6 ms·

I agree with what you said, yet can't help but think that everyone who knows about this kind of thing and still doesn't think twice about which party to vote fo

I agree with what you said, yet can't help but think that everyone who knows about this kind of thing and still doesn't think twice about which party to vote for, is responsible in some way. Every american is given a voice, to vote for the best party, the best candidate, based on what they know and believe. Voting is anonymous. You dont have to tell anyone what you voted for. Vote for a third party, or for whatever you think is best. But don't ever vote out of habit.

arcticbull 6y ago
John Adams and George Washington believed a two-party state was a major threat to democracy, and it's pretty easy to see why. The reality is Democrats and Republicans are about 6 inches apart on every single major issue. Compare the platforms of the "left" and "right" here to other major democracies worldwide, and you'll see. Things are a little different with the current administration, but even that, the concrete policy and substance issues aren't all that far apart. - Neither side supports socialized medicine. - Neither side supports free or cheap college or doing anything about student debt. - Neither side supports decriminalization or legalization of narcotics. - Neither side is interested in reducing defense spending. - Neither side is interested in immigration reform (as evidenced by the Obama administration having, for a long time, controlled both houses and the presidency and changing literally nothing). - Neither side is interested in reforming the intelligence services or closing GITMO -- remember that? - Neither side is interested in prison reform or policing reform. Police in America kill 10X as many people per capita as Canadian police kill. The only leader to actually implement any form of prison reform in decades was Donald Trump, credit where due. And that's likely only because he's not really a Democrat or a Republican. - Both sides persecuted and prosecuted Asange and Snowden. Really, what are the major points of policy differentiation? A 2% tax hike on the wealthy?
- Sargos 6y ago
  Until our governmental system is overhauled to allow for more democracy and less powerful individuals then the citizens really don't bare much responsibility for the actions of our masters. I live in a gerrymandered district with no real way to vote for my preferences and it doesn't look like it will get better anytime soon.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    I have a really hard time with that answer. In a democracy each individual is directly and personally responsible for their government. That's the power and the responsibility associated with picking your leadership. You get credit for the good and the blame for the bad. In an autocracy, it's murkier.
    - Sargos 6y ago
      I haven't really picked many of my leaders. Most of the government is appointed by the president so I have no say in that. I only get two choices for president neither of which represent me much at all. My congressional district is gerrymandered so I don't get a say there. I have objectively close to 0 influence in how my government works or the decisions it makes. If we ever fix our government to add more democracy or operate more on the opinions of the citizens then I might feel connected to what my government does but as it stands now there's very little connection between me and others around me and the government that takes actions on the world stage.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ftfp 6y ago
      So you are just going to ignore the gerrymandering part of their comment then?
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        Yeah, that's true, gerrymandering is problematic and does stifle people's ability to express their political voice. Does gerrymandering make the US less of a democracy, then? I don't have an answer to that question, so curious your thoughts. You were definitely right to call me out on that.
        ftfp 6y ago
        I think it does, yes. Voting in a gerrymandered region is pretty much just maliciously cargo-culted democracy. It might look like people engaging in a democratic action on the surface, but it doesn't have any effect. It reminds me of the 'literacy tests' given to black voters, back in the Jim Crow era. We're doing this to help them participate in our democracy, the racists would say. But the reality was in fact the complete opposite. The structure of the political system itself matters too - for example, this concentration of so much power into a single person, that the US and other countries have with the presidential model, gives them some very autocratic attributes as well.
- jhpriestley 6y ago
  You seem to think that if a party does not accomplish its policy objectives (closing gitmo, DACA) because the other party prevented it from accomplishing those objectives, it does not support them? interesting take :)
