You generalize severely, but no, there are NOT massive differences between what the democrats and republicans are offering in the US (there is a real world beyond MSNBC right wing partisan democrats); just look at the "bipartisan deficit commission" and the DOD and you'll find a consensus on the matters that effect most people. A vote for R or D is a vote for more of the same, they both are enslaved to the same monied interests. The corporations and casino capitalists are the ones running the United States, that is the point of Occupy Wall Street, and my point was you can occupy it and change the system now; you won't be able to vote today even if you believe it's your duty to; the election is a year away, and the political landscape at that point can be radically changed by an uprising NOW. We can hold all the politicians accountable for their actions NOW; sitting around and thinking of how you'll vote in Obama despite his betrayals and otherwise doing nothing until then is not accountability. It is my civic duty to overthrow the system and the old s
bags that prop it up; subversion is the solution, not passively following the rules. It is the duty of the younger generations to throw off the bondage of broken democracies and make something new.
I envy Egypt, not France in today's world; but I'm sure the 75% of eligible voters in the US who didn't vote for Obama in 2008 appreciate you labeling them as the problem. I'm sure they'd come back by stating that you're obviously not aware of what the problem is in the first place. We have a world of options, and we are the ones who have the authority to decide what they are, it isn't up to anyone else. I find the tone of your post to be unbelievably pompous and condescending; you insult me by bringing this down to the lowest common denominator of "should we vote or not vote" when I didn't even comment on that topic in my post. I won't bother reading it next time, that's a promise.
No differences?
Really?
I can understand that the argument can be made that there is not as much difference as some people would like, but reality makes a mockery of those who insist the two parties are the same.
The world the democrats strive for:
1) universal healthcare
2) reduce deficits by increasing taxes on those who can afford it rather than cutting from the poorest people
3) reduce the gap between rich and poor
4) regulate the free market to protect consumers and prevent a relapse of this recession/depression
5) a clean energy future
6) a future where political donations are open and transparent (since the supreme court has ruled money as speech)
The democrats have no achieved all of this, but they are inching in that direction, being obstructed at every turn.
By contrast, the Republicans are pushing to move the country in a very different direction
1) end as many entitlement programs as possible
2) privatise programs that can't be ended
3) protect the rich from paying a cent more than they do now
4) remove as much regulation as possible
5) shrink government so it can't effectively regulate business
6) cripple or kill the Dod Frank act
7) protect big oil (and all big business really)
8) shift the balance of power towards corporations by busting unions and stripping union rights, and removing as much control over the funding of political parties and campaigns as possible
Yes there are similarities, but they are not the same, and pretending they are is as brain-dead as the tea partyers demanding that Obama keep his government hands off their medicare.
As for bi-partisan stuff - that is how you run a country! If no one compromised NOTHING WOULD GET DONE. You can't get everything you want, no one can. So if you are prepared to give up nothing, then no one gets anything. You get things done by giving and getting. That's how democracy works! The only places you don't need to compromise are dictatorships and fantasy worlds.
B.
