Mutual Hatred Is All Democrats and Republicans Have to Offer

[PyramidHead]

Support of Israel as a legitimate state
Hostility towards Latin American countries who elect socialist leaders
In favor of the continued existence of private health insurance
Against the abolition of for-profit prisons
Opposed to the nationalization of energy production
Against the cancellation of student debt and medical debt
Uninterested in high speed, free public transportation across the country
In favor of NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, and other such trade agreements
Against nuclear energy
Against national rent control
Against reparations for blacks and indigenous people
Acceptance of corporate money for campaigns

That's a fine list.

Some of them are wrong. Some of the suggestions are just plain stupid.

I suggest this link for all to view, Quite comprehensive.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/

Whether the suggestions are stupid or not is beside the point of what you asked, so it can be ignored; you just wanted to know about the 2 major parties and what they have in common. As a rebuttal, you said "fine, some are wrong tho" and posted a link about the presidential candidates within a single party. Do you see the problem?

 

[marc]

Support of Israel as a legitimate state
Hostility towards Latin American countries who elect socialist leaders
In favor of the continued existence of private health insurance
Against the abolition of for-profit prisons
Opposed to the nationalization of energy production
Against the cancellation of student debt and medical debt
Uninterested in high speed, free public transportation across the country
In favor of NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, and other such trade agreements
Against nuclear energy
Against national rent control
Against reparations for blacks and indigenous people
Acceptance of corporate money for campaigns

That's a fine list.

Some of them are wrong. Some of the suggestions are just plain stupid.

I suggest this link for all to view, Quite comprehensive.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/

Whether the suggestions are stupid or not is beside the point of what you asked, so it can be ignored; you just wanted to know about the 2 major parties and what they have in common. As a rebuttal, you said "fine, some are wrong tho" and posted a link about the presidential candidates within a single party. Do you see the problem?

Cherry picking some policies that there is little to no dispute about, and ignoring details of others.
Like on private health insurance, saying they are both in favor of it ignores details of policies like yearly and lifetime caps, pre-existing conditions, the use of high-risk pools, regulations on what should be required by any insurance.

Voting rights / gerrymandering.
Immigration, especially Dreamers.

There is no denying that the parties have their similarities, especially when it comes to the interest of big businesses. But to gloss over the differences is apathetic hand waving that is to the advantage of the more corrupt.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, exactly. The political parties in the US are at each other's throats not because of differences between themselves but because they are so close to each other. There still is an American philosophy of government largely adhered to by both parties.

I haven't read through the thread yet, but this idea certainly has already appeared in it.

Yes, yes, very much yes.

There's even a term for it.

 Narcissism of small differences

 

[PyramidHead]

Whether the suggestions are stupid or not is beside the point of what you asked, so it can be ignored; you just wanted to know about the 2 major parties and what they have in common. As a rebuttal, you said "fine, some are wrong tho" and posted a link about the presidential candidates within a single party. Do you see the problem?

Cherry picking some policies that there is little to no dispute about, and ignoring details of others.
Like on private health insurance, saying they are both in favor of it ignores details of policies like yearly and lifetime caps, pre-existing conditions, the use of high-risk pools, regulations on what should be required by any insurance.

The difference is not very stark within that realm. If for-profit health insurance exists, it will set the agenda for health care in this country, full stop. That's the reality we have to contend with, not how best to constrain the industry.

 

[ZiprHead]

Support of Israel as a legitimate state
Hostility towards Latin American countries who elect socialist leaders
In favor of the continued existence of private health insurance
Against the abolition of for-profit prisons
Opposed to the nationalization of energy production
Against the cancellation of student debt and medical debt
Uninterested in high speed, free public transportation across the country
In favor of NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, and other such trade agreements
Against nuclear energy
Against national rent control
Against reparations for blacks and indigenous people
Acceptance of corporate money for campaigns

That's a fine list.

Some of them are wrong. Some of the suggestions are just plain stupid.

I suggest this link for all to view, Quite comprehensive.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/

Whether the suggestions are stupid or not is beside the point of what you asked, so it can be ignored; you just wanted to know about the 2 major parties and what they have in common. As a rebuttal, you said "fine, some are wrong tho" and posted a link about the presidential candidates within a single party. Do you see the problem?

Yes, I see the problem. I see you cherry picking, wrongly in some cases.

