3 ms·

I genuinely don’t see much difference in behavior between the two parties

throwaway5752 2y ago
I am disappointed by both parties but see clear differences in ideology and more importantly, respect for the law, due process, and civil rights. In particular, the full title of this article is, "Cancellation of Naval Academy Lecture by Ruth Ben-Ghiat at Behest of Republican Politicians Threatens Institutional Autonomy"
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
  I agree there are idealogical differences even though they’re very similar in important ways too. I just meant behavior, no ideas, were very similar
unethical_ban 2y ago
I genuinely can't... understand that kind of sentiment without specific examples, given how many examples we have that there are major differences. Public education, affordable healthcare, protection of the environment and recognition of climate change. At the meta level: one party is much more guilty of denying democratic norms, obstructing popular legislation in government for shrewd partisan purposes, and wanting to hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern. Specific examples of that last point: Florida banning any form of voting besides First past the post, which is one of the worst ways to vote for a candidate. But it entrenches the established parties.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  << I genuinely can't... understand that kind of sentiment without specific examples, Hmm, what could be a good indicator of uniparty being in charge today? What current events could serve as a good indicator of why people may think it is all merely a kabuki theater with more cross-dressing than substance? What and who could possibly make denizens of US so gosh darn cynical? What could be the one thing establishment dems and reps just can't help themselves from doing? << At the meta level: one party is much more guilty of denying democratic norms, obstructing popular legislation in government for shrewd partisan purposes, and wanting to hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern. There is no 'more guilty'. You are either guilty of it or not. You want to be holy and claim to dispense divine wisdom? You don't get to piss in the holy water then. << Public education, affordable healthcare, protection of the environment and recognition of climate change. Oh yeah. Such massive differences. So massive. Like. Public education. Everyone knows in Chicagoland left leaning individuals of means send their kids to public schools, because it is the right thing to do ( and public education is just the best kind of tits ). Everyone knows. And everyone who does not is likely an evil republican and likely a climate change denier. Maybe even a fascist. << hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern. Why on earth would I want the government to be modern or more democratic? Do you even know what you are asking for here? And which government? Federal? State? Local? Like seriously. Do you want the government to use new and improved Python 3.13? Do you have a strong objection to use of C++ in government code? Do you want it to use blockchain to validate voter information? Do you want to use AWS to store everything about everyone? Do you want memory protection? What? Talk about being specific. And why anyone would want US to be more democratic, where an average voter is functional, semi-literate moron[1] ( From 2012 to 2017, a survey conducted with 12,330 adult participants aged between 16 and 74 had a mean score of 264 out of 500 on a literacy test. There were participants from every state and county within the total that took the exam. ; 54% of adults have a literacy below sixth-grade level. ) They barely understand what is happening to them and you want to let them have more of a say how this country is run? Seriously? Fuck man. If anything, we need to bring back full blown early republic when you had a right to vote if you had some skin in the game ( likely land ). Since it is 2024 we can add having kids as having a skin in the game. << Specific examples of that last point: Florida banning any form of voting besides First past the post, which is one of the worst ways to vote for a candidate. But it entrenches the established parties. Is it a useful example in your book? To me it signifies little. Power tries to get more power. Surprise. [1]https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/literacy-statistics https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/literacy-statisti...
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    You think public education is bad, but instead of trying to fix it, the solution is to disenfranchise poor people and childless people. And who cares if political parties try to block reforms, that's just normal. That isn't freedom.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      Heh. << You think public education is bad Yes, duh. I think based on the outcomes, it is hard to argue it is good. What are you even arguing here? << the solution is to disenfranchise poor people and childless people Yes. I stated my reasons. You tell me why expanding franchise to dumb people and people without stake in the game is 'good for democracy'. << That isn't freedom. I thought we were talking about democracy..
