To those who say Hillary or Biden and Trump are as bad as each other – I would simply ask yourself to consider the basic m
ath and then journey with me to a more rational understanding of why both parties are certainly not the same.
To those who say Democrats and Republicans are equally dangerous – 2020 has now proved once and for all that only one party is attempting to destroy democracy. See bullet points proving my point at the bottom of this article.
To those of you confronted with opponents who blame both parties, or people who quote a supposed Obama or Clinton “lie,” let this piece become your irrefutable weapon—you need not waste your breath again in pointless circular debates with people who have trouble thinking critically. The following will finally put the last nail into the false false equivalent argument—the last refuge of the Stupidparty disciple.
* @ Oct 2020 – Trumps numbers will likely increase significantly
** The numbers above might be seen as misleading about Trump—hence a quote from Polifact about this confusion. (I would argue that since Trump is clearly under the thumb of Putin—that the Russian assets mentioned below were effectively on loan to the Trump administration).
This claim (see graphic) exaggerates the number of indictments under Trump, in particular, by counting the number of criminal charges filed, rather than the number of people indicted; and it includes the indictments of people who are not part of his administration, such as 25 Russians.
On the whole, however, the indictments under the three GOP presidents do dwarf those under the three Democrats.
“[The Stupidparty] has become an insurgent outlier. It has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition, all but declaring war on the government. The Democratic Party, while no paragon of civic virtue, is more ideologically centered and diverse, protective of the government’s role as it developed over the course of the last century, open to incrementa
l changes in policy fashioned through bargaining with the Republicans, and less disposed to or adept at take-no-prisoners conflict between the parties. This asymmetry between the parties, which journalists and scholars often brush aside or whitewash in a quest for “balance,” constitutes a huge obstacle to effective governance.”
—Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Washington Post op-ed. Mann is the author of It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the Politics of Extremism
The Stupidparty may retort by saying that liberals say stupid things and Democrats are also corrupted by money—and of course they have half a point. I will deal with the money aspect later. But when progressives do say stupid things the comments tend to be flaky, yet well meaning; they are fighting against bigotry, torture, rape, wars, environmental catastrophe, etc. Progressives, by their very nature, are trying to make things better; they are not part of the odious promotion of dangerous nonsense. Rarely do the mistakes made by Democrats lead to the obvious conclusion of being genuinely stupid, ignorant or bigoted.
But don’t take my word for it. We do not need mere opinions when I am always happy for the facts to do the talking.
Der Spiegel Article—Opinion Piece: 
Der Spiegel is a German weekly news magazine published in Hamburg. According to The Economist, Der Spiegel is one of continental Europe’s most influential magazines. After the 2012 conventions—a time when the stars of each party have an opportunity to put their best foot forward on the national stage—it carried the following story by Gregor Peter Schmitz:
“Truth is in short supply. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have become more unabashed in their lies than ever before. With a mainstream media weakened by the appearance of partisan bias and editorial staffs that have been ravaged during the crisis, many of the whoppers won’t be second-guessed.”
The article then observed that, in the assessment of PolitiFact, Democratic misstatements pale when compared to the Stupidparty’s “unscrupulous” tactics. The Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com is, according to Wikipedia, a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets “fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups.” (Wiki)
As Der Speigel’s report (unsurprisingly) discovered, 10% of Romney’s and other leading Republicans’ statements were absolutely false, whilst Obama was totally incorrect 2% (one out of 50) of the time. They do not see any sign that this situation will improve, despite the fact that Ryan’s untruths have become legend. Der Spiegel thus rather incredulously ends with a quote from a Romney pollster:
“Despite all the debate over Ryan’s most recent fibs, ‘We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,’ a defiant Romney pollster, Neil Newhouse, said at a panel hosted by ABC News at the Republican National Convention in Tampa last week.”
Therefore, not only are the Stupidparty lies worse, as demonstrated earlier in this chapter, but they lie 500% more often. But lies work, and this forces even the more honest politicians to stretch the truth more than they would otherwise feel comfortable. If you are playing a competitive game of golf with a blatant and repetitive cheat—and your very career depended on the outcome—I suspect the quality of your sportsmanship might suffer. I will take a mulligan too.
