12 ms·

The US government currently is inhabited by one political party whose goal is to hinder US interests in any way possible while complaining that the US doesn’t d

The US government currently is inhabited by one political party whose goal is to hinder US interests in any way possible while complaining that the US doesn’t do enough to bolster said interests. So yes, part of the government is serious, while another part is serious about doing the opposite, which does produce the intended effect: public perception that the US government is not serious about these things. What it will take for all political interests to align for the sake of US interests? Probably turning off financial lobbying from shadow money groups.

Pigalowda 3y ago
Says you! I think it’s important for my political party to only a function when it has majority control over the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as well as majority control over provincial governance. Once we have that we can show our voters how disappointment really feels. It needs to feel so soul crushing we completely implode our party and die out in irrelevance. That’s my thoughts on it anyways.
- throwanem 3y ago
  How dare you suggest a political party should offer some material benefit to its supporters in exchange for their effort and partisanship!
huytersd 3y ago
Political influence isn’t going to align if two sides of the country are irrevocably misaligned on some fundamentals (racism, LGBT etc.). There’s no middle ground (mainly LGBT) on these issues so it’s going to have to come down to a pseudo civil war with one side prevailing.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  As a gay person, this seems fundamentally wrong to me. There was even more distance among the parties on most LGBT issues 25 years ago, but the ability of the parties to compromise on anything is much, much worse now than it was then. I also think there is much more "crossover" on LGBT issues than one may believe. Tons of Republicans are pro-gay marriage, and tons of Democrats have real concerns about allowing trans women to compete in women's divisions in sports.
  - huytersd 3y ago
    The trans thing is the deal breaker when it comes to the right. We never saw massive resistance to gay anything for the last decade or so.
    - Smoosh 3y ago
      I think that the right lost the battle over gay rights as general attitudes had become accepting of them over the past 3-5 decades, but they don't want to lose the war so they are digging in over rights for transgender people.
      - huytersd 3y ago
        I feel it’s a little more than that. The right have never accepted feminized men and trans is taking it to its furthest conclusion. I genuinely believe the right doesn’t care about manly men fucking each other.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - throwaway38937 3y ago
        [flagged]
- zzozzo 3y ago
  There's definitely middle ground that could be negotiated if the will was there. For example, regarding the T (of LGBT), a liberal stance on people presenting how they want, and making it unlawful to discriminate against them for it. But at the same time, protecting single-sex spaces rather than redefining them in terms of "gender identity", and not punishing others for exercising freedom of speech and belief. So if Bob wants to call himself Brenda, wear a frock and make-up, and take drugs to grow breasts, then that's fine and he shouldn't be fired from his job for doing so. But this doesn't give him access to women's spaces, and if any of his colleagues don't want to refer to him as "she" then they shouldn't be censured for doing so either. This stance also protects LGB who may want to organize same-sex groups, such as lesbian speed dating or gay men's saunas, without having individuals of the opposite sex imposing themselves for self-identity reasons.
  - huytersd 3y ago
    If the prevailing notion is Bob is playing dress up as a woman I don’t think there would ever be a problem with the right. The left would never agree with that.
    - zzozzo 3y ago
      I think it depends on which factions of the right and the left. As I understand it, left-wing radical feminists mostly already hold that view. And some on the socially conservative right may still object to Bob/Brenda teaching their children, for example. However I do believe this position, or one very similar to it, could be enough of a middle-ground compromise to satisfy most people.
    - tarsinge 3y ago
      That's not what I got from the parent. Besides, everyone is dressing up one way or another depending on the situation. The problem is putting all your identity into it. And conversely also imposing on others that some characteristics you find important in your own belief system should be part of their identity. Extreme left and extreme right both have issues with that.
  - crooked-v 3y ago
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  That’s how they get us. Divide and conquer. The thing is that it’s really the politicians riling up the vocal members of their base. Surveys of most republicans show that they don’t like the extreme focus on trans people. There’s lots of common ground, if we cut away the ideology, on things like labor rights and jobs. The politicians amp up the rhetoric on LGBTQ issues because it gets people upset, but it’s really not an issue that affects most people’s lives outside of LGBTQ people directly.
- torginus 3y ago
  How true is this? I thought that being openly racist or anti-gay is a political suicide for both sides of the US political spectrum.
mikewarot 3y ago
The US government is currently inhabited by one political Duopoly, the RepubliCrats, who cater to the interests of the 0.001%, who keep us divided. It's been that way since at least 1970, if this set of interviews from 1970 is to be believed[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeeA-IU45pc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeeA-IU45pc
