7 ms·

The problem is that they are corporate shills. There are quite a few things I wish the Democratic party would do that I'd support, and lots of them they did his

The problem is that they are corporate shills. There are quite a few things I wish the Democratic party would do that I'd support, and lots of them they did historically. Even if they were still actually pushing anti-war, freedom of speech, and related things then that would be fantastic, but lately they seem to tow the same line as the Republicans on those issues.

bootlooped 8y ago
I think the focus on extremely divisive issues like abortion, lgbt, climate change, etc... has brought the two parties more into line on most other issues, to the delight of many low key interest groups.
- trophycase 8y ago
  It's insane, why not give ground on relatively unimportant wedge issues to fix real problems like inequality, climate change, etc...
  - astrodust 8y ago
    You really don't follow politics, do you?
  - tangent128 8y ago
    Because if you put the elimination of marriage and gender equality on the table, nobody's going to believe you're remotely interested in fixing inequality.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    Those are important issues for progressives. The right and middle share common most important issues: jobs, border, security. Progressives make up only about 8% of the population, and they're overwhelmingly white and wealthy. Here's a video discussing the relevant study. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1TrY-t0ng https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1TrY-t0ng
    - didibus 8y ago
      I read the study, it's very good. The video not so much, and your summary here is misleading and wrong and not very representative of the study I just read. First, the study specifically avoided self identification and labeling. They clustered people based on their answers to core belief questions. From which they found 7 key clusters. One of those the study labeled Progressive Activists. But that's a label put on after the fact. So it doesn't mean 8% of the population identify as progressive activist. Just that from the study, there's 8% of the population with very similar core beliefs. Then the study demonstrates that self labels like being left, right, middle, conservative, Democrat, Republican, etc, are bad predictors of shared common issues. Only 3 out of the 7 groups cared most about jobs, and only one group, the smallest one, cared most about immigration. The groups the study labeled liberals make up 26%, and the ones labeled conservative 25%. But again, that's the labels the study gave people based on their answers. Also, the wealthiest and withest cluster identified of them all is the Devoted Conservative. Finally, the whole point of the study is that appart from the wings of progressist activist (composed of young professionals mostly), and from the traditional (old, white middle class mostly) and devoted conservatives (old, white and wealthiest mostly), all other groups are much more willing to compromise and have varying beliefs depending on the situation, and are most bothered by the wings polarizing the country. Thus when you look at the silent majority, they are much more diversified in opinions.
- CM30 8y ago
  Note how the people that get blamed in these cases don't have much power to begin with, whereas topics involving economical inequality (and money in politics) put the blame on them. If you're a rich and powerful individual or company, it's a lot more convenient to focus on something like LGBT rights (where the blame can be put on poor/rural/uneducated folks) rather than taxes and political lobbying (where the blame would end up on bankers and large corporations).
SquishyPanda23 8y ago
> The problem is that they are corporate shills. I really think the defining political problem of our age is campaign finance reform and to a lesser extent election reform.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  Which is the primary aim of the new democratic house. I would not consider someone trying to limit corporate control of politics a corporate shill.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    Yet Larry Lessig was shut down the last time he tried bringing this into focus.
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      The 2016 election? Both the Democratic front-runner and the nearest also-ran not only had campaign finance reform prominently in their platforms (each with a full page devoted to the issue on their websites) but also brought it up during the debates. https://www.npr.org/2016/02/06/465781632/fact-check-clinton-and-sanders-on-campaign-finance https://www.npr.org/2016/02/06/465781632/fact-check-clinton-...
  - jedmeyers 8y ago
    How about limiting political control of people, so corporations won’t try to control politics so much? Since so far “limiting corporate control of politics” looks more like gatekeeping: allowing some corporations to control while denying others.
  - sidlls 8y ago
    The primary aim of the new democratic house is to continue in the same way under the same leadership as they have for the last 30 years. They're a conservative party who mainly want the same things as Republicans, but have somehow managed to bamboozle a whole new generation into thinking they're the party of civil rights, egalitarianism, labor, etc. They're about as interested in campaign and election reform as the Republicans.
reaperducer 8y ago
If either party would start concentrating on free speech issues, they'd have my attention. But these days, once you get past the five-second sound bites and the rhetoric, there is very little difference between what Republicans and Democrats actually do.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- millstone 8y ago
  Bush starting two wars and Obama radically overhauling the US health insurance market are basically the same thing, once you get past the sound bites.
  - cazum 8y ago
    Theres plenty of ways to compare and separate the Republicans from the democrats, but war is really not one of them.
ajross 8y ago
The government is literally shut down at the moment over a purely partisan divide, and you're trying to make a "they're all the same" point? Seriously?
- arcticbull 8y ago
  They’re quibbling over basically nothing, making a purely us vs them grandstand. It’s about $1.3B vs $5B in border security funding. Yeah I think a wall is dumb, not least because I’m not sure which side of the rio grande they plan to put it on. This is a new point of contention though, I’m not sure prior to Trump Democrats and Republicans disagreed a whole lot on immigration or border security at all. How much mileage of fencing did the Obama administration put in? In 2011 he declared it “basically complete.” They found a difference the public cares about right now and seized on it for all they’re worth. This reminds me of the futurama episode with the clones running for president: A: “your 10c titanium tax goes too far” B: “well I say your 10c titanium tax doesn’t go too far enough!”
  - ta2987 8y ago
    This is, frankly, a pretty stupid reading of the situation.
    - dang 8y ago
      Even if so, please don't break the site guidelines by calling names here. On HN the idea is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: you've unfortunately been breaking the guidelines so often that we've banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

bootlooped 8y ago

I think the focus on extremely divisive issues like abortion, lgbt, climate change, etc... has brought the two parties more into line on most other issues, to the delight of many low key interest groups.