A New York Times op-ed reached the same conclusion:
Kevin M. Kruse, a professor of history at Princeton, is the co-editor, most recently, of Fog of War: The Second World War and the Civil Rights Movement.
This article takes a swing at the bulk of the news media, pointing out that fact-checking is fundamental to journalism but that it had become clear during the 2012 presidential campaign that most journalists were just going through the motions, presenting opposing arguments as if they had equal credibility. The article concludes:
“Fact-checking, once a foundation for all reporting, was now deemed the province of a specialized few. But as this campaign has made clear, not even the dedicated fact-checkers have made much difference. PolitiFact has chronicled 19 ‘pants on fire’ lies by Mr. Romney and 7 by Mr. Obama since 2007, but Mr. Romney’s whoppers have been qualitatively far worse: the ‘apology tour,’ the ‘government takeover of health care,’ the ‘$4,000 tax hike on middle class families,’ the gutting of welfare-to-work rules, the shipment by Chrysler of jobs from Ohio to China.”
A look at the graph below will help quantify what has happened as a result of the Stupidparty infrastructure being treated as if it should be worth listening to. Is it possible that the more you listen, the less informed you get? Well, I think we just demonstrated that in the previous chapter.
Before moving on let me try and compare famous progressive gaffes with Stupidparty gaffes. These gaffes show up prominently on Stupidparty blogsites:
- Joe Biden on culturalism: “In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”
Awkward, yes. Not mean-spirited or necessarily ignorant.
- John Conyers on the Affordable Care Act, which he voted for: “I love these members; they get up and say, ‘Read the bill’ . . . What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
Impolitic. Not untruthful.
- Former DNC Chairman Donald Fowleron possible delay of Republican National Convention due to Hurricane Gustav: “Plus, they think the hurricane’s going to hit [starts laughing] New Orleans about the time they start. The timing, at least it appears now, that it’ll be there Monday. That just demonstrates God’s on our side.”
A very ironic and totally appropriate and deserved joke.
- Barack Obama: “I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
Obama is not Palin. Campaign fatigue. One suspects that if a Stupidparty Disciple knows how many states there are, in order to record this quote, we can presume Obama does.
- John Kerry on the troops: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
Kerry speech had prepared notes, and what he wrote on those notes was . . . “if you don’t, you get us stuck in Iraq, just ask President Bush”—the underlined words, he accidentally dropped. (Wiki)
- Howard Dean: “We know that no one person can succeed unless everybody else succeeds.”
Clumsy but harmless.
- Al Gore: “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” March 9, 1999.
Al Gore did not invent the Internet. What’s more, he never said he did! However, his contributions to the development of the Internet as we know it were quite significant.
Now we should look at the leading candidates running to be President.
I noted that Ted Cruz has told the truth once. I was wondering how was that possible. No—not that he lies so often—he is just a ghastly human being. No, I was more interested in what could have possibly motivated this charlatan to let truth slip into his vernacular. Interestingly enough it was while attacking the government that he accidentally somehow told the truth. He complained that the government was regulating the need to have wheelchair accessible public bathrooms. So in his moment of truth he was unwittingly revealing what a little shit he is. Now let us compare these guys with the Democrat opposition. Apparently Ted Cruz has a better record with the truth than Donald Trump or Ben Carson—who themselves literally have an infinitely worse record that the Democrats:
What is also notable is how these numbers dovetail with the research of Der Spiegel, which they did after the 2012 convention speeches. Der Spiegel correctly feared that the situation would get worse. If one simply focuses on the “false” column we can now verify what Der Spiegel concluded—that the Stupidparty tells lies 400% more often. But as has been pointed out, it is not simply the frequency of such lies that we have to consider, but the severity.
So I was interested in Hillary’s two pants on fire lies.
First: “I remember landing under sniper fire.” Yes this does appear to be untrue, but evidently she had been advised that they might be landing under sniper fire—but, her hyperbole was just a fraction of the multiple sins of Brian Williams, and journalists must be held to higher standard than politicians. Anyone who can stand up to eleven hours of congressional persecution, without taking a single hit, well that is sort of proof of a fundamentally honest person. Lying makes life so much more complex, and a pattern of lies would become impossible to sustain. Therefore, in respect to the wide ranging Benghazi affair, where the prosecution team had virtually unlimited funds, an enormous amount of public and private records; it was very telling to witness a faultless performance by Clinton. The prosecutors became ever more desperate, uncouth and pathetic in their attempts to create a scandal. At the end of the day, it was transparently clear who the bad guys were.