- api 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >What we have today is an overtly fascist MAGA Republican party that calls openly for dictatorship. This is UFO level conspiratorial thinking, but it's however encouraged by the established press. What exactly happened in 4 years of Trump? Basically more of the same. The idea that it represents some kind of fascist danger or whatever is oversold for partisan gains by the other party.
    - halfmatthalfcat 3y ago
      You left out the part where the President tried to persuade the Vice President not to ratify the election based on manufactured false pretense of election fraud. Or that same President trying to persuade another State’s elected officials to “find votes” so he could win.
      - kelipso 3y ago
        Sorry but complaining about things like this and calling it fascism or end of the world or whatever looks like a joke or someone doing hysterics and not remotely anything to be taken seriously.
        TOMDM 3y ago
        They didn't call it an end to the world; they claimed that attempts to subvert democracy are fascistic. Where's the hyperbole?
UberFly 3y ago
I'm honestly not sure which one you're referring to.
- e40 3y ago
  Must be the Republicans because they have been trying to strangle government for decades by making it look incompetent so they can point to it and say “see, I told you.”
  - twoodfin 3y ago
    Republicans have basically 0 to do with any of the reasons the Biden administration is struggling to implement the CHIPS act. They’re struggling because a) Industrial policy is hard enough in a federal system without … b) A federal government inexperienced with implementing industrial policy and … c) An administration that sees industrial policy as YA avenue to achieve its social objectives, so called “everything bagel liberalism” [1]. I think industrial policy is a terrible idea, so not too distressed to see it trip out of the starting gate. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/02/opinion/democrats-liberalism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/02/opinion/democrats-liberal...
    - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
      The comment we're discussing just mentions “US interests”. So for example providing military support to Ukraine, which the republicans keep blocking, or establishing programs to manage the border, which Biden has proposed and Republicans now oppose because they don’t want that issue relieved before the election, so they can point at how bad Biden is with the border.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        Supporting Ukraine isn’t in America’s interest. Stopping bankrolling random foreign wars was one thing republicans finally got right after decades of getting it wrong. And the border proposal was a fake-out, just like Reagan’s amnesty, which was supposed to be combined with border controls but never was. The goal of the recent border legislation was to make 5,000 illegal crossings a day (5 times higher than under Obama) the “new normal.”
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Edit: I misread the comment
- downrightmike 3y ago
  You read their comment wrong.
shiroiushi 3y ago
>So yes, part of the government is serious, while another part is serious about doing the opposite, which does produce the intended effect: public perception that the US government is not serious about these things. I disagree with your conclusion. My conclusion is that, yes, the US government really is not serious about these things. It's not just a "public perception", it's reality. It's reality because half the people in that government act this way and make it reality, and because those half the people in government are voted into their positions by half the voters in the population. >What it will take for all political interests to align for the sake of US interests? Probably turning off financial lobbying from shadow money groups. Financial lobbying isn't the reason that half the people are voting for a party that works against US's best interests. Those voters really do believe in the people they're voting for, and think that they really can make America like the 1950s again somehow.
- schainks 3y ago
  You're right. The government is only as serious about this as the people are who elect our leaders. > Financial lobbying isn't the reason that half the people are voting for a party that works against US's best interests. Those voters really do believe in the people they're voting for, and think that they really can make America like the 1950s again somehow. If the financial lobbying machine was turned off tomorrow, most of the money for the culture war goes away on mass media. I do agree said voters think they can "roll back the clock," to to speak, but it is an erroneous belief. 1950s USA had much more of that socialism thing that resulted in technological advancements and super-power-ness. One thing about the 1950s those people have right is that median income back then was closely tied to productivity, whereas today it just isn't, which is shafting everyone except the ultra wealthy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_in_the_United_States.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...)
xp84 3y ago
> one political party whose goal is to hinder US interests in any way possible while complaining that the US doesn’t do enough to bolster said interests. I’m really amused because I genuinely can’t tell which of our useless “parties” you’re referring to!
- schainks 3y ago
  Relevant meme: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/233/325/33a https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/233/325/33a

