6 ms·

I don't see this as level-headed at all. This is really an extension of the "both sides" logical fallacy. It reminds me of Elon Musk's ridiculous tweet [1]. Wh

by jmyeet 5y ago

I don't see this as level-headed at all. This is really an extension of the "both sides" logical fallacy. It reminds me of Elon Musk's ridiculous tweet [1]. Why is this ridiculous? Because there is no extreme left in US politics. There's like 4 members of Congress you could consider leftist. The Democratic Party as it exists now is a center right party that makes just enough progressive noises to fundraise without actually doing anything legislatively. In the last 10 years the only things that have really changed are legalizing of gay marriage (long overdue), #MeToo, some attention to the institutional racism that black people continue to live under and a long overdue reevaluation of widespread transphobia. That's literally it. On the right, we reacted to the first black US president by electing a bona fide white supremacist [2]. The #1 show on the #1 "news" network openly pushes Nazi propaganda [3]. And what was the supposd left doing? Pelosi is campaigning for the only anti-choice Democrat in Congress [4] (ironically in Texas when the Supreme Court draft leaked). The right has been massively successful in creating wedge issues to make people care about things that don't matter (eg trans people in college sports) We've had 49 years to Federally codify Roe v. Wade but the supposed part of the Left has refused to do so despite numerous opportunities to do so. Which brings us back to the ACLU: what hard-left turn? [1]: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519735033950470144/photo/1 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519735033950470144/phot... [2]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-defends-white-nationalist-protesters-some-very-fine-people-on-both-sides/537012/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-d... [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/us/tucker-carlson-gop-republican-party.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/30/us/tucker-carlson-gop-rep... [4]: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/23/nancy-pelosi-henry-cuellar/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/23/nancy-pelosi-henry-c...