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    In 2009, 2010 and 2011, Obama was President and the House and Senate were both Democratic. Who was stopping Obama from closing GITMO during those three years? This was a campaign promise after all. Did DREAM'ers not exist at this time? GITMO never closed because the US didn't find countries super willing to take in the detainees, and felt it would be "too distasteful" to let them stay in the US proper. Not a good case for violating human rights law, IMO, but to quote POTUS "it is what it is." 1993, 1994, 1995, Clinton was President and the House and Senate were both Democratic. Clinton's big immigration reform bill was the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. It's purpose was to "[strengthen] the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system — without punishing those living in the United States legally." Clinton created the mass-deportation machine in use today. Clinton's bill made it harder to immigrate to the US. Clinton created the 3-year and 10-year re-entry bars that continue to separate loved ones to this day. If an unlawful resident marries a US citizen, they're entitled to a green card but they can't apply for it from within the US but as the minute they leave they get a 10-year re-entry bar. The last guy to grant amnesty to the undocumented was Reagan in 1986, and he was, last I checked, a Republican. At some point you've gotta stop blaming the other guy. Democrats are not the party of immigration, legal or illegal.
    - jhpriestley 6y ago
      Clinton was in fact a centrist "third-way" democrat who often compromised or coopted Republican issues, e.g. welfare reform. Obama was not as much of a centrist but he was obstructed heavily by the opposition. I'll continue to blame the people who vote 90% in one direction over the ones who vote 90% the other lol. Edit: you added some specific comments about immigration. This is correct, Democrats are not very pro-immigration. They are more pro-immigration than the GOP, e.g. DACA order vs. DACA repeal, but the two parties are pretty close on immigration. There is a much bigger gap on issues like healthcare.
- pravda 6y ago
  Gore Vidal pointed this out many years ago: "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."
  - aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 6y ago
    I really wonder what Vidal would be saying today. I guess it would probably be something similar to Noam Chomsky, who is voting Democrat this year because the policy differences are so stark. https://the.ink/p/noam-chomsky-wants-you-to-vote-for https://the.ink/p/noam-chomsky-wants-you-to-vote-for
    - justanotheranon 6y ago
      Chomsky denied the genocide of Pol Pot and defended the Khmer Rouge to score points against CIA and Western Imperialism. start here on page 19 of Chomsky's book he wrote in 1979. https://libcom.org/history/chomsky-pol-pots-genocidal-regime-cambodia https://libcom.org/history/chomsky-pol-pots-genocidal-regime... Chomsky was dead wrong about his heirarchy of languages and he set back computing by 50 years. He has also been wrong about geopolitics, since he ends up supporting the very Western Imperialism that he rails against.
      - shadowfox 6y ago
        > he set back computing by 50 years No opinion on Chomsky's politics. But that quote definitely needs some substantiation. Personally, I don't see how anyone, has managed to set back computing by 50 years.
        stjohnswarts 6y ago
        They haven't, it's a clear exaggeration, and lacks any substance at all.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  > Police in America kill 10X as many people per capita as Canadian police kill. These kinds of stats are so dishonest. Police in America are subject to 10x more violence per capita as Canadians.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    > "Police in America are subject to 10x more violence per capita as Canadians." Citation needed. Especially as studies show that increasing militarization of the police force leads to more civilian deaths [1], and the trend towards militarization has been stark and pronounced in the US. [2] The issue is really that the US uses police as customer service for life and as front-line mental health treatment due to lack of proper socialized medicine. They are also trained to shoot first and ask questions later -- to treat everyone as a potential threat to their lives. However, let's take what you say as fact. This points to a deep failure in society that needs to be addressed. People are products of their society, and if society is more violent in America then some serious introspection needs to be done. Looking at 10X per capita and shrugging it off as "well that's just America for you" is the problem. [1] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2018/07/05/evidence-suggests-the-militarization-of-police-forces-leads-to-more-civilian-deaths/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2018/07/05/evidence-sugges... [2] https://fee.org/articles/the-militarization-of-americas-police-a-brief-history/ https://fee.org/articles/the-militarization-of-americas-poli...
- fulafel 6y ago
  But this is just about to what works to get votes.
Sargos 6y ago
Both parties support this. Citizens don't really have a say in how most of the government works.
- ifmpx 6y ago
  If citizens don't have a say, then that's not a democracy.

