between saying "Group X is pretty neat" and "Group Y are the only real Americans and should have an exclusive grip on political power."

So for instance, the Democrats run on, "We need equal pay for women." The actual size of the wage gap can be debated as a factual matter (once you factor out different professions and hours-worked, it's usually about 5-10%). Then the Republicans run on, "Real Americans need to take our country back!", despite their "real Americans" (as a conjunction of features) composing a minority group that's only 20% of the country[1].

One of them plays the identity politics of inclusion, often duplicitously. The other plays the identity politics of exclusion and minority rule, often honestly.

There's a vast difference between obnoxious campaign rhetoric along the lines of Clinton and an organized decades-long campaign to disenfranchise people who don't vote the way you want or don't share your conjunction of identity features.

[1] -- http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/only-20-percent-of-voter...

[phd514]

Stubbornly insisting that your party of choice holds the moral high ground and the other side is morally reprehensible is only going to get you President Trump. You'd do much better to assume that your political opponents voted the way they did in spite of those issues you consider immoral rather than because of them and then see where you can find common ground to work with them.

[eli_gottlieb]

You should notice how I didn't refer to either party as mine, and specifically called them both "capitalist parties", which for me is a term of insult.

My objection is that if I work outside the two-party electoral system I am labelled a lunatic and potentially even criminal, while if I work inside it, my voice is diluted for partisan advantage.

[zeveb]

> One of them plays the identity politics of inclusion, often duplicitously. The other plays the identity politics of exclusion and minority rule, often honestly.

I don't think that's really fair: the difference is regarding whom they exclude & whom the include. Democrats, for example, appear to be quite glad to exclude Christians.

[eli_gottlieb]

In what sense have Democrats acted to legally disenfranchise Christian voters, ie: to keep them from the polls, override their voices, or reduce their voter efficiency? I don't even like the Dems, but the simple fact is that they're on the defensive with regards to voter efficiency right now, so they haven't had the opportunity and power to disenfranchise people in the same way as the Republicans have.

[jsmith0295]

Well they failed to do it but given the opportunity they would have used immigration and amnesty to shift demographics in order to dilute these people's votes (and make money for their donors by holding labor costs down)