Republicans disbelieve in climate change.
Democrats believe in it.
Both parties promote more polluting activities, although the D's are more coy about it. Highways expansions. Permanent war preparations. Deforestation. Urbanization. Pretending the Earth is getting bigger (and isn't merely round and finite).

Note how many Democrats are calling for Trump's impeachment or pointing out that voter suppression and faith based voting machines put Trump (and Bush/Cheney) into the White House. It's not zero but not much above that.

The Democratic Party never recovered from the coup d'etat of November 22, 1963.

The Democrats of today are like the Republicans of yesterday and the Republicans of today are like the John Birch Society of yesterday.

"Republicans play hardball and the Democrats play hardly have balls." --- Swami Beyondananda

Yeah, the New Repuglican Tax Plan will pay for itself, just like the Iraq War paid for itself...

An Unsung Hero of the Nuclear Age
Maj. Harold Hering and the forbidden question that cost him his career.
By Ron Rosenbaum

article on Slate

Everybody in America, except for a tiny speck of prospective internet profiteers want the internet to remain as flawed as it is, until our young can come up with something better.

I trust them.

Taxes are the way we pay for social projects like highways, schools, parks, police, fire protection and social services. Corporations claim that with decreased taxes that the influx of money (not in government coffers), that we will have such an increase in wealth throughout the economy that spending and expanded business activity will pay for any lost revenue. This can be done work if the corporations and wealthy individuals receiving the bulk of the tax breaks reinvest that money back into their company, by expanding, increasing wages, upgrading equipment and other processes that put the tax relief back into the economy. There is a logic to this philosophy but it does not work if as has been demonstrated over and over for the past 30+years the companies use the money to buy other companies, buys back stocks and other tactics that raise the value of stocks but does not put money into the economy.
If the corporations really feel that this is the way to boost the economy and increase tax revenues, then they should put their money where their mouth is and put this practice into their company. For example, if a power company wants to expand their revenue they should cut the cost per kW, because the money saved by corporations and individuals will go towards buying more items that will use more electricity and their revenue will increase. Insurance companies should cut their rates because with more money and more items bought in society there will be more to insure so they will increase their earnings by cutting rates. All companies should cut their prices and everyone will have more money to spend on their products, and everyone will benefit, right?

1980 The national debt was approx. 750 billion. Under the great Reagan and Bush trickle down economy the debt increased to 2.8 Trillion The republicans are about less taxes and every time they are in office they have to cut taxes and deregulate. The greed takes over and the economy tanks. The difference between Republicans and like night and day. The r's are for the rich. The panama papers came out and there was hardly a peep out of the media. Estimated that 21 Trillion are in tax shelters in the Islands. The God loving Republicans are a lying bunch of thieves.

Another reason to support net neutrality is that scrapping it is the next step toward censorship.

If you don't think there's any difference between the Democrats and Republicans, then you simply don't want clean water, breathable air, or the right to be heard.

You are ignorant.

@ NEWMAN - 2.8 Trillion when Bush left. How much when Obama left? So is only bad when Republican's increase the deficit because they are hypocrites, but it is cool when a Democrat does it and also increases it by 7+ times more than the Republicans, because the Democrat is not a hypocrite?

And why do you have to bring God into this? You sound like a bigot to me.

However, I understand that it is totally "PC" and not at all vile and bigoted to vilify Christians because a lot of them happen to be white as well as male in this country. If you are white as well as male in this country, you are physically and spiritually, judicially and theologically, epistemologically and socioeconomically incapable of being a victim of discrimination period.

Unfortunately, you didn't specify these God loving Republicans are Christians as well as male so I will assume you were talking about Jews and Muslims of both genders and not Christians and I will just go ahead and call out your comment as hate speech.

@ Larry Bergen

Yep it is precisely that simple. If you support Democrats you are a truly good person, a paragon of society who cares for the future of humanity on Earth. If you support Republicans, you want give birth to a hellish wasteland where everyone is deaf and none can be heard, where no one knows how to read or write or sign language because the Republicans built one coal power plants on top of each school in the country, and two on top of bigger schools.

@ Ralph Crown

Censorship is already happening. If you are regulating the telecoms to make it illegal to discriminate in how it provides services, why is it ok for Google or Facebook or Twitter to ban dissident or controversial voices when they have an effective monopoly over internet search and social media.

Why can Google and Facebook curate their news and search results, make things trend which are not as popular as other content, choose which messages go through or which links are blocked on platforms? These platforms are collectively used by billions of people, the companies are actively censoring. These companies themselves state they want to be treated like a utility, but a utility can't cancel someone's account and shut off service because they have a certain political affiliation, sexual orientation or personal/religious belief system that the company disagrees with.

True net neutrality would be decentralized and anonymized (i.e. Kim Dotcom's Meganet idea) and free from both heavy handed government interference or centralized corporate control.

However, if it is to be heavily regulated, at least regulate both major sides in this equation equally.

SH -

It's a shame you're not able to have an honest conversation. Larry Bergan didn't say "If you support Democrats you are a truly good person". Ralph Crown didn't say anything one way or another about Google or Facebook (which, yes, are too large and should be reigned in, in some way. Though, I suspect you'd find reasons to oppose that as well, once you were told why you should oppose that.)

You might win more friends and influence more people if you offered honest arguments for your cases, rather than creating straw men and destroying them.

Sad!

I did vote for Bernie Sanders in the primaries, who I think is a truly good person, but he's an independent and also wouldn't have poisoned my water and air.

SH:
Shhh...