4 ms·

The two parties are functionally identical for the handful of issues I really, really care about. Those issues you've mentioned are not among them -- furthermor

by ng12 8y ago

The two parties are functionally identical for the handful of issues I really, really care about. Those issues you've mentioned are not among them -- furthermore they are not as black-and-white as you imply. As a relatively high income earner the only significant tax increase I've ever seen was under Trump.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
Which issues do you care about? Because I hear this vague-y statement ("the two parties are functionally identical") without specifics, and I can't for the life of me figure why people think this. Also, to your point "As a relatively high income earner the only significant tax increase I've ever seen was under Trump.", and don't see how this could possibly be true. For example, Obamacare added significant taxes for Medicare payroll and the surtax on investment income for high earners.
- Para2016 8y ago
  They're irrelevant differences to me. I care about local and state issues. For instance local infrastructure, local school districts, local road maintenance, local taxes, etc. Federal politics is a distraction. A useless distraction that you're obsessed with. That's the kind of thinking that's "dangerous".
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    > Federal politics is a distraction. A useless distraction that you're obsessed with. That's the kind of thinking that's "dangerous". While I realize this is pretty much a trolling post, I just want to highlight that you are in quite the privileged position to believe this. You couldn't possibly believe "federal politics is a distraction" if: 1. You desire to get married to someone of the same sex. 2. You have anyone you care about who has been affected by federal drug laws. 3. You have any close relatives who are citizens of another country. 4. You are a woman who cares deeply about her own reproductive rights. Conversely, you believe that human life starts at a stage earlier than currently recognized by the Supreme Court. 5. You have a pre-existing medical condition. I could go on, and of course there are loads of ways federal policies affect virtually everyone albeit in a less direct manner (tax policy, monetary policy, foreign trade policy, etc.) But congratulations, I'm sure those only apply to other people, so fuck them.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      I'll add one hilarious thing to this list - local school districts. Local school funding is usually done out of the funds of the local government (sometimes city, sometimes district, sometimes county) which means that poor locales don't have enough money to fund their schools. This was a famously contentious issue where I grew up in MA and where inner city schools were and continue to be terribly underfunded.
- ng12 8y ago
  The 3% tax on my dividends didn't even come close to SALT. Personally I'd like to see the government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital privacy and free speech, reduced military spending, curbs on an an increasingly militarized police force and privatized judicial system, and policies designed to protect the American middle class against increasing globalization. It's hard to draw a meaningful distinction between parties on any of these policies and they matter much more to me than the ones you've listed.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    Honestly I think your list highlights why I get so frustrated when people equate the parties, because there are so obvious, provable distinctions it the items you list: 1. "government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital privacy and free speech" - OK, this one I'll give to you, I don't see significant differences between the mainstream parties on this one. But I'd argue that is because this issue is actually so low (sadly, IMO) on the vast majority of Americans' concerns. 2. "reduced military spending" - If you honestly think the parties are equal when it comes to their enthusiasm for military spending, you are not paying attention. As one example, the whole reason for the 2013 budget sequestration rules were that they included large cuts for military (which Democrats wanted) and social programs (which Republicans wanted) which both sides thought would force them to compromise - the fact that ALL cuts went through when they couldn't reach an agreement just highlights which programs were important to which parties. 3. "an increasingly militarized police force and privatized judicial system" - again, this is an issue that Democrats are much more on your side than the average Republican, mainly because urban minorities, which tend to vote Democrat, are the group most negatively affected by these policies. 4. "policies designed to protect the American middle class against increasing globalization" - while I tend to agree with the main gist of this argument, especially in that both parties have enthusiastically supported many free trade deals, Republicans have shown much more antipathy to unions, both in the past and currently. The fact that you say "It's hard to draw a meaningful distinction between parties on any of these policies" is just baffling to me.
    - ng12 8y ago
mwfunk 8y ago
All that’s telling everyone is that you are not caring about a lot of very important stuff and caring way too deeply about the wrong things. When one party is blatantly anti-science, doesn’t believe in the value of professional expertise, and 2/3s of their voters believe the world is 6000 years old (10 years ago- if anything its much worse now), the two parties couldn’t be more different. If none of that stuff matters to you, then I can only conclude that the stuff that does matter to you doesn’t matter at all.
- ng12 8y ago
  Socially I don't align myself with either party, so I vote based on outcome. In fact, this is my chief complaint about the democrats. It's membership is defined increasingly by being "not Republican" rather than supporting and advancing worthy causes.
  - jkubicek 8y ago
    That's an interesting perspective that I just don't understand, and I would claim that exact opposite is true. Just look at the debate over healthcare. As a group, the democrats created a clear vision for US healthcare reform. At an individual level there's not a clear consensus on what the path forward is, but you can't claim that mainstream D candidates aren't presenting concrete and actionable plans. Contrast that with the Republican healthcare plans, which consist of nothing more than "not obamacare" Republicans have the same stance on gun violence and climate change.

by ng12 8y ago

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

Which issues do you care about? Because I hear this vague-y statement ("the two parties are functionally identical") without specifics, and I can't for the life of me figure why people think this. Also, to your point "As a relatively high income earner the only significant tax increase I've ever seen was under Trump.", and don't see how this could possibly be true. For example, Obamacare added significant taxes for Medicare payroll and the surtax on investment income for high earners.