      - unethical_ban 2y ago
        Democracy is the means to freedom. Not giving the vote to "dumb" people is taking away their sovereignty. Why do you think you'd be in the ruling class in your authoritarian fantasy? "Democracy is the worst political system, other than all the rest." Anything short of universal adult suffrage is an attempt to oppress classes of people. Even things like reading tests or logic exams, which I would love in an ideal world, would quickly be used (and have been in the past) to oppress people. So: Democracy is necessary in a free society, and permitting everyone to vote is necessary in a free society. If we're going to require all people to vote, they should be as educated as possible. Hence free public education.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        << Not giving the vote to "dumb" people is taking away their sovereignty. I think there is clear level of misunderstanding of what sovereignty actually is. It is not some of sort semi-legal status. Naturally, we could spend time here going over the definitions including how that definition refers to democracy and Democracy ( we can also spend fair amount of time discussing how the capital D differs from the small d and why it is relevant to this discussion ). I am not sure it is that worthwhile, to be perfectly honest. There are tomes discussing it and most of it is rather dry. << "Democracy is the worst political system, other than all the rest." I mean, since we are going for trite I will reply with similarly trite "Democracy is a nice idea if it was actually implemented." And now we can spar over whether US is a democracy, which also is largely a waste of everyone's time. << Anything short of universal adult suffrage is an attempt to oppress classes of people. Just by stating above you effectively confirm there is no democracy in US. Again, a fair amount of boring writing on this largely centered around the concept of a class. I am not sure I am the right person to discuss that. << If we're going to require all people to vote, they should be as educated as possible. Hence free public education. By your own logic, since we do not require people to vote, free public education is not necessary. I agree there is some benefit to it, but I am relatively firm in my stance in its current shape, it is in dire need of a reform ( and by that I do mean effectively nuking it from the orbit ). ** FWIW, while I do not buy your argument I am sympathetic to the worldview it represents. It is hopeful. edit: << Why do you think you'd be in the ruling class in your authoritarian fantasy? You greatly misunderstand my perspective on the matter. You are effectively a slave now. In my fantasy, at least you have a shot to not be one. It is not a lot, but it is more than what you have now. edit2: We. We are slaves.
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
  Yes there are policy differences. My point is that the behavior is similar. They all lie, they all obstruct, they all gerrymander, they all have giant corporate and financial influence, they all drag their feet and fail to get anything meaningful passed, none of them care about real healthcare reform, they all push problematic overly capitalist ideals. Yes there are differences. But dems have had plenty of chances to pass meaningful changes in the past decade and we still have broken healthcare, broken education, broke electorate systems, broken civil rights. If they were really that different we’d see different results based on who is in power, and we really barely do
  - throwaway5752 2y ago
    Are you under 30? I ask because I wonder if you had to get your own health insurance prior to the ACA passage. I disagree with your premise about healthcare. If you don't remember the dreaded "gap in coverage" or "pre-existing condition", then you might not appreciate how much has been accomplished for improving healthcare. It didn't solve everything, clearly, but things are much better than they were 20 years ago. Beyond that, saying "there are still problems, why didn't one party fix them" is a little unrealistic when another party has shared power and actively fought them. You might want to research the circumstances around Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, the FY25 Education Appropriations Bill... there are a lot of examples if you look into it. The two major political parties are very different.
    - whamlastxmas 2y ago
      Mid late thirties. I still don’t get healthcare despite being unemployed for over a year bc it’s horrifically expensive for doing effectively absolutely nothing for me as a relatively healthy person. I can appreciate it’s different but will also mention that something like 20% of dems in the house still voted against the ACA. Obviously things have changed but my original point is about the ends justifying the means on both sides, and both sides use the same means
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    >But dems have had plenty of chances to pass meaningful changes in the past decade I don't think we've had a Democratic president, a Democratic House, and a 60-seat Democratic majority in Congress in the past decade. We have had meaningful improvements to healthcare for millions, though we don't have a public option. We are fighting against a right-wing political party looking to defund public education. I'm curious how you say "civil rights" are broken: Do you mean privacy against a police state? I agree big tech and government can see and do too much without cause.