Her second “pants on fire” statement: Obama “basically threatened to bomb Pakistan.” The reason why Hillary lost the primary against Obama was because at the time she was being cowardly and, on occasion, she liked to link her message to John McCain’s in order to try and cement the image of Obama being too inexperienced to be Commander-in-Chief. Here she was just channeling John McCain. But really, was it so bad? The point that they were both making was that Obama was willing to be a lot more aggressive in pursuing Bin Laden than McCain or Hillary. Now we can see with the benefit of hindsight that Hillary and McCain were quite correct—Obama was far more willing to push the envelope. So was she being disloyal to the party and cowardly? Yes. But she paid the price and made amends by the way she and Bill Clinton helped Obama.
Thus both her “pants on fire” statements are really quite minor points, and can be quietly easily explained. Accusing Obama of “basically” threatening to bomb Pakistan, while slightly misleading, was just summing up an attitude, a “can-do” attitude that had been missing up to that point. It’s a bit like me saying I might want kick someone in the balls, such as people who drone on about both parties being equally bad. It is more of a statement of attitude than a real intent to maim—i.e. I might be prepared to break social conventions of not discussing the world’s three most interesting questions—sex, religion and politics—so that I do not actually have to kick someone in the balls.
Now let’s compare Hillary’s minor gaffes to Trump:
Now try to explain that! A lie that incites bigotry, and adds to the false narrative about how the government functions, thus making people stupider. Much the same can be said for many of the rest of this selection of the “pants on fire” lies:
“I never said that” Marco Rubio was Mark Zuckerberg’s personal senator.
Bernie Sanders’s plan is “to raise your taxes to 90 percent.”
The unemployment rate may be as high as “42 percent.”
“The Mexican government … they send the bad ones over.”
Now I am still concerned that some people may be having difficulty in visualizing what I am actually proving. Can you blame me? When is this ever discussed? So I wanted to try and create a visual that would simply ram the facts down in a way that cannot be immediately spat out. What few people seem to discuss is that lying is a three-dimensional issue; one needs to register both the frequency and the severity of the lies.
If you look at the volume of lies, Ben Carson lies are about 1000% more voluminous than Bernie Sanders lies.
Egregious lies are deadly. People get killed. We have seen that from the South Carolina shooting, the Colorado planned parenthood shooting and many other versions of domestic terrorism. Egregious liars, winding up Stupidparty disciples this is is a predictably deadly recipe. Take it away Ben Carson, help us visualize false equivalence, help us understand why Stupidparty is the equivalent to mayhem and death.
Now that we have proven the extent to which the Stupidparty is so very different from the Democratic Party, let us study a live example of the differences. Please watch this short video clip very closely, because it is easy to miss the really interesting part.
So my colleague Jason Newell has already had fun with this clip and he writes about Trump’s continual bouts of verbal diarrhea in his satirical piece, “The Birther-in-(Wannabe) Chief – Trump’s Most Uninformed Statements.” But I have become so numbed by nonsense from these guys that that was not what really caught my attention.
I do not really want to research all the nonsense spouted by Trump below, but clearly the questioner tried and failed to correct Trump’s misinformed rant. Again, that is not the really interesting part. Now below see the screen shot just before Rand Paul knee caps Donald Trump—towards the end of the above video. It would appear that everyone else on the stage is oblivious to Trump’s ignorance. I have replayed these four seconds of action time and time again.
Now I looked at a different video to try and see who understood what Rand Paul was talking about—and this is the screen shot was taken about three seconds later…
So who gets it? Trump just belligerently puffs out his chest, Carly Fiorina not the slightest glimmer—all we get is that “face” (as Trump would put it). Jeb Bush gets it. Does anyone else?
