5 ms·

Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities. Same thing happens for Democrats

by api 8y ago

Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities. Same thing happens for Democrats and their opinions of foreign military adventures. It's an unnecessary war when a Republican is in office, but it's a "peacekeeping mission" or a "humanitarian mission" when a Democrat is in office.

themacguffinman 8y ago
Opinion polling doesn't support your neat "both sides do it" narrative: > In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians. > A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed. > The Post-ABC poll indicates somewhat greater consistency on the part of Democrats. Some 37 percent of them back Trump’s strike, compared to a statistically indistinguishable 38 percent who backed a strike in 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/13/48229/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3da21cd50a74 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
digitaltrees 8y ago
No they don't. You are just presenting false equivalence while ignoring the magnitude of the reality distortion field that republicans push with no close equivalent from democrats. - Name a 10 year war democrats have championed... - Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming (and before you say anti-vaxxers, that is not a mainstream democrat policy like Global Warming denial is...again, no false equivalence please)... - Name a democrat zombie policy like "trickle down economics" that keeps being proven wrong and yet they insist will work... Should I go on?
- ctdonath 8y ago
  No, you've made it sufficiently clear you subscribe to a straw man narrative, and are uninterested in discussion.
- onething 8y ago
  I don't know if it is helpful to jump into political discussions, but I'll give it a try... >...- Name a 10 year war democrats have championed... I think the OP might have been referring to the seeming disappearance of the anti-war demonstrations once Obama took office. What changed, other than the POTUS? We ended up leaving Iraq at the same timetable that Bush had proposed. >... Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided... Well the unemployment numbers don't include the long term unemployed who would still like a job, etc so I would assume everyone should look beyond the simple number reported in the press. >... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming GMOs? Nuclear power? >...- Name a democrat zombie policy like "trickle down economics" that keeps being proven wrong and yet they insist will work... No economist has ever proposed a policy called "trickle down economics". The pejorative is simply used by people to attack someone else's economic polices. Using a perjorative is simply an attempt to poison the well and prevent discussion. In terms of policies that don't work. but still get support... A couple that come to mind: - wasting money to require registration for the draft - war on drugs - DARE program - three strikes (voted in CA, a heavy democratic state) Conservatives also support many/all(?) programs, but that just means both sides are wrong.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > the seeming disappearance of the anti-war demonstrations once Obama took office. What changed, other than the POTUS? "Other than the POTUS" seems to brazenly ignore the significance. For example, it would be absurd to ask, 'When Trump took office, what changed from Obama other than the POTUS'? When Obama took office, the new POTUS' policies aligned to a significant degree with the anti-war protestors. Obama had opposed the Iraq war from the start and promised to withdraw, which he did (though the withdrawal was also required by the agreement Bush made with Iraq). Obama also wanted out of Afghanistan and, after a policy review, set a timeline for it (a criticized decision that was later changed). > both sides are wrong This is true "political correctness" (a term that I think is almost always misused). The odds of both sides begin equivalent seem slim; it's not at all unlikely that of two parties, one would be significantly worse than the other. It's sort of like looking at two software programs and saying 'both have bugs'; sure, but that's meaningless - it's not at all surprising when one is much superior to the other. But people like to be even-handed, out of some misguided (IMHO) view of fairness or not wanting to offend. But the stakes are too high; you wouldn't say that if you were choosing between airplane autopilot programs. In this case, if you make the worse choice then it can result in catastrophic climate change, nuclear proliferation, war, mass oppression, the undermining of democracy and liberty, and more.
- Rebelgecko 8y ago
  > - Name a 10 year war democrats have championed Every democrat except one voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. To be fair, just because 99.5% of them voted in favor of something doesn't mean they championed it, although Obama did use the AUMF to justify the US's continued presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. As well as expanding military activities in Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Turkey, Libya, Djibouti, etc.
moosey 8y ago
Nothing that Obama or Clinton did even came close to comparing to the wars started by Bush II. In order to find a comparable mishap on the part of Democratic governance and war you have to go back to Truman, and you won't find me defending the Vietnam War, nor Obama's use of drones. > Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities. There is plenty of information that shows this to be untrue, especially in this case of warfare that you talk about, example: > 37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan. That is well within the margin of error. > In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post–ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians. > A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-attack-on-syria-they-hated-under-obama.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-...
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Have to go back to Truman? You seem to have forgotten Vietnam...
  - moosey 8y ago
    For most intents and purposes, that's who started it. anti-communistic fervor was, and is, a massive boondoggle.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Truman started Vietnam because of anti-communist fervor? Seriously? That was his fault and not Johnson's (who was actually president at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin)? That's... a pretty strange interpretation of history.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>it's a "peacekeeping mission" or a "humanitarian mission" when a Democrat is in office. Bull-fucking-shit. The Boston Commons tankies were out every Saturday protesting "illegal war" this and "unconstitutional" that through all of Obama's term.