I am disappointed by both parties but see clear differences in ideology and more importantly, respect for the law, due process, and civil rights. In particular, the full title of this article is, "Cancellation of Naval Academy Lecture by Ruth Ben-Ghiat at Behest of Republican Politicians Threatens Institutional Autonomy"

whamlastxmas 2y ago
I agree there are idealogical differences even though they’re very similar in important ways too. I just meant behavior, no ideas, were very similar

unethical_ban 2y ago

I genuinely can't... understand that kind of sentiment without specific examples, given how many examples we have that there are major differences. Public education, affordable healthcare, protection of the environment and recognition of climate change. At the meta level: one party is much more guilty of denying democratic norms, obstructing popular legislation in government for shrewd partisan purposes, and wanting to hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern. Specific examples of that last point: Florida banning any form of voting besides First past the post, which is one of the worst ways to vote for a candidate. But it entrenches the established parties.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
<< I genuinely can't... understand that kind of sentiment without specific examples, Hmm, what could be a good indicator of uniparty being in charge today? What current events could serve as a good indicator of why people may think it is all merely a kabuki theater with more cross-dressing than substance? What and who could possibly make denizens of US so gosh darn cynical? What could be the one thing establishment dems and reps just can't help themselves from doing? << At the meta level: one party is much more guilty of denying democratic norms, obstructing popular legislation in government for shrewd partisan purposes, and wanting to hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern. There is no 'more guilty'. You are either guilty of it or not. You want to be holy and claim to dispense divine wisdom? You don't get to piss in the holy water then. << Public education, affordable healthcare, protection of the environment and recognition of climate change. Oh yeah. Such massive differences. So massive. Like. Public education. Everyone knows in Chicagoland left leaning individuals of means send their kids to public schools, because it is the right thing to do ( and public education is just the best kind of tits ). Everyone knows. And everyone who does not is likely an evil republican and likely a climate change denier. Maybe even a fascist. << hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern. Why on earth would I want the government to be modern or more democratic? Do you even know what you are asking for here? And which government? Federal? State? Local? Like seriously. Do you want the government to use new and improved Python 3.13? Do you have a strong objection to use of C++ in government code? Do you want it to use blockchain to validate voter information? Do you want to use AWS to store everything about everyone? Do you want memory protection? What? Talk about being specific. And why anyone would want US to be more democratic, where an average voter is functional, semi-literate moron[1] ( From 2012 to 2017, a survey conducted with 12,330 adult participants aged between 16 and 74 had a mean score of 264 out of 500 on a literacy test. There were participants from every state and county within the total that took the exam. ; 54% of adults have a literacy below sixth-grade level. ) They barely understand what is happening to them and you want to let them have more of a say how this country is run? Seriously? Fuck man. If anything, we need to bring back full blown early republic when you had a right to vote if you had some skin in the game ( likely land ). Since it is 2024 we can add having kids as having a skin in the game. << Specific examples of that last point: Florida banning any form of voting besides First past the post, which is one of the worst ways to vote for a candidate. But it entrenches the established parties. Is it a useful example in your book? To me it signifies little. Power tries to get more power. Surprise. [1]https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/literacy-statistics https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/literacy-statisti...
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  You think public education is bad, but instead of trying to fix it, the solution is to disenfranchise poor people and childless people. And who cares if political parties try to block reforms, that's just normal. That isn't freedom.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    Heh. << You think public education is bad Yes, duh. I think based on the outcomes, it is hard to argue it is good. What are you even arguing here? << the solution is to disenfranchise poor people and childless people Yes. I stated my reasons. You tell me why expanding franchise to dumb people and people without stake in the game is 'good for democracy'. << That isn't freedom. I thought we were talking about democracy..
