Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

Less than 20 years ago Kerry basically lost due to "flip-flopping". GW Bush as well was almost undermined by some smearing by a reporter -who unfortunately didn't do a good enough job to sink his candidacy.

People used to care more about higher politicians' lying. Today, people don't even blink. After Trump's antics, now we have Biden denying something he said the day prior and it's a non-issue at all.

View on HN

I feel like, what can I do? If I have a lying red/blue on my hands, my only choice is to swap it for a lying blue/red.

I get what you're saying, but primaries are a thing, and the range of choices there is typically pretty broad. It's not like the general election is the first chance you get to express your opinion. And yea maybe you have good reason not to like the finalists, but if more people agreed with you, there would be a different nominee.

With no slight intended, do you not remember the most recent election? "The party" not only gets to decide who the candidates will be, but ultimately who the candidate, in the singular, will be. When the people weren't voting like they were supposed to, as informed by the media, "the party" simply had everybody else step down and endorse the chosen one.

Well everybody except one token opponent to maintain the charade that the decision was driven by "democracy." And if that wasn't enough they took the unpopular chosen one, paired him with another even more unpopular candidate as a vice president, called that the ticket, and people voted for them, en masse, because "well, they're awful but they're less awful than the alternative."

It's quite possible you know more about this than me, but that's not how I remember it. Do you have a citation of a reputable source? This kind of reads like a conspiracy theory.

Voting gives you an illusion of control over the situation, but in fact blue or red it's the exact same outcome. Your ballot is like the close door button in the elevator.

That is an often repeated argument, but I don't think the policies supported by the two parties in the US are exactly the same. There is a very large overlap of course, but "your vote doesn't count" only strengthens extremists (on either side).

While we do have little direct control over the situation, and while it's true that both parties lie, lying is not the outcome. Lying is a tactic employed along the way to the outcome.

In no way do I mean to imply that lying is is unimportant because both parties do it - it's unacceptable regardless, but I have trouble accepting arguments that point to a shared <bad> thing between parties and then use that to conclude that voting doesn't really matter.

Then why is it that blue states have extended parental leave (18 weeks+), paid parental/family leave, paid sick leave, non tipped minimum wages, non compete bans, minimum salaries, daily overtime laws, access to women’s healthcare (abortion), legal marijuana (civil liberties), expanded Medicaid funding so more poor people can get better healthcare, etc?

The new wage transparency laws are coming from Colorado and Washington, also blue states. It seems very clear that at least some priorities of the blue team are pro worker and pro civil liberties.

On the federal level, the Republicans have passed two large tax cuts in the last 22 years and entered into two expensive wars. Democrats have passed the only large wealth transfer from rich to poor via Affordable Care Act in 2009, and followed it up with No Surprise Billing Act in 2021, while Republicans have tried to dismantled ACA for 13 years. Democrats passed a bill to expand infrastructure spending in 2021, and tried to pass federal paid parental leave and childcare laws. Republicans spent the same time trying to revoke women’s access to healthcare (abortion) and same sex marriage. Democrats withdrew military from Iraq and Afghanistan. Repubs spend their time defending literal traitors to the country.

Obviously Dems are not perfect, but how anyone can say both are the same is beyond me.

Why the downvotes? The parent seemed to give some solid examples of how different parties are in fact different.

They are both the same as in they are both bad, even if in different ways.

In my country for more than 20 years people don't vote for a party (and we have more than 2), but they vote against what they see as the worst party. It is negative voting. If I would move and vote in US, I have very strong reasons to vote against both major parties, they look like the choice between getting shot to death or hanged to death: no matter what you choose, the result is bad.

Also some part of that enumeration implied as positive changes is not seen as positive in countries that did such things 20-30 years ago and saw the effects. Lots of people seem to wear horse blinders, they do things that were done by other countries ignoring the outcome in these countries. The emperor is naked and nobody wants to admit it.

Without specifics, I have no clue what you are talking about re horse blinders.