The below video will be clearer: What you are looking at occurs from 4 to 8 seconds into the clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvVMvPQdJ4Q
Trump has just said something incredibly stupid, gets nailed and, yet with the exception of Jeb Bush, who looks around to see if anyone else is interested, gets nothing but blank stares—no one else on the stage seems remotely interested. This must be because Stupid is the norm; it is the benchmark.
So now just imagine if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders had made such a statement. It would not only be on the news cycle 24/7, it would also presage the end of their campaign. No objective informed viewer tolerates ignorance from the Democratic leaders. But such ignorance makes barely a ripple in Stupidparty land because Stupidparty is what they are: hiding in plain sight within its perfect camouflage. We watch the debates, the interviews with such low expectations—i.e. everything around them is so Stupidparty—therefore, stupid becomes invisible, hiding in itself.
So false equivalence that!
The people who promote false equivalence, the very people who have created this alternate universe paradigm, have one remaining argument. “Both parties accept money from the Oligarchs” and they are correct. But the Democrats have to accept such money to stay in the game, and they are clearly less corrupted by this money. Climate change denial anyone? So yes, Democrats are corrupted by such money—but it is a relative equation. They are probably corrupted by money to the same proportion that they have surrendered their integrity, as measured in the charts above.
Still do not believe me? Well here is the ultimate test, the easiest test. First, figure out what needs to be done to salvage American democracy (at this point we all know that democracy has become a farce). Well I have done the hard part—this is what needs to be done.
Now ask yourself which party is more willing to implement these solutions, solutions that would have vast popular appeal.
So to all you “a pox on both your houses” lightweights, I say—“a pox on your house,” because by making such an argument you are revealing such a lack of insight that is easy to see that your house is more like a shack built in tornado alley. Please quit your infernal whining, grow a backbone, stop being the problem and start to become part of the solution. Welcome home to the land of reality.
Postscipt–
Proof that one party attempted to destroy democracy:
- Efforts to destroy the USPS, and its sorting machines—targeted in densely populated urban areas
- Trumps encouragement of White Supremacist’s (pride boys etal) to stand by... (for an uprising) if the election did not go his way
- The GOP’s refusal to discourage Kidnappings/assassinations of Michigan / Virginia Governorships.
- The GOP’s applauding the fascists’ trying to run Biden’s bus off the road.
- Bill Barr sending in his SS style goons into Portland Oregon
- Bill Barr allowing peaceful protestors to be tear gassed in DC- to prepare for Trumps “stolen Bible” photo op.
- Allowing gun carrying morons to intimidate at voting stations
- Vast majority of GOP Congressman/Senators refusing to congratulate Biden and blocking transition
- Refusing to accept elections results in which Biden won by a large margin
- Lindsay Graham calling up Governors to figure ways of stealing the election
- Louis Gohmert calling for a revolution/Civil war.
- Michigan GOP fanatics initially refusing the certify Michigan election results
- Dark money steering once respected right wing portal – Real Clear Politics– to the fantasy that election had not been won by Biden
- Trumps fires any one who acknowledges the election results.
Mr. Andendall, thank you for this article. The ridiculous “both parties do it” argument has been a point of contention that has made me crazy for the past 10 years. It matters not. when arguing with Stupidparty members, that this premise is so easily debunked. Those who believe this mantra cling to it like it is a life preserver in the ocean.
Initially, I was surprised at the level of stubbornness displayed. But, after the Supreme Court chose the “beliefs” of a family over Science in the Hobby Lobby case, I finally realized the level of stupidity and obstinance we were dealing with and it is breath taking.
Thank you. Bare in mind that this article was designed to be used as tool for you and every one you know -so that you need not re invent the wheel, waste valuable time. Just copy and paste the link -and every time some one makes a silly comment just send them the link and then challenge them to stand by their position.
Thank you so much for your research and statistics. I will absolutely refer MANY to this article. As an earlier commentator stated: This work is a TOOL! ( For Democrats rebutting Republicans of the “stupid party”.
Yes – thank you. obviously the more you can spread this around the better and encourage people to keep it on their desk tops or what ever— as I believe it really nails a massive area of confusion once and for all, and as you say it has been designed as a tool so that you do not end up in speechless fury when any body says that Dems lie too, or do bad things too.