Pigalowda 3y ago

Says you! I think it’s important for my political party to only a function when it has majority control over the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as well as majority control over provincial governance. Once we have that we can show our voters how disappointment really feels. It needs to feel so soul crushing we completely implode our party and die out in irrelevance. That’s my thoughts on it anyways.

throwanem 3y ago
How dare you suggest a political party should offer some material benefit to its supporters in exchange for their effort and partisanship!

huytersd 3y ago

Political influence isn’t going to align if two sides of the country are irrevocably misaligned on some fundamentals (racism, LGBT etc.). There’s no middle ground (mainly LGBT) on these issues so it’s going to have to come down to a pseudo civil war with one side prevailing.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
As a gay person, this seems fundamentally wrong to me. There was even more distance among the parties on most LGBT issues 25 years ago, but the ability of the parties to compromise on anything is much, much worse now than it was then. I also think there is much more "crossover" on LGBT issues than one may believe. Tons of Republicans are pro-gay marriage, and tons of Democrats have real concerns about allowing trans women to compete in women's divisions in sports.
- huytersd 3y ago
  The trans thing is the deal breaker when it comes to the right. We never saw massive resistance to gay anything for the last decade or so.
  - Smoosh 3y ago
    I think that the right lost the battle over gay rights as general attitudes had become accepting of them over the past 3-5 decades, but they don't want to lose the war so they are digging in over rights for transgender people.
    - huytersd 3y ago
      I feel it’s a little more than that. The right have never accepted feminized men and trans is taking it to its furthest conclusion. I genuinely believe the right doesn’t care about manly men fucking each other.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway38937 3y ago
      [flagged]
zzozzo 3y ago
There's definitely middle ground that could be negotiated if the will was there. For example, regarding the T (of LGBT), a liberal stance on people presenting how they want, and making it unlawful to discriminate against them for it. But at the same time, protecting single-sex spaces rather than redefining them in terms of "gender identity", and not punishing others for exercising freedom of speech and belief. So if Bob wants to call himself Brenda, wear a frock and make-up, and take drugs to grow breasts, then that's fine and he shouldn't be fired from his job for doing so. But this doesn't give him access to women's spaces, and if any of his colleagues don't want to refer to him as "she" then they shouldn't be censured for doing so either. This stance also protects LGB who may want to organize same-sex groups, such as lesbian speed dating or gay men's saunas, without having individuals of the opposite sex imposing themselves for self-identity reasons.
- huytersd 3y ago
  If the prevailing notion is Bob is playing dress up as a woman I don’t think there would ever be a problem with the right. The left would never agree with that.
  - zzozzo 3y ago
    I think it depends on which factions of the right and the left. As I understand it, left-wing radical feminists mostly already hold that view. And some on the socially conservative right may still object to Bob/Brenda teaching their children, for example. However I do believe this position, or one very similar to it, could be enough of a middle-ground compromise to satisfy most people.
  - tarsinge 3y ago
    That's not what I got from the parent. Besides, everyone is dressing up one way or another depending on the situation. The problem is putting all your identity into it. And conversely also imposing on others that some characteristics you find important in your own belief system should be part of their identity. Extreme left and extreme right both have issues with that.
- crooked-v 3y ago
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
That’s how they get us. Divide and conquer. The thing is that it’s really the politicians riling up the vocal members of their base. Surveys of most republicans show that they don’t like the extreme focus on trans people. There’s lots of common ground, if we cut away the ideology, on things like labor rights and jobs. The politicians amp up the rhetoric on LGBTQ issues because it gets people upset, but it’s really not an issue that affects most people’s lives outside of LGBTQ people directly.
torginus 3y ago
How true is this? I thought that being openly racist or anti-gay is a political suicide for both sides of the US political spectrum.

