3 ms·

> The real problem is people like you refusing to vote for the people with the policy you want, as often as not as part of a bothsidesist stance designed to get

> The real problem is people like you refusing to vote for the people with the policy you want, as often as not as part of a bothsidesist stance designed to get more upvote in peer forums like HN That's a lot of words they didn't say. It is a true statement that Congress did not give the USA single-payer healthcare nor even a public option. Nothing about that says anything about who voted for whom, where anyone even lives for that matter, or anything about political parties. To say this is the fault of "people like you" is out of line.

ajross 2mo ago
> That's a lot of words they didn't say. It is a true statement that Congress did not give the USA single-payer healthcare But that is what they didn't say! They said it wasn't "votable", in the sense I took that means that this isn't an issue you can get by voting. And it is, clearly. And was, in 2010, when they were within one senate vote for a "public option" in the ACA. It 100% boggles my mind that you'd look at that once again incredibly partisan voting result and decide "Oh well, I might as well vote republican" (instead of "damn Joe Lieberman").
- anonymars 2mo ago
  > It 100% boggles my mind that you'd look at that once again incredibly partisan voting result and decide "Oh well, I might as well vote republican" Who said any of this? "I" said nothing of the sort I don't think you're going to convince anyone of anything this way. If anything you'll probably end up turning people off who otherwise would have agreed with you
  - ajross 2mo ago
    > Who said any of this? "I" said nothing of the sort You quite clearly came in to defend someone who did, though. This is the second time you've tried this end-around strawman. Please engage with the discussion as it is.
    - anonymars 2mo ago
      > You quite clearly came in to defend someone who did, though > "I already have universal healthcare here in Canada" I don't think I'm the one misreading the discussion as it is. If you take a deep breath and re-read, maybe you'll understand the point I've been trying to make is you're jumping down people's throats that aren't disagreeing with you, which at best does your own arguments a disservice. To put words in someone's mouth and say this is the fault of 'people like you' is out of line. Have a good one
      - ajross 2mo ago
        Please don't tone police on HN. If you agree with me but think I'm an asshole, the polite thing to do is just to keep quiet and not troll a discussion by convincing me you disagree. But I'm very happy you agree that health care policy in the USA is among the most directly partisan issues and know who to vote for given those priorities.
        anonymars 2mo ago
        If you think I'm merely "tone policing" then you still miss the point. I don't agree with your translation of "Washington didn't make it a voteable decision" to "both sides are the same" (with the added irony of accusing others of strawmanning). Edit: and even now you still put words in my mouth with your edit (so that's every message in this thread that does so). Best of luck to you
        ajross 2mo ago
        Oh, come on. That edit was a clarification added like 40 seconds after the post. Really, it seems like you're the one getting bent out of shape. Again, I thought (and still think) you agree with me on the partisan nature of the issue, right? That's not putting words in your mouth, that's your opinion. You just don't think I shouldn't have engaged with advocacy around the issue or taken offense that you and upthread commenters feel that this isn't something that can be... I guess "achieved by voting"[1]. I think that's a weird thing to troll a discussion this deep about, but OK. [1] Does that match your understanding of the point? Genuine question! I think it's bonkers and wrong, but you seem attached to it and I'd like the opportunity to convince you.

ajross 2mo ago

> That's a lot of words they didn't say. It is a true statement that Congress did not give the USA single-payer healthcare But that is what they didn't say! They said it wasn't "votable", in the sense I took that means that this isn't an issue you can get by voting. And it is, clearly. And was, in 2010, when they were within one senate vote for a "public option" in the ACA. It 100% boggles my mind that you'd look at that once again incredibly partisan voting result and decide "Oh well, I might as well vote republican" (instead of "damn Joe Lieberman").

anonymars 2mo ago
> It 100% boggles my mind that you'd look at that once again incredibly partisan voting result and decide "Oh well, I might as well vote republican" Who said any of this? "I" said nothing of the sort I don't think you're going to convince anyone of anything this way. If anything you'll probably end up turning people off who otherwise would have agreed with you
- ajross 2mo ago
  > Who said any of this? "I" said nothing of the sort You quite clearly came in to defend someone who did, though. This is the second time you've tried this end-around strawman. Please engage with the discussion as it is.
  - anonymars 2mo ago
    > You quite clearly came in to defend someone who did, though > "I already have universal healthcare here in Canada" I don't think I'm the one misreading the discussion as it is. If you take a deep breath and re-read, maybe you'll understand the point I've been trying to make is you're jumping down people's throats that aren't disagreeing with you, which at best does your own arguments a disservice. To put words in someone's mouth and say this is the fault of 'people like you' is out of line. Have a good one
    - ajross 2mo ago
      Please don't tone police on HN. If you agree with me but think I'm an asshole, the polite thing to do is just to keep quiet and not troll a discussion by convincing me you disagree. But I'm very happy you agree that health care policy in the USA is among the most directly partisan issues and know who to vote for given those priorities.
      - anonymars 2mo ago
        If you think I'm merely "tone policing" then you still miss the point. I don't agree with your translation of "Washington didn't make it a voteable decision" to "both sides are the same" (with the added irony of accusing others of strawmanning). Edit: and even now you still put words in my mouth with your edit (so that's every message in this thread that does so). Best of luck to you
        ajross 2mo ago
        Oh, come on. That edit was a clarification added like 40 seconds after the post. Really, it seems like you're the one getting bent out of shape. Again, I thought (and still think) you agree with me on the partisan nature of the issue, right? That's not putting words in your mouth, that's your opinion. You just don't think I shouldn't have engaged with advocacy around the issue or taken offense that you and upthread commenters feel that this isn't something that can be... I guess "achieved by voting"[1]. I think that's a weird thing to troll a discussion this deep about, but OK. [1] Does that match your understanding of the point? Genuine question! I think it's bonkers and wrong, but you seem attached to it and I'd like the opportunity to convince you.