9 ms·

How can you call LGBT rights, women's rights, police consent decrees, environmental issues, and health care, just off the top of my head, meaningless?

rndmize 10y ago
Not the GP, but these are social issues largely, and while I care about them, I consider them less important than economic issues (for a multitude of reasons). And on economic/business issues, the two parties seems to have minimal differences.
- skadamat 10y ago
  This is a somewhat relevant read - https://medium.com/@jamesallworth/the-slow-decay-of-americas-entrepreneurial-society-f9aeb6145891 https://medium.com/@jamesallworth/the-slow-decay-of-americas... Basically discussed shift from discussion in politics about democracy to economics.
- whopa 10y ago
  Health care is squarely an economic/business issue that affects nearly everybody, and there are clear, meaningful differences between the two parties here.
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    AHCA, Obamacare is definitely better than before, it guarantees open access to many who didn't have it before. A good thing. But it didn't go far enough. It played in to the corporate healthcare system demands by not offering a competitive public option. The so called Blue Dog democrats blocked that, which is such a shame. Far better than anything the Republicans have put on the table. The problem is that we basically have one sane party which is backed by corporate interests, and another party backed by the same or similar corporate interests which plays off fear for support. I believe the only fix to this is to weaken party entrenchment, and have ranked choice voting in place; but who in these two parties would actually support that? [Edit: typo]
    - whopa 10y ago
      I completely agree. I was just pointing out to the poster I was replying to that with regards to one of the most important economic issues the US currently faces, there are meaningful differences between the two parties, despite the fact that they are both backed by mostly the same corporate interests. I'm tired of the "both parties are the same" trope. Current events clearly contradict that.
      - burntsushi 10y ago
        Isn't it obvious that it's a matter of perspective? Ask two non-programmers the difference between Python and Haskell, and they'll say, "They look the same to me." Ask two programmers the difference between Python and Haskell, and it's a fair bet that they'd be able to list off a laundry list of differences. Both perspectives are actually right, and neither one is a "trope" as you put it. What you think of as meaningful differences someone else might think of as nominal differences.
        whopa 10y ago
        The differences between Python and Haskell only affect programmers and people who employ programmers. The difference between the two parties approach to health care affects everybody in the US. It's not simply a matter of perspective.
        burntsushi 10y ago
        My point is that you see a large impact between the parties while others might see a low impact between the parties. That is a difference of perspective.
        whopa 10y ago
        People who can't distinguish between the meaningful impact of the differences between the two parties approach to health care are not paying attention or willfully ignorant. Bringing out the trope perpetuates this. It's a real problem.
  - rndmize 10y ago
    I continually heard some years back that Obamacare was basically Romneycare which was basically the Republican plan from the Clinton years. Further, as we can see from the current state of things, the Republicans might say they hate Obamacare, but now that they have a chance to repeal it and put their own plan in place, they've failed continually. There's no politically-tenable position to move further rightward unless you are in favor of less people having care or people having worse care. In short, the Democrats basically adopted the old Republican position on the only economic issue listed by the OP - exactly in line with my earlier point.
    - whopa 10y ago
      The Democrats adopted Romneycare with some tweaks as a compromise effort. They view it as a starting point, not the end goal. Any attempts to move beyond that starting point were obstructed by Republicans. The AHCA failed due to a small handful of Republicans rejecting it, with one part of that handful complaining that it wasn't pulled rightward enough, and the rest actually realizing that going rightward wasn't politically-tenable as you said. Most of the party was totally fine with the AHCA.
- s73ver 10y ago
  It's easy for those who aren't affected by those social issues to consider them less important.
jessaustin 10y ago
Ds talk a better game, but they rarely walk that talk. Take just your first example. W's first year in office, he wanted to standardize "civil unions" that would have entailed all the same rights as "traditional marriages". Of course, lots of "conservatives" were against that, so W reached across the aisle. Crickets. Ds decided they wanted to preserve that issue's political value, so it was more than a decade before gay and lesbian couples in conservative states had access to these rights.
- mozumder 10y ago
  What's your point in your false equivalency? Are you implying that the 20 million people that now have medical coverage because of Democrats pushing for Obamacare isn't worth it? Was that all "talk"? I'm seriously trying to understand your "equivalency" position. Let me know what the Republicans would have done for health care? Right now it seems that the only thing they've done is to actually limit universal health care, so we have less than 100% coverage. Are the two parties the same on health care? Right now I don't trust anybody that says the two parties are the same, since they are clearly very, very different. In fact, it seems the only people that say that are Republicans that don't have a better argument? Are you a Republican? Or maybe you fall under the auspices of a white-male demographic that bias towards conservatism?
  - beemanners 10y ago
    20M on Obamacare != 20M who have health insurance because of Obamacare. Stop parroting CNN talking points and do your own research.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - mozumder 10y ago
      Since you are a researcher, where is your research published? I would like to see your peer-reviewed research that you did to come up with your data.
    - 10y ago
jtedward 10y ago
He can't false equivalency is a common tactic used by conservatives to gaslight non-conservatives. You're not crazy, they just lie and don't feel bad about it.
pjc50 10y ago
Am I right in thinking that the first three were achieved through litigation rather than legislation?
Pica_soO 10y ago
Because they are, in the big picture? If everyone starves and we get a 50 sexes bathroom- nobod(he/she/it) gives a shit.