Para2016 8y ago
They're irrelevant differences to me. I care about local and state issues. For instance local infrastructure, local school districts, local road maintenance, local taxes, etc. Federal politics is a distraction. A useless distraction that you're obsessed with. That's the kind of thinking that's "dangerous".
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  > Federal politics is a distraction. A useless distraction that you're obsessed with. That's the kind of thinking that's "dangerous". While I realize this is pretty much a trolling post, I just want to highlight that you are in quite the privileged position to believe this. You couldn't possibly believe "federal politics is a distraction" if: 1. You desire to get married to someone of the same sex. 2. You have anyone you care about who has been affected by federal drug laws. 3. You have any close relatives who are citizens of another country. 4. You are a woman who cares deeply about her own reproductive rights. Conversely, you believe that human life starts at a stage earlier than currently recognized by the Supreme Court. 5. You have a pre-existing medical condition. I could go on, and of course there are loads of ways federal policies affect virtually everyone albeit in a less direct manner (tax policy, monetary policy, foreign trade policy, etc.) But congratulations, I'm sure those only apply to other people, so fuck them.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    I'll add one hilarious thing to this list - local school districts. Local school funding is usually done out of the funds of the local government (sometimes city, sometimes district, sometimes county) which means that poor locales don't have enough money to fund their schools. This was a famously contentious issue where I grew up in MA and where inner city schools were and continue to be terribly underfunded.
ng12 8y ago
The 3% tax on my dividends didn't even come close to SALT. Personally I'd like to see the government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital privacy and free speech, reduced military spending, curbs on an an increasingly militarized police force and privatized judicial system, and policies designed to protect the American middle class against increasing globalization. It's hard to draw a meaningful distinction between parties on any of these policies and they matter much more to me than the ones you've listed.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  Honestly I think your list highlights why I get so frustrated when people equate the parties, because there are so obvious, provable distinctions it the items you list: 1. "government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital privacy and free speech" - OK, this one I'll give to you, I don't see significant differences between the mainstream parties on this one. But I'd argue that is because this issue is actually so low (sadly, IMO) on the vast majority of Americans' concerns. 2. "reduced military spending" - If you honestly think the parties are equal when it comes to their enthusiasm for military spending, you are not paying attention. As one example, the whole reason for the 2013 budget sequestration rules were that they included large cuts for military (which Democrats wanted) and social programs (which Republicans wanted) which both sides thought would force them to compromise - the fact that ALL cuts went through when they couldn't reach an agreement just highlights which programs were important to which parties. 3. "an increasingly militarized police force and privatized judicial system" - again, this is an issue that Democrats are much more on your side than the average Republican, mainly because urban minorities, which tend to vote Democrat, are the group most negatively affected by these policies. 4. "policies designed to protect the American middle class against increasing globalization" - while I tend to agree with the main gist of this argument, especially in that both parties have enthusiastically supported many free trade deals, Republicans have shown much more antipathy to unions, both in the past and currently. The fact that you say "It's hard to draw a meaningful distinction between parties on any of these policies" is just baffling to me.
  - ng12 8y ago

mwfunk 8y ago

All that’s telling everyone is that you are not caring about a lot of very important stuff and caring way too deeply about the wrong things. When one party is blatantly anti-science, doesn’t believe in the value of professional expertise, and 2/3s of their voters believe the world is 6000 years old (10 years ago- if anything its much worse now), the two parties couldn’t be more different. If none of that stuff matters to you, then I can only conclude that the stuff that does matter to you doesn’t matter at all.

ng12 8y ago
Socially I don't align myself with either party, so I vote based on outcome. In fact, this is my chief complaint about the democrats. It's membership is defined increasingly by being "not Republican" rather than supporting and advancing worthy causes.
- jkubicek 8y ago
  That's an interesting perspective that I just don't understand, and I would claim that exact opposite is true. Just look at the debate over healthcare. As a group, the democrats created a clear vision for US healthcare reform. At an individual level there's not a clear consensus on what the path forward is, but you can't claim that mainstream D candidates aren't presenting concrete and actionable plans. Contrast that with the Republican healthcare plans, which consist of nothing more than "not obamacare" Republicans have the same stance on gun violence and climate change.