It is a fool who buys into the notion that there can only be two parties. BOTH parties are corrupt and completely useless. Acknowledging this reality does NOT make one stupid. Believing that, somehow or other, one of the corrupt Mafia parties will miraculously change makes one stupid. The only real solution is the creation of alternate parties– you know, like most of the rest of the world, and getting rid of this asinine first-past-the-post electoral system.
And yet you fail to find a flaw in the actual blog. This is why prejudiced opinions are so deadly and only help the dishonest. Therefore in spite of your words you are in fact an ally of Stupidparty – they love you. Well done. Also whilst I have no real issue about your contention regarding first past the post or having more than one party – being two separate issues – neither are black and white issues as painted by you. Italy and Israel come to mind as two examples of where your suggestions have wreaked havoc.Recently the UK has operated quite well as a multiple party first past the post system -but that might be rather by luck than good judgement as in the recent election one could on the one hand be aggrieved that the Conservative could get an over all majority with 38% of the vote, or that the rather suspect Party UKIP with sizable support got virtually no representation – not to mention the odd Scottish dynamic -but if the Country had had proportional representation the voters would not have gotten what they wanted. What the voters wanted was 1) Renegotiated EEC membership, stronger immigration policies,2)Not having the Scottish National party (they are to the left of the Labour party and more parochial)as a member of any coalition Government.This was why the Liberal Vote imploded, and to lesser extent why the labour party performed badly. Giving the voter what they want is complicated. But giving what the American voters what they want is far more difficult because huge sums of money/media/political corruption has been devoted to misleading the public – so now we get back to your false equivalence which simply allows voters to remain ignorant- so the people who espouse your shallow opinions are in fact the most lethal. But I have a test for you -in the following link I lay out the obvious solutions to America’s dying Democracy. I keep it really simple -all you have to do is ask your self the following – which of two parties that we have today would be more willing to adopt these six solutions? Now false equivalence your way out of that! https://stupidpartyland.com/support-the-smartparty-agenda
God, what a weak attempt to address a very clear issue. Call it what you will, it’s not about words, it’s about action, you tell me that trade deals, declining wages, and greater economic stratification haven’t occurred and been fostered by under parties and that’ll be the real lie. Who cares who is better with words or more to the point who talks more since you’re just reduced it to a percentage of lies.
You’re clearly on a team and are blind to their faults, but both parties are worthless to the average person and that narrative will be what is remembered not what percentage of lies which told.
So, to your metrics, I ask you who cares? We can talk about who dresses better too, doesn’t make them any more useful.
I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Since when has been being better with words been a euphemism for not being a bigoted lying toad -promoting war, religious myth, climate death, denial about basic facts. Yes, sure both parties same? – what a moron you are. As long as people like you fall for false equivalence we will have a checkmate. So the problems you complain about are caused by you. I just discuss stupidity/bigotry, other than that you are only guessing as to what to label me as. I deal in facts and stats -you are the one using words to promote meaninglessly destructive opinions. Just imagine how much more could have been achieved if progressive politicians could secure 60 Senate seats, congress and the Supreme Court. Have you not figured out the consequences of Citizens united, Voter Suppression, 70 million American s with Criminal records -have you not figured out who appointed Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are you really that dense? Obama’s economic efforts have been very impressive and would have been much more impressive if he could have passed more stimulus, and more trickle up economic policy -but feeble minded people like you – using false equivalence have created an environment whereby the bigots took over the Congress in 2010. Obama has played the hand he was dealt with great astuteness – any blame lies with the voters, for assisting in the destruction of their own Democracy -an event occurring because of people going around blaming both parties- thus providing cover for the Oligarchs to complete their take over. Thanks a bunch – for doing absolutely nothing but masturbating.
Right because politicians always match rhetoric with action. You’re the densest breed of the politically naive, thinking that you’re supporting something that just isn’t there.
You’re not dealing in facts, you’re dealing in feel-good rhetoric from a party that has allow and promoted the slide to the right in the US.
Show me one fact that you’ve pointed to, not about the words people use. Show me where obama didn’t support the tpp, or cisa, show me where obama got rid of the patriot act, show me where obama didn’t deport immigrants, or worked to eliminate the border fence and the conditions that create so many immigrant deaths a year.