mikewarot 3y ago

The US government is currently inhabited by one political Duopoly, the RepubliCrats, who cater to the interests of the 0.001%, who keep us divided. It's been that way since at least 1970, if this set of interviews from 1970 is to be believed[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeeA-IU45pc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeeA-IU45pc

api 3y ago
[flagged]
- coldtea 3y ago
  >What we have today is an overtly fascist MAGA Republican party that calls openly for dictatorship. This is UFO level conspiratorial thinking, but it's however encouraged by the established press. What exactly happened in 4 years of Trump? Basically more of the same. The idea that it represents some kind of fascist danger or whatever is oversold for partisan gains by the other party.
  - halfmatthalfcat 3y ago
    You left out the part where the President tried to persuade the Vice President not to ratify the election based on manufactured false pretense of election fraud. Or that same President trying to persuade another State’s elected officials to “find votes” so he could win.
    - kelipso 3y ago
      Sorry but complaining about things like this and calling it fascism or end of the world or whatever looks like a joke or someone doing hysterics and not remotely anything to be taken seriously.
      - TOMDM 3y ago
        They didn't call it an end to the world; they claimed that attempts to subvert democracy are fascistic. Where's the hyperbole?

UberFly 3y ago

I'm honestly not sure which one you're referring to.

e40 3y ago
Must be the Republicans because they have been trying to strangle government for decades by making it look incompetent so they can point to it and say “see, I told you.”
- twoodfin 3y ago
  Republicans have basically 0 to do with any of the reasons the Biden administration is struggling to implement the CHIPS act. They’re struggling because a) Industrial policy is hard enough in a federal system without … b) A federal government inexperienced with implementing industrial policy and … c) An administration that sees industrial policy as YA avenue to achieve its social objectives, so called “everything bagel liberalism” [1]. I think industrial policy is a terrible idea, so not too distressed to see it trip out of the starting gate. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/02/opinion/democrats-liberalism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/02/opinion/democrats-liberal...
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    The comment we're discussing just mentions “US interests”. So for example providing military support to Ukraine, which the republicans keep blocking, or establishing programs to manage the border, which Biden has proposed and Republicans now oppose because they don’t want that issue relieved before the election, so they can point at how bad Biden is with the border.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      Supporting Ukraine isn’t in America’s interest. Stopping bankrolling random foreign wars was one thing republicans finally got right after decades of getting it wrong. And the border proposal was a fake-out, just like Reagan’s amnesty, which was supposed to be combined with border controls but never was. The goal of the recent border legislation was to make 5,000 illegal crossings a day (5 times higher than under Obama) the “new normal.”

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

Edit: I misread the comment

downrightmike 3y ago
You read their comment wrong.

shiroiushi 3y ago

>So yes, part of the government is serious, while another part is serious about doing the opposite, which does produce the intended effect: public perception that the US government is not serious about these things. I disagree with your conclusion. My conclusion is that, yes, the US government really is not serious about these things. It's not just a "public perception", it's reality. It's reality because half the people in that government act this way and make it reality, and because those half the people in government are voted into their positions by half the voters in the population. >What it will take for all political interests to align for the sake of US interests? Probably turning off financial lobbying from shadow money groups. Financial lobbying isn't the reason that half the people are voting for a party that works against US's best interests. Those voters really do believe in the people they're voting for, and think that they really can make America like the 1950s again somehow.

schainks 3y ago
You're right. The government is only as serious about this as the people are who elect our leaders. > Financial lobbying isn't the reason that half the people are voting for a party that works against US's best interests. Those voters really do believe in the people they're voting for, and think that they really can make America like the 1950s again somehow. If the financial lobbying machine was turned off tomorrow, most of the money for the culture war goes away on mass media. I do agree said voters think they can "roll back the clock," to to speak, but it is an erroneous belief. 1950s USA had much more of that socialism thing that resulted in technological advancements and super-power-ness. One thing about the 1950s those people have right is that median income back then was closely tied to productivity, whereas today it just isn't, which is shafting everyone except the ultra wealthy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_in_the_United_States.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...)

xp84 3y ago

> one political party whose goal is to hinder US interests in any way possible while complaining that the US doesn’t do enough to bolster said interests. I’m really amused because I genuinely can’t tell which of our useless “parties” you’re referring to!

schainks 3y ago
Relevant meme: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/233/325/33a https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/233/325/33a