froggertoaster 5y ago
> In the last 10 years the only things that have really changed are legalizing of gay marriage (long overdue), #MeToo, some attention to the institutional racism that black people continue to live under and a long overdue reevaluation of widespread transphobia. That's literally it. Um... that's literally it? Bad take my guy. Just because you can copy/paste links and make citations doesn't make your take any more true. It smacks of extreme ignorance. And saying things like "on the right, we reacted to the first black US president by electing a bona fide white supremacist" just discredits you further - this is a highly politically charged statement that tells on your positions (and frankly, your mental state).
- fortuna86 5y ago
  > "on the right, we reacted to the first black US president by electing a bona fide white supremacist" Do I have to cut and paste all Trump's comments and recorded statements? Politics are infuriating to discuss because you find yourself debate truth, things that are obvious but still denied.
  - hedora 5y ago
    No, you're responding to someone that just asserted concrete evidence doesn't establish truth, and that anyone that reads primary sources is probably a nutjob. Besides, I think HN would throttle you well before you got a few percent of the way through them.
    - Jtype 5y ago
      "concrete evidence" ???
    - froggertoaster 5y ago
      Let's see some concrete evidence. I've seen plenty of anecdotal/made up evidence by people who are apparently mind readers and not much else.
      - fortuna86 5y ago
        Breaking my own rules here, i'm sure none of this will move you as we are debating truth and you have already decided your own. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-trade-puerto-rico-greenland-dirty-poor-a9679346.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... https://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8911467/donald-trump-immigrants-boycott https://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8911467/donald-trump-immigrants... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/19/what-trump-has-said-central-park-five/1501321001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/19/what... https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-r...
throwawaylinux 5y ago
Bill Clinton and Obama would both be considered homophobic nazis, white supremacists (a black white supremacist in the latter case, I've been assured that's a real and extremely dangerous variant of white supremacist by many foremost self-proclaimed experts), and woman haters for their views and policies on gay marriage, border control and immigration, even abortion (they said that abortions should be rare). So I'd say we've come a good way since electing those two bigoted old hatemongering dinosaurs, haven't we?
- llanowarelves 5y ago
  Additionally, I am old enough to remember when being against illegal immigration wasnt a "hateful extremist right-wing", issue. (Pre-2016, Schumer, Pelosi etc talked about it a lot).
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    Remember when Trump first announced "his" covid vaccine and everyone on the left was suddenly skeptical of vaccines?
    - crummy 5y ago
      I don't remember that.
      - dahfizz 5y ago
        > So, let's just say there is a vaccine that is approved and even distributed before the election. Would you get it? > I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump. And it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about. This is the exact same tactic used by anti vaxxers on the right. s/Donald Trump/Fauci/. Talk about undermining public trust in institutions - this is the (now) vice president publicly saying that it would have been possible and probable for a vaccine which wasn't safe or effective to be released to the public. https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/sotu/date/2020-09-06/segment/01 https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/sotu/date/2020-09-06/segmen...
smsm42 5y ago
It's an interesting set of opinions, which would be great if you didn't think these are indisputable facts that any reasonable person would agree to. Which they are definitely not.
- froggertoaster 5y ago
  Precisely true.
refurb 5y ago
"Because there is no extreme left in US politics." The irony of this statement is too delicious to not call out.
- cjsplat 5y ago
  The closest thing are the extremes in SF and a few other places. The progressives in SF can't even keep their tools on the school board sharp enough to avoid being kicked out of office in the most liberal city in the US. In contrast, there are left wing parties in other countries that know how to run for office, hold positions, and get things done. You know - by actually doing things.
hedora 5y ago
There is an extreme left in US politics, and it's a large percentage of the population. The problem is the electoral college. You only need 50% of the votes in the smallest twenty states to fillibuster legislation in congress, twenty five states to withold funding, and sixty to overcome a filibuster. It turns out 7% of people are all that's needed for a filibuster, and 12% can block one, assuming you have the right people. Those "super voters" are in the most conservative states in the US. I think the populous cities should demand constitutional changes to ensure each vote counts equally. Failing that, they should work towards secession. As it is, the majority of the population is in states that send more money to the federal government than they get back, and the states running the biggest deficits are trying to claw everyone else down to their (fascist, fundamentalist, and antidemocratic) level. I'm far more moderate than the liberal bogeymen the Republicans like to demonize.
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  Each person in less populated states has vastly more power than each person in more populated states. Why? Because each state gets to choose two senators. Does that make sense? I guess it does to people in those less populated states, who in effect have and hold on to the power they have. Is that how it should be in a democracy? Of course not. But people who have the power often don't like democracy.
- LanceH 5y ago
  Perhaps the democratic party shouldn't have abandoned trying to make a broad appeal. And there is a big difference between 7% being able to block a bill and 7% being able to pass a bill. A fair number of people view it as a feature that it can be hard to pass a law when there is only some opposition.
car_analogy 5y ago
> Because there is no extreme left in US politics. No extreme economic left. Instead, the left concentrates on racial issues, which is how enforcing even existing immigration law has become taboo, whites have been a minority among births since 2016 [1], and the white supremacist president campaigned with a "platinum plan" for Blacks. Except for the 2nd amendment and abortion opponents, the right has been an utter failure. A puppet for corporate interests pushing overseas invasions and tax cuts. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/23/its-official-minority-babies-are-the-majority-among-the-nations-infants-but-only-just/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/23/its-officia...
- krainboltgreene 5y ago
  > whites have been a minority among births since 2016 > enforcing even existing immigration law > for Blacks oh sweet, an open white supremacist.
  - car_analogy 5y ago
    Was anything I said false or inaccurate? In any case, if merely implying that borders should be enforced qualifies as white supremacy, then it's no wonder no party is considered "left", even on non-economic questions.
    - krainboltgreene 5y ago
      Yes, and also inciting.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
grover35 5y ago
Are you sure? I was always under the impression that the democratic party is alt-right and the republican party is neo Nazi.
raxxorraxor 5y ago
As someone from outside the US I agree that the "left" in the US are mostly just corporate stooges with empty promises. I think progressive causes are mostly a distraction and don't really help most people that would need state support the most. But subjecting yourself to the left - right dichotomy is disabling to yourself for the most part. Gay marriage is a point, although on a state level that is pretty much a tax adjustment today. There were no real other demands. Perhaps gender neutral passports, but honestly that isn't really a foundation for policy crafting. Which demands did #metoo have and which were realized? Same with the question for the movements against racism? There is no result because there are no demands. Or at least I didn't hear any. There are women in low wage jobs that could use support. How is #metoo helping them. How is removing police helping regions with crime problems. Ending prosecution of drug users was on the plan since decades and is sensible in contrast to recent demands.

by jmyeet 5y ago

froggertoaster 5y ago

> In the last 10 years the only things that have really changed are legalizing of gay marriage (long overdue), #MeToo, some attention to the institutional racism that black people continue to live under and a long overdue reevaluation of widespread transphobia. That's literally it. Um... that's literally it? Bad take my guy. Just because you can copy/paste links and make citations doesn't make your take any more true. It smacks of extreme ignorance. And saying things like "on the right, we reacted to the first black US president by electing a bona fide white supremacist" just discredits you further - this is a highly politically charged statement that tells on your positions (and frankly, your mental state).

fortuna86 5y ago
> "on the right, we reacted to the first black US president by electing a bona fide white supremacist" Do I have to cut and paste all Trump's comments and recorded statements? Politics are infuriating to discuss because you find yourself debate truth, things that are obvious but still denied.
- hedora 5y ago
  No, you're responding to someone that just asserted concrete evidence doesn't establish truth, and that anyone that reads primary sources is probably a nutjob. Besides, I think HN would throttle you well before you got a few percent of the way through them.
  - Jtype 5y ago
    "concrete evidence" ???
  - froggertoaster 5y ago
    Let's see some concrete evidence. I've seen plenty of anecdotal/made up evidence by people who are apparently mind readers and not much else.
    - fortuna86 5y ago
      Breaking my own rules here, i'm sure none of this will move you as we are debating truth and you have already decided your own. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-trade-puerto-rico-greenland-dirty-poor-a9679346.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... https://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8911467/donald-trump-immigrants-boycott https://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8911467/donald-trump-immigrants... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/19/what-trump-has-said-central-park-five/1501321001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/19/what... https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-r...

