6 ms·

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 equiva

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.
  - onething 8y ago
    >...When Obama took office, the new POTUS' policies aligned to a significant degree with the anti-war protestors. What actually changed? We left Iraq at the timetable Bush proposed and I think Obama wanted to extend it past that but couldn't come to terms with the Iraq government. There was a troop surge in Afghanistan - the thing that was criticized when Bush did it. People have a right to their opinion and the right to protest, but it does appear the anti-war democrats weren't quite as active once the POTUS had a D by the name. I don't have space to go over the foreign military adventures done by Obama, here is an overview: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-wars-numbers/474531/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/ob... >...This is true "political correctness" Not really. The OP asked for politics that didn't work and got consistent support. I listed a few ones that came to mind. I also think these bad polices are also endorsed by conservatives. Rather than attack the idea that people could ever be wrong, why don't you address the policies I brought up and explain why either they are great polices or that democrats don't support them.
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.

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.
- onething 8y ago
  >...When Obama took office, the new POTUS' policies aligned to a significant degree with the anti-war protestors. What actually changed? We left Iraq at the timetable Bush proposed and I think Obama wanted to extend it past that but couldn't come to terms with the Iraq government. There was a troop surge in Afghanistan - the thing that was criticized when Bush did it. People have a right to their opinion and the right to protest, but it does appear the anti-war democrats weren't quite as active once the POTUS had a D by the name. I don't have space to go over the foreign military adventures done by Obama, here is an overview: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-wars-numbers/474531/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/ob... >...This is true "political correctness" Not really. The OP asked for politics that didn't work and got consistent support. I listed a few ones that came to mind. I also think these bad polices are also endorsed by conservatives. Rather than attack the idea that people could ever be wrong, why don't you address the policies I brought up and explain why either they are great polices or that democrats don't support them.

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.