LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+61 61 0
Published 3 years ago with 6 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • ToixStory
    +8

    This isn't really "they're both the same" so much as rich people hedging their bets. Because, shockingly, rich people want the President to owe them a favor or at least be willing to listen to them because they helped fund their campaign, so of course they'll give money to both sides. It means that whoever wins, the rich person doesn't have to worry that they spent all their money for nothing on the loser and that they won't get any favors as a result.

    • FistfulOfStars
      +1

      You're technically right in that this is just smart money playing both sides...

      But the end result of a Clinton vs Bush win will be the same.

      Further military action to push the same financial and strategic interests, expanded domestic surveillance, the kicking of multiple cans in regard to healthcare and debt, and favoritism for big money and big industry.

      Any differences will be superficial, and only on issues that have no real relevance.

      • ElGuzano
        +3

        Good to know that Social Security & Medicare & the makeup of the Supreme Court have "no real relevance". Here I was naively thinking those things mattered.

        Not to say I disagree with your points about further military action, expanded domestic surveillance, and favoritism for big money & big industry -- those observations are spot on and depressing -- but to extrapolate from those the conclusion that "there is no difference" is just flat out wrong. There are real differences and those differences do matter. While I would love to get someone in office who would really shake up the system for the benefit of all (a guy can dream, eh?), at least we should recognize and acknowledge the difference between a candidate who expressly wants to dismantle the social safety net and one who does not. Pretending that difference doesn't exist serves only destructive purposes.

        • FistfulOfStars
          +1

          I don't believe either will accomplish anything in either direction with SS & Medicare, but I am extremely jaded and hope that I am wrong.

          Regarding the SC appointments, you may have a point.

          I personally find the latter list of issues (military, surveillance, corporate influence) to be of far more concern, however.

          I honestly don't believe that positive change CAN happen in the SS/Medicare situation until after those other issues get out of the way of progress...

          But that is just my own perspective.

  • ElGuzano (edited 3 years ago)
    +4

    As /u/ToixStory says, the fact that the same big donors give to both is just rich people hedging their bets. The idea that this means "there is officially no difference between Jeb and Hillary" is ludicrous. Yes, they're both going to make sure the rich get richer and that corporate interests are protected and that the war machine continues to march on, and yes they're both corrupt power-hungry liars, but just off the top of my head here are a few obvious differences:

    - Jeb will work with Republicans in Congress to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and any other social support program they think they can weaken; Hillary will will not. Even if she capitulates and compromises on some of that she will definitely not make gutting those programs a central goal of her time in office like Jeb will.

    - Jeb will work with Republicans in Congress to undermine as much of the ACA as the courts will allow; Hillary will not.

    - If the Republicans in Congress pass a bill defunding Planned Parenthood, Jeb would sign it; Hillary would veto it.

    - Supreme Court Justice appointments. Duh.

    So the bottom line is, if the election really does come down to this choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, unless you're in the 1% Clinton will fuck your shit up a lot less than Bush will.

Here are some other snaps you may like...