I posted the link to show the positions on issues, some of them the ones you raised above. The private prison issue is a case in point. Not one of the dem candidates supports private prisons and half have clearly stated they are against private prisons.

 

[PyramidHead]

Whether the suggestions are stupid or not is beside the point of what you asked, so it can be ignored; you just wanted to know about the 2 major parties and what they have in common. As a rebuttal, you said "fine, some are wrong tho" and posted a link about the presidential candidates within a single party. Do you see the problem?

Yes, I see the problem. I see you cherry picking, wrongly in some cases.

The idea that the positions I listed are of actual importance to me, and are indeed more important than support for banning Trump's twitter account, is not within your capacity for charity to entertain?

I posted the link to show the positions on issues, some of them the ones you raised above. The private prison issue is a case in point. Not one of the dem candidates supports private prisons and half have clearly stated they are against private prisons.

You don't see the problem, then. What makes the parties equivalently in favor of private prisons is not what their candidates say in presidential campaigns. This is for two reasons. First, presidential candidates during primary elections tend to say things that appeal to voters, then pivot away from the more ambitious plans in the general. Two, voices from ideological extremes of a party are often amplified in presidential contests, whereas the rest of the time they are drowned out by the consensus position. My statement that both parties are in favor of private prisons is based on the fact that we have private prisons in the United States. If there was a genuine difference between the parties on this issue, it wouldn't be coming up in 2019 as an opportunistic policy that focus groups have told the candidates to say certain things about. We've had plenty of Democratic majorities under Democratic presidents, and we still have private prisons. Therefore, there is no evidence that Democratic politicians in general care about abolishing private prisons. Hopefully that will change, but it's too early to say and not the example you're looking for of a genuine policy difference between the parties from my list.

 

[ZiprHead]

The idea that the positions I listed are of actual importance to me, and are indeed more important than support for banning Trump's twitter account, is not within your capacity for charity to entertain?

I posted the link to show the positions on issues, some of them the ones you raised above. The private prison issue is a case in point. Not one of the dem candidates supports private prisons and half have clearly stated they are against private prisons.

You don't see the problem, then. What makes the parties equivalently in favor of private prisons is not what their candidates say in presidential campaigns. This is for two reasons. First, presidential candidates during primary elections tend to say things that appeal to voters, then pivot away from the more ambitious plans in the general. Two, voices from ideological extremes of a party are often amplified in presidential contests, whereas the rest of the time they are drowned out by the consensus position. My statement that both parties are in favor of private prisons is based on the fact that we have private prisons in the United States. If there was a genuine difference between the parties on this issue, it wouldn't be coming up in 2019 as an opportunistic policy that focus groups have told the candidates to say certain things about. We've had plenty of Democratic majorities under Democratic presidents, and we still have private prisons. Therefore, there is no evidence that Democratic politicians in general care about abolishing private prisons. Hopefully that will change, but it's too early to say and not the example you're looking for of a genuine policy difference between the parties from my list.

That's just fucking stupid.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Whether the suggestions are stupid or not is beside the point of what you asked, so it can be ignored; you just wanted to know about the 2 major parties and what they have in common. As a rebuttal, you said "fine, some are wrong tho" and posted a link about the presidential candidates within a single party. Do you see the problem?

Cherry picking some policies that there is little to no dispute about, and ignoring details of others.
Like on private health insurance, saying they are both in favor of it ignores details of policies like yearly and lifetime caps, pre-existing conditions, the use of high-risk pools, regulations on what should be required by any insurance.

The difference is not very stark within that realm. If for-profit health insurance exists, it will set the agenda for health care in this country, full stop. That's the reality we have to contend with, not how best to constrain the industry.

And via ACA, are more or fewer people with health insurance and have at least a better chance at receiving medical care?

 

[RVonse]

Yes, exactly. The political parties in the US are at each other's throats not because of differences between themselves but because they are so close to each other. There still is an American philosophy of government largely adhered to by both parties.

I haven't read through the thread yet, but this idea certainly has already appeared in it.

Yes, yes, very much yes.

There's even a term for it.

 Narcissism of small differences

I would call it the narcissism of the corporate owned media. During the Clinton campaign "it was the economy stupid". But now "it is the media stupid" , which BTW has become much worse when Clinton let them merge with each other during his regime.