by api 8y ago

themacguffinman 8y ago

Opinion polling doesn't support your neat "both sides do it" narrative: > In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians. > A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed. > The Post-ABC poll indicates somewhat greater consistency on the part of Democrats. Some 37 percent of them back Trump’s strike, compared to a statistically indistinguishable 38 percent who backed a strike in 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/13/48229/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3da21cd50a74 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

digitaltrees 8y ago

No they don't. You are just presenting false equivalence while ignoring the magnitude of the reality distortion field that republicans push with no close equivalent from democrats. - Name a 10 year war democrats have championed... - Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming (and before you say anti-vaxxers, that is not a mainstream democrat policy like Global Warming denial is...again, no false equivalence please)... - Name a democrat zombie policy like "trickle down economics" that keeps being proven wrong and yet they insist will work... Should I go on?

ctdonath 8y ago
No, you've made it sufficiently clear you subscribe to a straw man narrative, and are uninterested in discussion.
onething 8y ago
I don't know if it is helpful to jump into political discussions, but I'll give it a try... >...- Name a 10 year war democrats have championed... I think the OP might have been referring to the seeming disappearance of the anti-war demonstrations once Obama took office. What changed, other than the POTUS? We ended up leaving Iraq at the same timetable that Bush had proposed. >... Name a democrat that questions the legitimacy of employment numbers or the objectivity of the data being provided... Well the unemployment numbers don't include the long term unemployed who would still like a job, etc so I would assume everyone should look beyond the simple number reported in the press. >... - Name an rejection of scientific consensus like Global Warming GMOs? Nuclear power? >...- Name a democrat zombie policy like "trickle down economics" that keeps being proven wrong and yet they insist will work... No economist has ever proposed a policy called "trickle down economics". The pejorative is simply used by people to attack someone else's economic polices. Using a perjorative is simply an attempt to poison the well and prevent discussion. In terms of policies that don't work. but still get support... A couple that come to mind: - wasting money to require registration for the draft - war on drugs - DARE program - three strikes (voted in CA, a heavy democratic state) Conservatives also support many/all(?) programs, but that just means both sides are wrong.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > the seeming disappearance of the anti-war demonstrations once Obama took office. What changed, other than the POTUS? "Other than the POTUS" seems to brazenly ignore the significance. For example, it would be absurd to ask, 'When Trump took office, what changed from Obama other than the POTUS'? When Obama took office, the new POTUS' policies aligned to a significant degree with the anti-war protestors. Obama had opposed the Iraq war from the start and promised to withdraw, which he did (though the withdrawal was also required by the agreement Bush made with Iraq). Obama also wanted out of Afghanistan and, after a policy review, set a timeline for it (a criticized decision that was later changed). > both sides are wrong This is true "political correctness" (a term that I think is almost always misused). The odds of both sides begin equivalent seem slim; it's not at all unlikely that of two parties, one would be significantly worse than the other. It's sort of like looking at two software programs and saying 'both have bugs'; sure, but that's meaningless - it's not at all surprising when one is much superior to the other. But people like to be even-handed, out of some misguided (IMHO) view of fairness or not wanting to offend. But the stakes are too high; you wouldn't say that if you were choosing between airplane autopilot programs. In this case, if you make the worse choice then it can result in catastrophic climate change, nuclear proliferation, war, mass oppression, the undermining of democracy and liberty, and more.
Rebelgecko 8y ago
> - Name a 10 year war democrats have championed Every democrat except one voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. To be fair, just because 99.5% of them voted in favor of something doesn't mean they championed it, although Obama did use the AUMF to justify the US's continued presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. As well as expanding military activities in Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Turkey, Libya, Djibouti, etc.

moosey 8y ago

Nothing that Obama or Clinton did even came close to comparing to the wars started by Bush II. In order to find a comparable mishap on the part of Democratic governance and war you have to go back to Truman, and you won't find me defending the Vietnam War, nor Obama's use of drones. > Every time the ruling party switches, followers of both parties warp into parallel universes with entirely different realities. There is plenty of information that shows this to be untrue, especially in this case of warfare that you talk about, example: > 37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan. That is well within the margin of error. > In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post–ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians. > A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-attack-on-syria-they-hated-under-obama.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-...

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Have to go back to Truman? You seem to have forgotten Vietnam...
- moosey 8y ago
  For most intents and purposes, that's who started it. anti-communistic fervor was, and is, a massive boondoggle.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Truman started Vietnam because of anti-communist fervor? Seriously? That was his fault and not Johnson's (who was actually president at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin)? That's... a pretty strange interpretation of history.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago

eli_gottlieb 8y ago

>it's a "peacekeeping mission" or a "humanitarian mission" when a Democrat is in office. Bull-fucking-shit. The Boston Commons tankies were out every Saturday protesting "illegal war" this and "unconstitutional" that through all of Obama's term.