Did obama release large numbers of incarcerated youths whose only crime is smoking pot, or being black while in possession? Did obama not bomb poor brown people like every other president?
You have nothing but empty rhetoric which you are arguing is somehow better than people being honest about their bigotry. Obama wants more or less the same bourgeois state that the republicans want, it wont be less racist or sexist, it might be differently racist or sexist though. A kinder gentler sort of bigotry that fools like you turn a blind eye to in order to defend your team.
I have no idea what you are talking about – I am guessing it is some type of incoherent effort to respond to a blog that you either do not understand or did not read. If I have made a Mathematical error, I am all ears, otherwise you are being just a complete waste of time. I do agree however that America is absurdly right wing, and the Dems are partially responsible – the people who bear responsibility are the voters. Obvious example would be the Public option – there was ZERO Mathematical or intellectual grounds for rejecting it – yet the voters rejected it, as they were happy to be mislead by big money -and too lazy, too incurious to do the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, SIMPLE Math. So believe me I am really always having to contain myself -and that is a lesson that you need to learn.
Your response to the above comment was even more incoherent -so the conversation is over. If you would like to respond intelligently to the blog in question you are quite welcome.
“Anyone who can stand up to eleven hours of congressional persecution, without taking a single hit, well that is sort of proof of a fundamentally honest person.”
I don’t see how her congressional hearing on Benghazi has anything to do with the multiple, blatantly false accounts she gave of landing under sniper fire.
Video evidence:
https://youtu.be/SfaxA9Q-9AQ?t=38s
Consider that this story is integrated into the Math -so your objection is mathematically irrelevant. Yes I agree that this story was an issue, and I never claimed that Dems do not lie I just proved that Stupidparty lies are 1,000% more voluminous, but I guess Math is not your thing. -However this sniper story, it is the only such issue that I am aware of – However one story is not a pattern. If she was not extremely competent and fundamentally honest she would not have been able to survive the Benghazi hearings totally unscathed -in spite of the tens of millions of dollars being spent and dozens of lawyers involved in trying to trap her.
But let us actually think a bit more deeply about the sniper story, this was her explanation – which is not implausible “Now let me tell you what I can remember, OK — because what I was told was that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire. So I misspoke — I didn’t say that in my book or other times but if I said something that made it seem as though there was actual fire — that’s not what I was told,” she told the newspaper.
“I was told we had to land a certain way, we had to have our bulletproof stuff on because of the threat of sniper fire. I was also told that the greeting ceremony had been moved away from the tarmac but that there was this 8-year-old girl and, I can’t, I can’t rush by her, I’ve got to at least greet her — so I greeted her, I took her stuff and then I left. Now that’s my memory of it.
So it sounds like she was just being a tad over dramatic, her calm outside demeanor not betraying what she may have been fearing, or imagining. As a first Lady her security was bound to be zealous – which is bound to leave a mark on one’s psyche. She corrected her statement with in a week. “Clinton at one point blamed the exhaustion of the campaign trail for getting it wrong. She soon joked to Jay Leno about her “lapse,” telling the late-night host she almost didn’t make it to his show because she was “pinned down by sniper fire.”
I have found myself in precarious predicaments and I suspect my retelling of such stories blossoms with each retelling and glass of wine. But yes she was in the wrong.
The largest growth of the population is Indian Americans are moving from India…
Nice Post..
StupidParty should also be labeled SelfishParty. SelfishParty policies like less regulation (I should be able to do whatever I want), less taxes (I shouldn’t have to share my money with anybody), social policies (gays shouldn’t marry because it offends me and MY religion), climate change is a hoax (I should be able to pollute all I want irregardless of consequences to others), school choice (I shouldn’t have to pay for public schooling). Compare this to liberal thinking where their policies focus on raising the standard of living of everybody and being more inclusive and tolerant of those that are different.
Fiscal conservatism, less red tape, moral values are all enticing as a political platform, but we just don’t get that from StupidSelfishParty.
Bare in mind that when I use the term Stupidparty, this is one word, my word and this word is a polite understatement -a euphemism for stuff much worse than Stupid. So selfish yes + much, much, more -much worse.