arcticbull 6y ago

John Adams and George Washington believed a two-party state was a major threat to democracy, and it's pretty easy to see why. The reality is Democrats and Republicans are about 6 inches apart on every single major issue. Compare the platforms of the "left" and "right" here to other major democracies worldwide, and you'll see. Things are a little different with the current administration, but even that, the concrete policy and substance issues aren't all that far apart. - Neither side supports socialized medicine. - Neither side supports free or cheap college or doing anything about student debt. - Neither side supports decriminalization or legalization of narcotics. - Neither side is interested in reducing defense spending. - Neither side is interested in immigration reform (as evidenced by the Obama administration having, for a long time, controlled both houses and the presidency and changing literally nothing). - Neither side is interested in reforming the intelligence services or closing GITMO -- remember that? - Neither side is interested in prison reform or policing reform. Police in America kill 10X as many people per capita as Canadian police kill. The only leader to actually implement any form of prison reform in decades was Donald Trump, credit where due. And that's likely only because he's not really a Democrat or a Republican. - Both sides persecuted and prosecuted Asange and Snowden. Really, what are the major points of policy differentiation? A 2% tax hike on the wealthy?

Sargos 6y ago
Until our governmental system is overhauled to allow for more democracy and less powerful individuals then the citizens really don't bare much responsibility for the actions of our masters. I live in a gerrymandered district with no real way to vote for my preferences and it doesn't look like it will get better anytime soon.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  I have a really hard time with that answer. In a democracy each individual is directly and personally responsible for their government. That's the power and the responsibility associated with picking your leadership. You get credit for the good and the blame for the bad. In an autocracy, it's murkier.
  - Sargos 6y ago
    I haven't really picked many of my leaders. Most of the government is appointed by the president so I have no say in that. I only get two choices for president neither of which represent me much at all. My congressional district is gerrymandered so I don't get a say there. I have objectively close to 0 influence in how my government works or the decisions it makes. If we ever fix our government to add more democracy or operate more on the opinions of the citizens then I might feel connected to what my government does but as it stands now there's very little connection between me and others around me and the government that takes actions on the world stage.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ftfp 6y ago
    So you are just going to ignore the gerrymandering part of their comment then?
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Yeah, that's true, gerrymandering is problematic and does stifle people's ability to express their political voice. Does gerrymandering make the US less of a democracy, then? I don't have an answer to that question, so curious your thoughts. You were definitely right to call me out on that.
      - ftfp 6y ago
        I think it does, yes. Voting in a gerrymandered region is pretty much just maliciously cargo-culted democracy. It might look like people engaging in a democratic action on the surface, but it doesn't have any effect. It reminds me of the 'literacy tests' given to black voters, back in the Jim Crow era. We're doing this to help them participate in our democracy, the racists would say. But the reality was in fact the complete opposite. The structure of the political system itself matters too - for example, this concentration of so much power into a single person, that the US and other countries have with the presidential model, gives them some very autocratic attributes as well.
jhpriestley 6y ago
You seem to think that if a party does not accomplish its policy objectives (closing gitmo, DACA) because the other party prevented it from accomplishing those objectives, it does not support them? interesting take :)
- arcticbull 6y ago
  In 2009, 2010 and 2011, Obama was President and the House and Senate were both Democratic. Who was stopping Obama from closing GITMO during those three years? This was a campaign promise after all. Did DREAM'ers not exist at this time? GITMO never closed because the US didn't find countries super willing to take in the detainees, and felt it would be "too distasteful" to let them stay in the US proper. Not a good case for violating human rights law, IMO, but to quote POTUS "it is what it is." 1993, 1994, 1995, Clinton was President and the House and Senate were both Democratic. Clinton's big immigration reform bill was the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. It's purpose was to "[strengthen] the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system — without punishing those living in the United States legally." Clinton created the mass-deportation machine in use today. Clinton's bill made it harder to immigrate to the US. Clinton created the 3-year and 10-year re-entry bars that continue to separate loved ones to this day. If an unlawful resident marries a US citizen, they're entitled to a green card but they can't apply for it from within the US but as the minute they leave they get a 10-year re-entry bar. The last guy to grant amnesty to the undocumented was Reagan in 1986, and he was, last I checked, a Republican. At some point you've gotta stop blaming the other guy. Democrats are not the party of immigration, legal or illegal.
  - jhpriestley 6y ago
    Clinton was in fact a centrist "third-way" democrat who often compromised or coopted Republican issues, e.g. welfare reform. Obama was not as much of a centrist but he was obstructed heavily by the opposition. I'll continue to blame the people who vote 90% in one direction over the ones who vote 90% the other lol. Edit: you added some specific comments about immigration. This is correct, Democrats are not very pro-immigration. They are more pro-immigration than the GOP, e.g. DACA order vs. DACA repeal, but the two parties are pretty close on immigration. There is a much bigger gap on issues like healthcare.
pravda 6y ago
Gore Vidal pointed this out many years ago: "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 6y ago
  I really wonder what Vidal would be saying today. I guess it would probably be something similar to Noam Chomsky, who is voting Democrat this year because the policy differences are so stark. https://the.ink/p/noam-chomsky-wants-you-to-vote-for https://the.ink/p/noam-chomsky-wants-you-to-vote-for
  - justanotheranon 6y ago
    Chomsky denied the genocide of Pol Pot and defended the Khmer Rouge to score points against CIA and Western Imperialism. start here on page 19 of Chomsky's book he wrote in 1979. https://libcom.org/history/chomsky-pol-pots-genocidal-regime-cambodia https://libcom.org/history/chomsky-pol-pots-genocidal-regime... Chomsky was dead wrong about his heirarchy of languages and he set back computing by 50 years. He has also been wrong about geopolitics, since he ends up supporting the very Western Imperialism that he rails against.
    - shadowfox 6y ago
      > he set back computing by 50 years No opinion on Chomsky's politics. But that quote definitely needs some substantiation. Personally, I don't see how anyone, has managed to set back computing by 50 years.
      - stjohnswarts 6y ago
        They haven't, it's a clear exaggeration, and lacks any substance at all.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
> Police in America kill 10X as many people per capita as Canadian police kill. These kinds of stats are so dishonest. Police in America are subject to 10x more violence per capita as Canadians.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > "Police in America are subject to 10x more violence per capita as Canadians." Citation needed. Especially as studies show that increasing militarization of the police force leads to more civilian deaths [1], and the trend towards militarization has been stark and pronounced in the US. [2] The issue is really that the US uses police as customer service for life and as front-line mental health treatment due to lack of proper socialized medicine. They are also trained to shoot first and ask questions later -- to treat everyone as a potential threat to their lives. However, let's take what you say as fact. This points to a deep failure in society that needs to be addressed. People are products of their society, and if society is more violent in America then some serious introspection needs to be done. Looking at 10X per capita and shrugging it off as "well that's just America for you" is the problem. [1] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2018/07/05/evidence-suggests-the-militarization-of-police-forces-leads-to-more-civilian-deaths/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2018/07/05/evidence-sugges... [2] https://fee.org/articles/the-militarization-of-americas-police-a-brief-history/ https://fee.org/articles/the-militarization-of-americas-poli...
fulafel 6y ago
But this is just about to what works to get votes.

Sargos 6y ago

Both parties support this. Citizens don't really have a say in how most of the government works.

ifmpx 6y ago
If citizens don't have a say, then that's not a democracy.