    - unethical_ban 2y ago
      Democracy is the means to freedom. Not giving the vote to "dumb" people is taking away their sovereignty. Why do you think you'd be in the ruling class in your authoritarian fantasy? "Democracy is the worst political system, other than all the rest." Anything short of universal adult suffrage is an attempt to oppress classes of people. Even things like reading tests or logic exams, which I would love in an ideal world, would quickly be used (and have been in the past) to oppress people. So: Democracy is necessary in a free society, and permitting everyone to vote is necessary in a free society. If we're going to require all people to vote, they should be as educated as possible. Hence free public education.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        << Not giving the vote to "dumb" people is taking away their sovereignty. I think there is clear level of misunderstanding of what sovereignty actually is. It is not some of sort semi-legal status. Naturally, we could spend time here going over the definitions including how that definition refers to democracy and Democracy ( we can also spend fair amount of time discussing how the capital D differs from the small d and why it is relevant to this discussion ). I am not sure it is that worthwhile, to be perfectly honest. There are tomes discussing it and most of it is rather dry. << "Democracy is the worst political system, other than all the rest." I mean, since we are going for trite I will reply with similarly trite "Democracy is a nice idea if it was actually implemented." And now we can spar over whether US is a democracy, which also is largely a waste of everyone's time. << Anything short of universal adult suffrage is an attempt to oppress classes of people. Just by stating above you effectively confirm there is no democracy in US. Again, a fair amount of boring writing on this largely centered around the concept of a class. I am not sure I am the right person to discuss that. << If we're going to require all people to vote, they should be as educated as possible. Hence free public education. By your own logic, since we do not require people to vote, free public education is not necessary. I agree there is some benefit to it, but I am relatively firm in my stance in its current shape, it is in dire need of a reform ( and by that I do mean effectively nuking it from the orbit ). ** FWIW, while I do not buy your argument I am sympathetic to the worldview it represents. It is hopeful. edit: << Why do you think you'd be in the ruling class in your authoritarian fantasy? You greatly misunderstand my perspective on the matter. You are effectively a slave now. In my fantasy, at least you have a shot to not be one. It is not a lot, but it is more than what you have now. edit2: We. We are slaves.
whamlastxmas 2y ago
Yes there are policy differences. My point is that the behavior is similar. They all lie, they all obstruct, they all gerrymander, they all have giant corporate and financial influence, they all drag their feet and fail to get anything meaningful passed, none of them care about real healthcare reform, they all push problematic overly capitalist ideals. Yes there are differences. But dems have had plenty of chances to pass meaningful changes in the past decade and we still have broken healthcare, broken education, broke electorate systems, broken civil rights. If they were really that different we’d see different results based on who is in power, and we really barely do
- throwaway5752 2y ago
  Are you under 30? I ask because I wonder if you had to get your own health insurance prior to the ACA passage. I disagree with your premise about healthcare. If you don't remember the dreaded "gap in coverage" or "pre-existing condition", then you might not appreciate how much has been accomplished for improving healthcare. It didn't solve everything, clearly, but things are much better than they were 20 years ago. Beyond that, saying "there are still problems, why didn't one party fix them" is a little unrealistic when another party has shared power and actively fought them. You might want to research the circumstances around Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, the FY25 Education Appropriations Bill... there are a lot of examples if you look into it. The two major political parties are very different.
  - whamlastxmas 2y ago
    Mid late thirties. I still don’t get healthcare despite being unemployed for over a year bc it’s horrifically expensive for doing effectively absolutely nothing for me as a relatively healthy person. I can appreciate it’s different but will also mention that something like 20% of dems in the house still voted against the ACA. Obviously things have changed but my original point is about the ends justifying the means on both sides, and both sides use the same means
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  >But dems have had plenty of chances to pass meaningful changes in the past decade I don't think we've had a Democratic president, a Democratic House, and a 60-seat Democratic majority in Congress in the past decade. We have had meaningful improvements to healthcare for millions, though we don't have a public option. We are fighting against a right-wing political party looking to defund public education. I'm curious how you say "civil rights" are broken: Do you mean privacy against a police state? I agree big tech and government can see and do too much without cause.