rndmize 10y ago

Not the GP, but these are social issues largely, and while I care about them, I consider them less important than economic issues (for a multitude of reasons). And on economic/business issues, the two parties seems to have minimal differences.

skadamat 10y ago
This is a somewhat relevant read - https://medium.com/@jamesallworth/the-slow-decay-of-americas-entrepreneurial-society-f9aeb6145891 https://medium.com/@jamesallworth/the-slow-decay-of-americas... Basically discussed shift from discussion in politics about democracy to economics.
whopa 10y ago
Health care is squarely an economic/business issue that affects nearly everybody, and there are clear, meaningful differences between the two parties here.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  AHCA, Obamacare is definitely better than before, it guarantees open access to many who didn't have it before. A good thing. But it didn't go far enough. It played in to the corporate healthcare system demands by not offering a competitive public option. The so called Blue Dog democrats blocked that, which is such a shame. Far better than anything the Republicans have put on the table. The problem is that we basically have one sane party which is backed by corporate interests, and another party backed by the same or similar corporate interests which plays off fear for support. I believe the only fix to this is to weaken party entrenchment, and have ranked choice voting in place; but who in these two parties would actually support that? [Edit: typo]
  - whopa 10y ago
    I completely agree. I was just pointing out to the poster I was replying to that with regards to one of the most important economic issues the US currently faces, there are meaningful differences between the two parties, despite the fact that they are both backed by mostly the same corporate interests. I'm tired of the "both parties are the same" trope. Current events clearly contradict that.
    - burntsushi 10y ago
      Isn't it obvious that it's a matter of perspective? Ask two non-programmers the difference between Python and Haskell, and they'll say, "They look the same to me." Ask two programmers the difference between Python and Haskell, and it's a fair bet that they'd be able to list off a laundry list of differences. Both perspectives are actually right, and neither one is a "trope" as you put it. What you think of as meaningful differences someone else might think of as nominal differences.
      - whopa 10y ago
        The differences between Python and Haskell only affect programmers and people who employ programmers. The difference between the two parties approach to health care affects everybody in the US. It's not simply a matter of perspective.
        burntsushi 10y ago
        My point is that you see a large impact between the parties while others might see a low impact between the parties. That is a difference of perspective.
        whopa 10y ago
        People who can't distinguish between the meaningful impact of the differences between the two parties approach to health care are not paying attention or willfully ignorant. Bringing out the trope perpetuates this. It's a real problem.
- rndmize 10y ago
  I continually heard some years back that Obamacare was basically Romneycare which was basically the Republican plan from the Clinton years. Further, as we can see from the current state of things, the Republicans might say they hate Obamacare, but now that they have a chance to repeal it and put their own plan in place, they've failed continually. There's no politically-tenable position to move further rightward unless you are in favor of less people having care or people having worse care. In short, the Democrats basically adopted the old Republican position on the only economic issue listed by the OP - exactly in line with my earlier point.
  - whopa 10y ago
    The Democrats adopted Romneycare with some tweaks as a compromise effort. They view it as a starting point, not the end goal. Any attempts to move beyond that starting point were obstructed by Republicans. The AHCA failed due to a small handful of Republicans rejecting it, with one part of that handful complaining that it wasn't pulled rightward enough, and the rest actually realizing that going rightward wasn't politically-tenable as you said. Most of the party was totally fine with the AHCA.
s73ver 10y ago
It's easy for those who aren't affected by those social issues to consider them less important.

jessaustin 10y ago

Ds talk a better game, but they rarely walk that talk. Take just your first example. W's first year in office, he wanted to standardize "civil unions" that would have entailed all the same rights as "traditional marriages". Of course, lots of "conservatives" were against that, so W reached across the aisle. Crickets. Ds decided they wanted to preserve that issue's political value, so it was more than a decade before gay and lesbian couples in conservative states had access to these rights.

mozumder 10y ago
What's your point in your false equivalency? Are you implying that the 20 million people that now have medical coverage because of Democrats pushing for Obamacare isn't worth it? Was that all "talk"? I'm seriously trying to understand your "equivalency" position. Let me know what the Republicans would have done for health care? Right now it seems that the only thing they've done is to actually limit universal health care, so we have less than 100% coverage. Are the two parties the same on health care? Right now I don't trust anybody that says the two parties are the same, since they are clearly very, very different. In fact, it seems the only people that say that are Republicans that don't have a better argument? Are you a Republican? Or maybe you fall under the auspices of a white-male demographic that bias towards conservatism?
- beemanners 10y ago
  20M on Obamacare != 20M who have health insurance because of Obamacare. Stop parroting CNN talking points and do your own research.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mozumder 10y ago
    Since you are a researcher, where is your research published? I would like to see your peer-reviewed research that you did to come up with your data.
  - 10y ago

jtedward 10y ago

He can't false equivalency is a common tactic used by conservatives to gaslight non-conservatives. You're not crazy, they just lie and don't feel bad about it.

pjc50 10y ago

Am I right in thinking that the first three were achieved through litigation rather than legislation?

Pica_soO 10y ago

Because they are, in the big picture? If everyone starves and we get a 50 sexes bathroom- nobod(he/she/it) gives a shit.