Those who assert that both parties do it, so there’s no difference between them are saying that 1 = 5 because both are more than zero. Is it any surprise that the Stupidparty contains the bulk of people who are bad at math, insist on seeing things in black and white, and are incapable of understanding nuance?
People who push this false equivalence are just auxiliary members of the Stupidparty.
both sides are not equal. one side deals in lies and bigotry far more than the other but i will say this, both parties are shit. complete and utter shit, both parties end up fucking you.. Just in different ways. what should be done, instead of swallowing the shiniest of two turds with begrudging compliance or feel good false reassurance, is to invest in reforms that allow more people to take to the stands and debate so that we aren’t limited to who got the best PR campaigns, or who got the most money/exposure/establishment support. we need to put less emphasis on these parties and vote based on merit, character, and honesty. not what party they subscribe to, or who they are not. trump and the whole republican circus are terrible, but a vote for a somewhat less smelly piece of shit is still a vote for shit and thus accepting the shitty choices they give you is what really counts as a vote for oligarchy. i say fuck em both, we need new runners who aren’t religious bigots or corrupt corporate whores. this wont happen because people are stupid, as you so thoughtfully pointed out in your article, people see things in black and white all the time. as long as the gullible masses allow idiots to take the helm we will always be limited in piss puddle number one versus shit stain number two. should we let every yahoo have a chance at presidency? no, of course not. however, we should allow for more variety among who we select to be our leaders. of all the things you want the least amount of choices in, the presidency and congress are not one of them. call me an idiot if you like, but i still stand by my fuck em both view point, if that some how leads to a republican presidency then fucking shut up and impeach the bastard. dont sit there and accept the shit they force feed you. pick better fucking runners and work towards keeping the decent human beings in the race and maybe ill participate next time.
“We need… we need ” -you are just delusional – but I have the solutions that you are looking for – figure out the solutions and then vote in a manner that will get you closer to such solutions. Support my “smart party” agenda and stop flailing around in a manner that can only help the stupidparty. i.e Stalemate = Stupidparty wins wins. https://stupidpartyland.com/support-the-smartparty-agenda
The reality for most voters is that a protest vote against the two party monopoly and the electoral system the two parties rigged in their favor is not aiding and abetting the Republicans. Because of the Electoral College, most voters will be unable influence the outcome. Living in Texas, of what benefit to HRC will my casting of a single vote help her win? I agree with you completely for those that live in a swing state, SCOTUS appointments alone require a vote for HRC. But what is the harm of demonstrating a dislike of the two party rigged system, the corrupt Democratic nomination process, the pathetic notion that another Clinton is the automatic nominee (mostly because of name recognition) and the obvious ties HRC has to Wall Street? We all want to see Trump beaten, he is, without question, the most unsuited candidate to ever run for President. But the American People (in non swing states) have an opportunity to send a message to the major parties that they need to represent us and not corporate special interests – and we should seize that opportunity by voting third party in states where the outcome is not in doubt.
Texas is winnable and when Texas flips blue -that will be the end of Stupidparty -meaning it might be possible to one day have an intelligent GOP. America has been going downhill since the JFK assassination and since Texas turned Red- it is the pivotal state, the most important state politically in the union. Trump might well provoke Texas to turn Blue, years ahead of demographic schedule, just in time to stop an Oligarchy dwarfing our Democracy. As the numbers look today, and assuming that many Americans will ultimately not wish to destroy their personal life legacies by voting Trump (like voting for Hitler Germany 1928 -except now with the benefit of hindsight, thus an unforgivable life choice)-then I believe that if I had to be anywhere this election in helping the GOTV effort -the place would be somewhere in Texas. This is not time to farting around with third parties – it sends mixed signals, and allows people to dodge the simple question – are you with fascism or not. End of story. I have some empathy with your view about Clinton being an automatic choice -but bare in mind this is not nepotism – in that she is extraordinarily well qualified and that she is perhaps the most honest politician on the political stage (outside of Obama) and that this contention is not an opinion but a Mathematical fact… https://stupidpartyland.com/1/post/2016/07/hillary-clinton-liar-or-patron-saint-honesty.html
Nice Blog.