throwawaylinux 5y ago

Bill Clinton and Obama would both be considered homophobic nazis, white supremacists (a black white supremacist in the latter case, I've been assured that's a real and extremely dangerous variant of white supremacist by many foremost self-proclaimed experts), and woman haters for their views and policies on gay marriage, border control and immigration, even abortion (they said that abortions should be rare). So I'd say we've come a good way since electing those two bigoted old hatemongering dinosaurs, haven't we?

llanowarelves 5y ago
Additionally, I am old enough to remember when being against illegal immigration wasnt a "hateful extremist right-wing", issue. (Pre-2016, Schumer, Pelosi etc talked about it a lot).
- dahfizz 5y ago
  Remember when Trump first announced "his" covid vaccine and everyone on the left was suddenly skeptical of vaccines?
  - crummy 5y ago
    I don't remember that.
    - dahfizz 5y ago
      > So, let's just say there is a vaccine that is approved and even distributed before the election. Would you get it? > I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump. And it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about. This is the exact same tactic used by anti vaxxers on the right. s/Donald Trump/Fauci/. Talk about undermining public trust in institutions - this is the (now) vice president publicly saying that it would have been possible and probable for a vaccine which wasn't safe or effective to be released to the public. https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/sotu/date/2020-09-06/segment/01 https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/sotu/date/2020-09-06/segmen...

smsm42 5y ago

It's an interesting set of opinions, which would be great if you didn't think these are indisputable facts that any reasonable person would agree to. Which they are definitely not.

froggertoaster 5y ago
Precisely true.

refurb 5y ago

"Because there is no extreme left in US politics." The irony of this statement is too delicious to not call out.

cjsplat 5y ago
The closest thing are the extremes in SF and a few other places. The progressives in SF can't even keep their tools on the school board sharp enough to avoid being kicked out of office in the most liberal city in the US. In contrast, there are left wing parties in other countries that know how to run for office, hold positions, and get things done. You know - by actually doing things.

hedora 5y ago

There is an extreme left in US politics, and it's a large percentage of the population. The problem is the electoral college. You only need 50% of the votes in the smallest twenty states to fillibuster legislation in congress, twenty five states to withold funding, and sixty to overcome a filibuster. It turns out 7% of people are all that's needed for a filibuster, and 12% can block one, assuming you have the right people. Those "super voters" are in the most conservative states in the US. I think the populous cities should demand constitutional changes to ensure each vote counts equally. Failing that, they should work towards secession. As it is, the majority of the population is in states that send more money to the federal government than they get back, and the states running the biggest deficits are trying to claw everyone else down to their (fascist, fundamentalist, and antidemocratic) level. I'm far more moderate than the liberal bogeymen the Republicans like to demonize.

galaxyLogic 5y ago
Each person in less populated states has vastly more power than each person in more populated states. Why? Because each state gets to choose two senators. Does that make sense? I guess it does to people in those less populated states, who in effect have and hold on to the power they have. Is that how it should be in a democracy? Of course not. But people who have the power often don't like democracy.
LanceH 5y ago
Perhaps the democratic party shouldn't have abandoned trying to make a broad appeal. And there is a big difference between 7% being able to block a bill and 7% being able to pass a bill. A fair number of people view it as a feature that it can be hard to pass a law when there is only some opposition.

car_analogy 5y ago

> Because there is no extreme left in US politics. No extreme economic left. Instead, the left concentrates on racial issues, which is how enforcing even existing immigration law has become taboo, whites have been a minority among births since 2016 [1], and the white supremacist president campaigned with a "platinum plan" for Blacks. Except for the 2nd amendment and abortion opponents, the right has been an utter failure. A puppet for corporate interests pushing overseas invasions and tax cuts. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/23/its-official-minority-babies-are-the-majority-among-the-nations-infants-but-only-just/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/23/its-officia...

krainboltgreene 5y ago
> whites have been a minority among births since 2016 > enforcing even existing immigration law > for Blacks oh sweet, an open white supremacist.
- car_analogy 5y ago
  Was anything I said false or inaccurate? In any case, if merely implying that borders should be enforced qualifies as white supremacy, then it's no wonder no party is considered "left", even on non-economic questions.
  - krainboltgreene 5y ago
    Yes, and also inciting.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

grover35 5y ago

Are you sure? I was always under the impression that the democratic party is alt-right and the republican party is neo Nazi.

raxxorraxor 5y ago

As someone from outside the US I agree that the "left" in the US are mostly just corporate stooges with empty promises. I think progressive causes are mostly a distraction and don't really help most people that would need state support the most. But subjecting yourself to the left - right dichotomy is disabling to yourself for the most part. Gay marriage is a point, although on a state level that is pretty much a tax adjustment today. There were no real other demands. Perhaps gender neutral passports, but honestly that isn't really a foundation for policy crafting. Which demands did #metoo have and which were realized? Same with the question for the movements against racism? There is no result because there are no demands. Or at least I didn't hear any. There are women in low wage jobs that could use support. How is #metoo helping them. How is removing police helping regions with crime problems. Ending prosecution of drug users was on the plan since decades and is sensible in contrast to recent demands.