trophycase 8y ago
It's insane, why not give ground on relatively unimportant wedge issues to fix real problems like inequality, climate change, etc...
- astrodust 8y ago
  You really don't follow politics, do you?
- tangent128 8y ago
  Because if you put the elimination of marriage and gender equality on the table, nobody's going to believe you're remotely interested in fixing inequality.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  Those are important issues for progressives. The right and middle share common most important issues: jobs, border, security. Progressives make up only about 8% of the population, and they're overwhelmingly white and wealthy. Here's a video discussing the relevant study. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1TrY-t0ng https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1TrY-t0ng
  - didibus 8y ago
    I read the study, it's very good. The video not so much, and your summary here is misleading and wrong and not very representative of the study I just read. First, the study specifically avoided self identification and labeling. They clustered people based on their answers to core belief questions. From which they found 7 key clusters. One of those the study labeled Progressive Activists. But that's a label put on after the fact. So it doesn't mean 8% of the population identify as progressive activist. Just that from the study, there's 8% of the population with very similar core beliefs. Then the study demonstrates that self labels like being left, right, middle, conservative, Democrat, Republican, etc, are bad predictors of shared common issues. Only 3 out of the 7 groups cared most about jobs, and only one group, the smallest one, cared most about immigration. The groups the study labeled liberals make up 26%, and the ones labeled conservative 25%. But again, that's the labels the study gave people based on their answers. Also, the wealthiest and withest cluster identified of them all is the Devoted Conservative. Finally, the whole point of the study is that appart from the wings of progressist activist (composed of young professionals mostly), and from the traditional (old, white middle class mostly) and devoted conservatives (old, white and wealthiest mostly), all other groups are much more willing to compromise and have varying beliefs depending on the situation, and are most bothered by the wings polarizing the country. Thus when you look at the silent majority, they are much more diversified in opinions.
CM30 8y ago
Note how the people that get blamed in these cases don't have much power to begin with, whereas topics involving economical inequality (and money in politics) put the blame on them. If you're a rich and powerful individual or company, it's a lot more convenient to focus on something like LGBT rights (where the blame can be put on poor/rural/uneducated folks) rather than taxes and political lobbying (where the blame would end up on bankers and large corporations).

SquishyPanda23 8y ago

> The problem is that they are corporate shills. I really think the defining political problem of our age is campaign finance reform and to a lesser extent election reform.

stochastic_monk 8y ago
Which is the primary aim of the new democratic house. I would not consider someone trying to limit corporate control of politics a corporate shill.
- shmerl 8y ago
  Yet Larry Lessig was shut down the last time he tried bringing this into focus.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    The 2016 election? Both the Democratic front-runner and the nearest also-ran not only had campaign finance reform prominently in their platforms (each with a full page devoted to the issue on their websites) but also brought it up during the debates. https://www.npr.org/2016/02/06/465781632/fact-check-clinton-and-sanders-on-campaign-finance https://www.npr.org/2016/02/06/465781632/fact-check-clinton-...
- jedmeyers 8y ago
  How about limiting political control of people, so corporations won’t try to control politics so much? Since so far “limiting corporate control of politics” looks more like gatekeeping: allowing some corporations to control while denying others.
- sidlls 8y ago
  The primary aim of the new democratic house is to continue in the same way under the same leadership as they have for the last 30 years. They're a conservative party who mainly want the same things as Republicans, but have somehow managed to bamboozle a whole new generation into thinking they're the party of civil rights, egalitarianism, labor, etc. They're about as interested in campaign and election reform as the Republicans.

reaperducer 8y ago

If either party would start concentrating on free speech issues, they'd have my attention. But these days, once you get past the five-second sound bites and the rhetoric, there is very little difference between what Republicans and Democrats actually do.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
millstone 8y ago
Bush starting two wars and Obama radically overhauling the US health insurance market are basically the same thing, once you get past the sound bites.
- cazum 8y ago
  Theres plenty of ways to compare and separate the Republicans from the democrats, but war is really not one of them.

ajross 8y ago

The government is literally shut down at the moment over a purely partisan divide, and you're trying to make a "they're all the same" point? Seriously?

arcticbull 8y ago
They’re quibbling over basically nothing, making a purely us vs them grandstand. It’s about $1.3B vs $5B in border security funding. Yeah I think a wall is dumb, not least because I’m not sure which side of the rio grande they plan to put it on. This is a new point of contention though, I’m not sure prior to Trump Democrats and Republicans disagreed a whole lot on immigration or border security at all. How much mileage of fencing did the Obama administration put in? In 2011 he declared it “basically complete.” They found a difference the public cares about right now and seized on it for all they’re worth. This reminds me of the futurama episode with the clones running for president: A: “your 10c titanium tax goes too far” B: “well I say your 10c titanium tax doesn’t go too far enough!”
- ta2987 8y ago
  This is, frankly, a pretty stupid reading of the situation.
  - dang 8y ago
    Even if so, please don't break the site guidelines by calling names here. On HN the idea is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: you've unfortunately been breaking the guidelines so often that we've banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.