I have greatly benefited from the policies I specified, so I do not see why I should view both as “bad in different ways”. I do work to support ranked choice voting so that I can get more than 2 choices at the polls, but until then, I work with what I have.

Some of the policies you benefited are from a zero sum game, so your gain is someone else's loss. When you benefit, you turn a blind eye to the negatives (this is the horse blinder reference).

Politics is the allocation of limited resources without violence. I am aware that sometimes, the policies I benefit from takes from others, and many times I support policies where I lose and it helps others, such as healthcare and education for poorer people, or healthy school lunches for all kids. But I also believe narrowing the income/wealth gap ultimately helps me by increasing stability and social cohesion, even if it hurts my wallet.

As you said, you support some policies where you lose, don't assume others do too. Politics is the allocation of limited resources with the threat of violence or other outcomes (like prison time), same as gunpoint robbery, don't paint it like a peaceful paradise where everyone sings Kumbaya.

>Democrats have passed the only large wealth transfer from rich to poor via Affordable Care Act in 2009

After ACA HMO profits went up. A lot. Along with premiums. It was a wealth transfer from middle class to rich. That was part of the deal for making sure everyone was covered.

HMOs were obsoleted many years ago. Managed care organization (better name for health insurance companies) profit margins are low single digits, for many years indicating a competitive market where excess profits are not possible, and this is public information from 10-Ks.

The wealth transfer is the out of pocket maximum in conjunction with premium tax credits. Premiums went up because the bottom 50% of society finally started receiving healthcare, and were not liable for astronomic healthcare bills due to the out of pocket maximum. Plus young people greatly subsidize old people because premiums for age 64 are capped at 3x the premium of age 21.

Unfortunately, the wealth transfer was neutered due to the penalty for not having insurance being removed, and due to allowing non ACA compliant plans to exist, as well as not forcing everything onto the same market and letting healthy, white collar employees to silo their risks in employer sponsored plans.

Obviously, the implementation of ACA is not the ideal, but that is what was possible due to near zero support across the political aisle. At least we got that, and it is irrefutable that more people have received more healthcare due to ACA than before ACA. The middle class wealth transfer is actually the 60% to 90% feeling the pain due to their money being used to provide for the 30% to 60% (whoever was not poor enough for Medicaid, but not lucky enough to work at an employer rich enough to provide good healthcare benefits).

Governments are extremely inefficient, and taxes are mostly wasted; higher taxes disincentivise people from making things. You might say taxes are necessary, but they're an evil. Obama blew up a bunch of middle-eastern kids. A lot of reds genuinely believe abortion is murdering babies. That's why they're against it; it's not really about the women, they just happen to be involved. They'd feel the same way if you had a baby growing in a tank. Meanwhile, the modern democratic party seems to encourage the already extant kids to cut off their genitalia. Dems defend 'traitors to the country', too (Snowden).

I saw this yesterday and I was so dismayed. This is something Trump would say: https://youtu.be/_57s3-ne7g0?t=821

I really don't want to see this kind of language in any party's politics. How can we hold all politicians to a higher standard? It has become completely untenable. It is a complete shit show. I don't think any President in the past would say something like this, I can't imagine Obama, Bush or Clinton telling the public they feel so much anger at someone that they'd like to shoot them.

Not that it excuses the language, but I'm pretty sure he meant "punch them (in the face) " when he said "pop 'em."

I agree and it sure seems like people are being intentionally obtuse about this. As if no one has ever expressed exaggerated frustration in this way. Comparing this to Trump is a bit ridiculous.

I think the issue is that when one person says an exaggerated exasperation expression it's hand-waved away and only slightly reported upon, yet when another person does the same it's traitorous assault on democracy itself tantamount to inciting insurrectional violence which must be investigated for years and is reported upon breathlessly as the most concerning thing since the American Civil War.

Yes, the resultant behavior of others due to the rhetoric of each case is different (barely, but less time dependent). But so too is the hand-wringing.

Indeed. I just wonder if it’s just more exposure happening and more chatter than actually more lying.

There have been massive doozies in the not so recent past.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com