The corporate owned main stream media monopoly has a stranglehold on democracy IMO. It has been the corporate owned checkbook media having been the underlying cause of mutual hatred sited by the OP. If the media wants to promote a partisan divide they are able to do just exactly that and set their own corporate narrative. If Trump is right about anything at all, he is absolutely correct that all we have left in this country is a FAKE media. Its in their interest to have the public bitching with each other over fake racism. And it is in their interest for the public to not take notice of trade agreements that hollow out the middle class.

I do not know if breaking them up would help, but it would at least be a good start.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

They do know when to put aside their partisan hatred. They took a break from their fighting to reauthorize the USAPATRIOT Act.

If there were big differences between the parties, one would think it could be found there.

 

[PyramidHead]

The idea that the positions I listed are of actual importance to me, and are indeed more important than support for banning Trump's twitter account, is not within your capacity for charity to entertain?

I posted the link to show the positions on issues, some of them the ones you raised above. The private prison issue is a case in point. Not one of the dem candidates supports private prisons and half have clearly stated they are against private prisons.

You don't see the problem, then. What makes the parties equivalently in favor of private prisons is not what their candidates say in presidential campaigns. This is for two reasons. First, presidential candidates during primary elections tend to say things that appeal to voters, then pivot away from the more ambitious plans in the general. Two, voices from ideological extremes of a party are often amplified in presidential contests, whereas the rest of the time they are drowned out by the consensus position. My statement that both parties are in favor of private prisons is based on the fact that we have private prisons in the United States. If there was a genuine difference between the parties on this issue, it wouldn't be coming up in 2019 as an opportunistic policy that focus groups have told the candidates to say certain things about. We've had plenty of Democratic majorities under Democratic presidents, and we still have private prisons. Therefore, there is no evidence that Democratic politicians in general care about abolishing private prisons. Hopefully that will change, but it's too early to say and not the example you're looking for of a genuine policy difference between the parties from my list.

That's just fucking stupid.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate, though. Political parties and their priorities are not hard to garner from what they do when they gain power in society, what legislation they push for the hardest, and who that legislation benefits.

 

[PyramidHead]

The difference is not very stark within that realm. If for-profit health insurance exists, it will set the agenda for health care in this country, full stop. That's the reality we have to contend with, not how best to constrain the industry.

And via ACA, are more or fewer people with health insurance and have at least a better chance at receiving medical care?

A centrist walks into a bar and smacks his head on it because it was set too low.

 

[ZiprHead]

That's just fucking stupid.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate, though. Political parties and their priorities are not hard to garner from what they do when they gain power in society, what legislation they push for the hardest, and who that legislation benefits.

Really?



As you can see, the vast majority of private prisons are in conservative republican districts. So I think I have demonstrated it, quite succinctly.

 

[PyramidHead]

If only there were a type of government larger than a district that Democrats could run for so everyone could benefit from their tireless opposition to private prisons

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The difference is not very stark within that realm. If for-profit health insurance exists, it will set the agenda for health care in this country, full stop. That's the reality we have to contend with, not how best to constrain the industry.

And via ACA, are more or fewer people with health insurance and have at least a better chance at receiving medical care?

A centrist walks into a bar and smacks his head on it because it was set too low.

You do realize ACA was passed into law by just one vote super-majority in the Senate (60-39) and 3 voters in the House (219-212), right? It wasn't what we wanted, but it was the best that could be passed and it got a lot of people fired in 2010... and not because it wasn't UHC.

Because of it, millions (around 11 million) have access to health care that didn't have it before.

 

[laughing dog]

If only there were a type of government larger than a district that Democrats could run for so everyone could benefit from their tireless opposition to private prisons

I think you are missing the larger point that the existence of _____ does not mean that both (or either) party is in favor of it. For example, I seriously doubt anyone argues or believes that both parties are for lung cancer or automobile accidents because there is lung cancer or automobile accidents. My guess is the acceptance of private prisons has nothing to do with parties at all, but with one's view of the proper role of government and the local effects of a private prison on the local economy.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There really isn't a problem between parties that can't be fixed with term limits and campaign finance reform, and whatever additional laws concerning elected officials that might seem prudent in the future. The problem is really that these folks are always campaigning for reelection so they can continue to enrich themselves. It's the corrupt system that's the real problem.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Because of it, millions (around 11 million) have access to health care that didn't have it before.

When you make it mandatory, don't be surprised when more people do it. Be surprised that even after making it mandatory not everyone has health insurance.

Unlike the pretty partisan divide for the ACA, the re-authorization of the USAPATRIOT Act showed us what the parties are unified on.