[eidjdnekwo]

>Personally I think both parties are not that different.

It frustrates me greatly to see comments like this. It's worth taking a moment to even briefly skim the official platforms of the two major parties. They are profoundly different on a enormous range of substantive issues and policies.

Perhaps there are some issues on which the two parties agree, and certainly there are many political positions which neither party represents. That hardly means that the two parties are "not that different."

[andrewflnr]

The thing that makes them "not that different" is how they both make jokes of their official platforms by their actual decisions.

[tyingq]

That's true for many issues like taxes, entitlements, gun control, immigration, healthcare, abortion, environment, etc.

However, it probably fair to say both parties have most candidates skewed to the middle on many of those issues. Lining up strongly with the party on all of those things doesn't win elections usually. And it's also fair to say both parties have members that will betray those base positions for wealth or power.

I can see why someone would call them similar based on frustration with a two party system that rewards moderates.

[sidlls]

The Platform of the party is worth less than used toilet paper. It literally is meaningless as an example of what the party actually stands for.

[GhostVII]

I kind of agree, in the sense that they are similarly ethical/reasonable. Their platforms couldn't be more different, but I don't see one party being evil and corrupt and the other party being good, which is what often seems to be the opinion online.

[gkgicccj]

It's not about policies. Policies are entirely different but equally self serving.

I'm astounded that there are blacks living in ghettos but Nancy Pelosi shuts Govt down for people who are pondered to by speaking Spanish but paraded as having known no other culture and assimilated.